Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_10 21 1985LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD OCTOBER 21, 1985 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 6 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: B.L. Murphree George Wells Ellis Walton Ronald Woods Richard Yada Thomas McGowan Herbert Rideout (arrived after Item No. 5) Members Absent: Joe Norcross Steve Smith City Attorney: Pat Benton October 21, 1985 Item No. 1 - Z-4488 Owner: Carter and Goodwin Inc. Address: 2505 Wright Avenue Description: Long Legal Zoned: "I -2" Light Industrial Variance Requested: 1. From the side yard provisions of Section 7-104.2/E.2 to permit new construction with a zero-foot setback. 2. From the rear yard provisions of Section 7-104.2/E.3 to permit a 23-foot rear yard. Justification: Structural configuration and existing building location. Present Use of Property: Auto Service Proposed Use of Property: Auto Service STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The request before the Board of Adjustment is to grant two setback variances for an addition to an existing building. The proposed setbacks would be zero feet for the side yard and 23 feet for the rear yard. In the "I-2" district, a 15-foot side yard and a 25-foot rear yard are required. The proposed addition will be 12' x 40' and will be primarily used for storage. Because of the addition's use, it appears that the proposed location is a reasonable option. The existing building is on the east property line and the new addition will maintain the same building line. The proposed construction should not have an impact on the property to the east because of the existing situation. The structure that is in place was probably constructed October 21, 1985 Item No. 1 - Continued under the old Zoning Ordinance which had no setback requirements for the industrial district. Staff feels that adequate justification for reducing setbacks has been provided and supports the variances. One final item is the existing shed that is on the west side and its status. Should this space no longer be needed because of the new addition, staff recommends that the shed be removed. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of both the side yard and rear yard variances and that the shed on the west side be removed, if at all possible. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner was present. There were no objectors. The Board discussed the issue briefly and then there was a motion to approve the variances as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. October 21, 1985 Item No. 2 - Z -4549 Owner: Coulson Oil Company Address: Rodney Parham Road West of Southedge Description: Lot 7, Paragon Place Zoned: "C -3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the rear yard provisions of Section 7-103.3/D.3 to permit a new addition with an 11-foot setback Justification: Structural configuration, need for additional storage and building location Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to to construct a 10' x 45' addition at the rear of the existing building which is a convenience store with gas pumps. The proposed expansion is to allow the store to provide more services and goods so additional space is needed to accomplish that. Because of the structure's location on the property which currently encroaches into the rear yard setback, any type of addition would probably require a variance. The lot is only 100 feet deep and with the building's placement on the site, a hardship does exist. The variance and expansion will not impact any of the adjacent properties because this lot is lower than the others. To the rear a parking area abuts the lot which is substantially below the parking lot surface. Based on the existing situation and location, staff supports the reduced rear yard setback. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. October 21, 1985 Item No. 2 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, James Huff, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Huff questioned the engineering requirement for a minimum floor elevation of 382.5 feet MSL. There was a long discussion about the elevation issue and flooding in the area. A motion was made to approve the variance with the requirement that the new construction have a minimum floor elevation of 382.5 feet MSL as recommended by the Engineering staff. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. October 21, 1985 Item No. 3 - Z-3884-A Owner: Davis Fitzhugh Address: 5510 Hawthorne Road Description: Lot 3 and the East 5.2 feet of Lot 4 Block 7, Newton Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: 1. From the side yard setback provisions of Section 101.2/D.2 to permit new construction with a 3-foot and 4-foot setback. 2. From the front yard setback provisions to permit new construction with a 21-foot setback. Justification: The plans are to construct a carport over the existing driveway and extend the roofline over to approximately 10 feet and to add a small protruding gable toward the front to match the existing construction of the house. The house as built, 50 years ago, has a front porch which is slightly inside the front yard setback requirement and the addition would be the same distance from the front boundary and require a variance. This would be architecturally beneficial to the house and would not appear in any way unusual as being too close to the street. A den is also proposed on the east side behind the carport and will require a slight variance from the setback requirement. