Loading...
boa_02 28 1977K LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 1977 2:00 P.M. There was a quorum present and minutes of the previous meeting were approved. Members present: Robert Shell, Chairman Samuel W. Anderson Cl M. R. Godwin Riddick Riffel, City Attorney Members absent: Jerry C. Wilcox 1 vacant position 2-28-77 Item No. 1 - NEW MATTERS Case Number: Applicant: Location: Description: Present Classification: Z-3101 Youth Home, Inc. by Ned Wright 820 North Spruce Street Lot 3, Block 54, Pulaski Heights Addition "D" Apartment District Variance: Requests a variance from the use provisions of Sec. 43 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit a philanthropic use in the "D" Apt. District Proposed Use: Tea Room BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT BY LETTER PRIOR TO THE MEETING. Notices to adjacent owners were not mailed and the sign was not posted. MW 2-28-77 Item No. 2 - NEW MATTERS Case Number: Z-3106 Applicant: Dr. Charles W. Fowler by W. R. Meeks Location: 5326 "A" Street Description: Lot 19, Block 14, Pfeifer's Addition Present Classification: "B" Residence District Variance: Requests a -variance from the use provisions of Sec. 43 of the Code of Ord. to permit parking in the "B" Residence District BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: THE BOARD VOTED ON A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST. THE MOTION PASSED BY VOTE OF(3 ayes - 0 noes - 1 absent - 1 open position). THE REQUEST WAS DENIED. Staff Recommendation: This request is filed for the purpose of obtaining use of the lot as off-street parking. This applicant/owner has office property in the immediate area and minimum parking as required by ordinance. This neigh- borhood has for a number of years been experiencing encroach- ment of parking and office uses from Markham Street. Generally this encroachment has been contained south of "A" Street. The only recent attempt to introduce other than residential across "A" Street was.in the block east of Harrison when 3 lots were proposed to be rezoned 11E-1". These lots were to provide park- ing to offices on Markham. That request was denied by the Planning Commission. This block as well as blocks east, north and west are resi- dential uses. This residential character.h.as been maintained primarily by a general land -use plan developed several years ago. The staff feels that even though this one lot use may not adversely affect the residences within thiq block, the intro- duction'of additional uses would b e.difficult to prevent. The field check by staff revealed that the parking lots in this area are poorly maintained and some in violation of ordinance. (Continued) - 2 - 2-28-77 Item No. 2 •. G--3106 (continued The staff would recommend the denial of the request as we feel the proposal will only lead to further decline in livability in the area. There were 3 objectors present who spoke against the request. There was presented one petition of objection with 8 signatures and 1 letter of objection. The applicant and owner were present. Five letters of support for the request were noted. - 3 - 2-28-77 Item No. 3 - NEW MATTERS Case Number: Applicant: Location: Description: z-3110 Thomas E. Williams 4600 Foster Avenue Lots 1 and 2, Block 14, Euclid Place Addition Present Classification: "A" One -family District Variance: Requests a variance from the use provisions of Sec. 43 of the Code of Ordinances to permit expansion of a non- conforming use Proposed Use: Machine shop, auto parts and repairs BOARD OF AD3USTMENT ACTION: THE BOARD VOTED ON A MOTION TO, DENY THE REQUEST. THE MOTION PASSED BY VOTE OF (3 ayes - 0 noes --1 absent - 1---open position). THE REQUEST IS DENIED. Staff Recommendation: This application is the result of a rezoning action before the Planning Commission. The rezoning application was deferred by the Commission for further study and the earliest that zoning action could result in his being able to expand his building and use is April 19th. The Plan- ning Commission is dealing with more than this lot and looking at a neighborhood rezoning plan: The applicant desires to begin work on -his expansion at the earliest time possible and requests -the Board of Adjustment deal with his site proposal as expansion of a nonconforming use-. This 2-lot request is the indirect result of a zoning violation investigation. The present use, an auto repair establishment- occupied this building a number.of years.ago and has been under investigation for several violations:. The area is zoned residential in all directions with the nearest developed and zoned commercial or industrial property to the south at Col. Glenn Rd. (2 blocks). Given the existing relationships, land use and zoning, the fact of nonconformity existing,. an approval to expand by the Board could enhance the applicant's rezoning.petition. The staff feels that at this point there are 3 alternatives available. 