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. October 21, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit new construction, a carport /garage and den expansion with encroachments into both the side and front yard. The garage will have a 21-foot front yard and a 3-foot side yard. The Zoning Ordinance for the "R-2" district requires a 25-foot front yard and a 5.5-foot side yard for this lot. The addition to the den will have a 4-foot side yard. The 21-foot front yard will maintain the same building line as the porch which currently intrudes into the required front yard. Even with only 21 feet, the distance from the street will be approximately 46 feet because Hawthorne Road has an 80-foot right-of-way which is the standard for a minor arterial, a four lane road. Because of that type of situation, the 4-foot encroachment is reasonable and justified. In addition, the owner wishes to use the existing driveway so that does restrict the location of the carport. The reduced side yard setbacks will not have an impact on the residence to the east because there will be more than an adequate separation between the structures. The lot to the east appears to have a rear yard relationship with the property in question. The lot at 5510 Hawthorne received a variance approval for a 3.5-foot side yard approximately three years ago. These types of side yard encroachments in the Heights are quite common because of the lot sizes. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances with the condition that the carport be one story and open on the south and east sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner, Davis Fitzhugh, was present. There were three objectors in attendance. Mr. Fitzhugh discussed the request and said he needed the extra length for the garage for a storage area at the rear and to accommodate two cars. Annette Daniels then spoke and objected to the front yard variance. She said that additional encroachment would obstruct views and create problems for other property owners on the block. Ms. Daniels then presented a petition opposing the request and asked that the carport conform to the existing building line created by the residence. October 21, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued Mr. Fitzhugh again addressed the Board and said that he had no problems with the staff recommendation. There was a long discussion about the various aspects of the proposal. Ms. Daniels spoke again and reaffirmed her opposition to the front yard variance. Melba Yates spoke and said that the carport should maintain the existing building line. Mr. Fitzhugh then described the proposed carport and said that the architectural style would be the same as the house. A motion was made to grant both the side and front yard variances with the condition that the carport be one story and open on the south and east sides. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. October 21, 1985 Item No. 4 - Z-4558 Owner: A.M. Pitts Address: 1623 West 21st Street Description: Lot 11, Block 11 Fleming and Bradford's Addition Zoned: "R-4" Two Family Variance Requested: From the rear yard coverage provisions of Section 5- 101 /F.2.0 to permit a new garage exceeding 30 percent coverage Justification: Security purposes Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No adverse comments have been reported. B. Staff Analysis The issue before the Board of Adjustment is to permit a new garage that will exceed 30 percent rear yard coverage. The Zoning Ordinance states that "accessory buildings in the "R-1" through "R-4" districts may not occupy more than 30 percent of the required rear yard." The proposal is to construct a 22' x 30' double garage which is 660 square feet. In this situation, the Zoning Ordinance permits coverage of 375 feet. The owner has had one auto stolen and problems with vandalism of vehicles when parked on the street, so it is desired to provide an adequate garage to keep the vehicles off the street. In addition, the garage will provide needed storage for the owner. The location is the only reasonable one because of utilizing existing driveway and the lot size. The lot is 100 feet deep so that does create somewhat of a hardship because any double garage would exceed the 30 percent coverage. Staff is not concerned with the 30 percent issue, but rather the size of the proposed garage. Staff feels October 21, 1985 Item No. 4 - Continued that the east /west dimension is somewhat excessive and recommends that the 30 feet be reduced to 24 feet and the north /south dimension be increased to 24 feet. This would still provide adequate storage area, but at the same time increase the amount of open area in the southeast corner of the lot. This is important because of the size of the property and the amount of structural involvement on the lot. The owner must maintain a 3-foot setback from the rear and side yard property lines for the accessory structure as required by ordinance. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the comments made in the staff analysis. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Anthony Murphy, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Murphy said he was the son of the owner and described the reason for needing the proposed garage. He went on to say that the 24-foot dimension as recommended by staff would create a hardship because of not being able to provide adequate storage. Mr. Murphy made some additional comments about the proposal and asked the Board to approve the length of 30 feet. There was a long discussion about the issue and mention was made about some form of a compromise. A motion was made to approve the variance for a 22' x 27' garage and not the 30 foot length as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. October 21, 1985 Item No. 5 - Z -4559 Owner: Brad and Beth Walker Address: 4316 South Lookout Description: Lot 10, Block 13, Hillcrest Addition Zoned: "R -2" Single Family Variance Requested: 1. From the side yard provisions of Section 7- 101.2/D.2 to permit new construction with a zero -foot setback. 