1-) The Board could deny the request and leave the issue to be resolved by the Commission's rezoning action and/or pursue resolu- tion of the violations. - 4 - (Continued) 2-28-77 Item No. 3 - Z-3110 (Continued 2) The Board could approve the request as filed and require some extensive screening, paving, etc. to soften this expansion's affect on the neighborhood. 3) The Board could deny the request and leave as is. There were objectors present at the meeting. Two persons addressed the Board, The applicant/owner was present. MM 2-28-77 Item No. 4 - NEW MATTERS Case Number: Z-533-A Applicant: E. H. Risser, Sr. by Morgan Steel Building Co. Location: 1403 West 12th Street Description: Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Centennial Addition Present Classification: "F" Commercial District Variance: Requests a variance from the use provisions of Sec. 43 of the L.R. Code of Ord. to permit expansion of an existing nonconforming garage in the "F" Commercial District Proposed Use; Shop and garage BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: THE BOARD VOTED ON A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST AS FILED. THE MOTION PASSED BY VOTE OF (3 ayes - 0 noes - 1 absent - 1 open position). THE REQUEST IS APPROVED WITHOUT CONDITION. Staff Recommendation: This application represents an attempt on the pa--t of the owner to expand this garage use. The present use was g� nted approval at this location by the Board of Adjustment in May 1962 and at that time was brought about by the Housing Authority High Street Plan (Urban Renewal). The Housing Authority has been consulted on this expansion. They see no problem and would recommend approval. The staff feels it can recommend the approval of the addition but would suggest the following be made conditions of that approval. 1) The existing screening requirement along the east line of the parking lot be complied with. We would recommend it be 6 ft..rather than 4 ft. as required by Ordinance. 2) The alley and service area on the south of the building be improved to ordinance requirement. There were no objectors present at the meeting. The owner was present. The adjacent owner on the east was present and asked for clarification of some points. When asked her feelings concerning the staff fence requirement, she replied that she did not.want a fence on this line. Additional discussion occurred concerning the alley improvement recommended by staff. M= 2-28-77 Item No. 5 - DEFERRED MATTERS Case Number: Z-3091 Applicant: Allen D. Green Location: 814 Wright Avenue Description: Long legal Present Classification: "C" Two-family District Variance: Requests a variance from fence height provisions of Sec. 43- 21 (j) of the Code of Ord. to permit a 6 ft. fence in the front setback rather than 4 ft. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: THE BOARD VOTED ON A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR 6 FT. FENCE HEIGHT BUT DENY THE RETENTION OF OPAQUE SURFACE. THE FENCE IS TO BE OPEN MESH CHAIN LINK WITHIN FRONT YARD SETBACK, OFF IZARD STREET. THE MOTION PASSED BY VOTE OF (3 ayes -_O noes - 1 absent - 1 open position). Staff Recommendation: This item was deferred at the January 1977 meeting due to incomplete notice to adjacent owners as specified by ordinance. Due to the recent amendment to the notice ordi- nance, this applicant is now in conformance and this issue can be dealt with. The staff restates the previous recommendation which was: This item is before the Borad as the result of enforcement proceedings. The owner has erected a board and chain link fence 6 ft. in height within the required front yard setback. A fence height of 4 ft. is the maximum allowed in this setback. Although this is physically a side yard of the house on the lot, it is the required front yard of this lot as well as the lots to the north. The fence as now located almost completely blocks from view the house on the second lot and may, in fact, provide that owner with visibility problems for access to his lot. Stop signs control this intersection and there is not a high volume of traffic on either street. The staff feels that a 6 ft. fence height is not a problem here but the opaque surface is. The Traffic Code Section dealing with blind corners prohibits this type of fence. The staff would recommend approval of the fence height waiver but recommends that the board fence be moved to the north property line and the chain link fence there be placed on the corner. It has been suggested that Community Services Dept. would look favorably on this fence plan change - 7 - (Continued) 2-28-77 Item No. 5 - DEFERRED MATTERS - Z-3091 Continued There were no objectors present. The owner was present. The owner presented a statement to the Board suggesting that he was willing to replace the 6 ft. board fence with an open mesh chain link fence but did not desire to move the board fence to the -rear property line. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. Robert Shell, Chairman Nat aniel M.- Grx _ Secretary