2. From the rear yard provisions of Section 7- 101.2/D.3 to permit new construction with a 3 -foot setback. Justification: By relocating the garage on the east property line, the owners hope to gain a back yard. The proposed garage will access directly from the alley rather than through a drive area on the back of the property. Placing the garage on the property line is in conformity by immediate neighbors on the alley, including the neighbor on the east property line. This arrangement permits an area of approximately 30' x 25' for a back yard garden setting and possibly a pool. The owners wish to connect the garage to the house to provide protection from the weather. The excessive slope makes impractical any direct connection between the garage and the house. The proposed sun room will be essentially a glass wall walkway. Finally, the neighborhood has been a target of petty theft. Windows and cars in the alleys have been shot out, stereos stolen and other vandalism. The owners desire the security and safety of a garage because of the access onto what has become an unsafe alley. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family October 21, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a new garage in the rear yard that will be connected to the residence by a new addition, approximately 10' x 13' in size. The garage will be 20' x 201. By attaching the garage to the house, it becomes part of the principal structure and must meet the necessary setbacks, 25 feet for the rear yard and 5 feet for the side yard. The proposed location has been the site of a garage and carport in the past that were both destroyed by unforeseen circumstances. There are several structures along the alley so new precedent will not be established by the approval of this variance. In addition to the justification provided by the owner, the location of the residence on the lot does create a hardship. The structure is setback approximately 55 feet off South Lookout, the front property line, and that does substantially reduce the amount of rear yard to the point where any attached garage would need a variance. If the garage was detached, no setback would be required for the alley side and three feet for the side yard. The proposed setback from the alley is adequate, but the staff does have some concerns with the zero-foot setback for the side yard. Staff feels that some side yard setback is desirable in this situation and recommends that 3 feet be provided. It does not appear that the side yard variance is based on a true hardship and 3 feet would provide better separation between the two lots. Staff would like to caution the owner that pools constructed one foot above grade are considered accessory structures and must meet the required setbacks. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the rear yard variance, a 3-foot setback for the side yard not zero-foot as requested. October 21, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner, Brad Walker, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Walker said that the side yard variance was critical to the project and to provide additional area for a needed backyard. He said that the staff recommendation for a 3-foot setback would create a poor buffer and not improve the situation. Mr. Walker went on to describe the area in detail and the reasons for the request. A motion was made to approve the variances as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. October 21, 1985 Item No. 6 - Z-4560 Owner: Trinity Pentecostal Church of God Address: 6310 Mabelvale Pike Description: Long Legal Zoned: "R -2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the mobile home provisions of Section 3- 101 /C.1.D to permit a mobile home for security purposes Justification: Vandalism and security problems Present Use of Property: Church Proposed Use of Property: Church STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to allow a mobile home to be placed on the property for security reasons. The Zoning Ordinance empowers the Board of Adjustment to approve or deny applications for the location of mobile homes for on-site security purposes only. The site is currently used for a church which is located on the front portion of the property and the proposal is to situate the mobile home toward the rear of the tract. The proposed location of the lot has been used in the past for a mobile home so some of the necessary utilities are in place. (The area shown on the accompanying sketch is the existing pad.) The church has indicated that the new mobile home might be oriented north /south instead of east /west as the sketch reflects. The primary reason for requesting the variance is that the church has experienced some problems with vandalism and individuals using the church grounds for parties. It is felt that the placement of the mobile home will reduce this problem and provide the necessary security. In addition, the October 21, 1985 Item No. 6 - Continued pastor will reside in the unit. Staff feels this is reasonable justification and supports the request. The mobile home should not have an impact on the surrouding properties because of its location and the development pattern found in the area which includes some vacant land to the south. There is a single family subdivision to the west, but the mobile home will not be very visible to those residences. Other residential uses in the immediate vicinity are on large lots. To ensure that the mobile home does not detract from the area, it is recommended that it be made a permanent structure as much as possible. This would include placing it on a cement foundation and properly securing it. There are other things that can be done to the exterior to reduce the appearance of a mobile home. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested variance subject to the comments made in the staff analysis. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Charles Casey, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Casey described the vandalism and partying problems which created the need for some additional security on the property. He went on to say that the unit would be a double wide and of a modular type construction versus a conventional mobile home. Mr. Casey also said that the unit could not be moved to the east because of a grade difference in the property. At this point, staff discussed the issue of principal structures on one piece of ground and the need for additional details. Staff indicated that the Board could act on approving the two structures instead of granting a mobile home variance for security purposes. A motion was then made to approve two principal structures on one lot meeting minimum setback requirements and having staff review the plans. After some discussion, the motion was withdrawn. Kenny Scott of the City's enforcement staff then addressed the Board of Adjustment about several issues. A second motion was made to grant the variance for the mobile home with staff's review of the plans prior to placing the structure on the property and that the unit meet setback requirements. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 1 noe, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Herbert Rideout). October 21, 1985 Item No. 7 - Other Matters - Interpretive Issues Owner: Versie Burch Location: Susie Lane east of Stagecoach Road Issue: To determine whether a barn constructed on a separate lot can be considered as an accessory issue. The Zoning Ordinance definition of accessory building or use is: a building or use which: (1) is subordinate to and serves a principal building or principal use; (2) is subordinate in area, extent or purpose to the principal building or principal use served; (3) contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of occupants of the principal building or principal use; and (4) is located on the same zoning lot as the principal building or principal use. STAFF REPORT: The owner, Versie Burch, of the property wishes to construct a barn to board a single horse. The lot is currently undeveloped and adjacent to a piece of property that Ms. Burch owns which has a rent house on it. Ms. Burch resides on the north side of Susie Lane across from the rent house property. Because the barn is to be constructed on a tract of land different from where the principal structure is located, this has created the uncertainty. The primary question concerning this situation is whether the three described properties can be considered contiguous because of the status of Susie Lane. There is some question about whether Susie Lane was ever dedicated or if it is just a strip of land providing access. Under normal circumstances, an accessory building could be placed on a separate tract if it adjoins the lot with the principal structure. Please review the attached materials and additional information will be provided at the October 21 meeting. October 21, 1985 Item No. 7 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Versie Burch, the owner, was present. Staff reviewed the issue and pointed out that ordinance did not provide for doing what Ms. Burch was trying to accomplish. Staff also expressed some concern over the size of the proposed structure. Ms. Burch then spoke. She indicated that she had acquired some additional acreage adjacent to the property in question. She said that a metal structure would be utilized smaller than originally proposed, but it would also provide for some storage. Ms. Burch said that only one horse would be kept on the site. Staff then discussed the possibility of filing a rezoning because of additional land. There was a long discussion about the issue and some other matters. Pat Benton of the City Attorney's Office addressed the status of the streets and the lots. A motion was then offered for consideration. The motion stated that upon a search and it is found that the street, Susie Lane, has not been accepted by the Citv of Little Rock, the variance be granted with the use being for one horse and the properties for that period of time remain under ownership of the present owners then said properties will be considered as one. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. September 5, 1985 Mr. Tony Bozynski 500 West Markham Room 305 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Bozynski; I am trying to obtain permission to build a barn on some property we own on Susie Lane, and I have been advised by Mr. Richard Wood that I need to appear before the Board of Adjustments. I am send- ing a copy of the request that I mailed to Mr. Wood. I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter as we need to get started if allowed to build. Mr. Wood suggested that I mention that most of the neighbors are relatives of ours and that we do not anticipate any objections to our building plans. Also, we own the adjoining property (rental property) and it has a large yard that we could use if the lot in question is not large enough. We have received a bid on the barn that we proposed to Mr. Wood, and we have eliminated the one proposed, but it will not be any larger than stated in the attached letter. Sincerely, Versie Burch August 30, 1985 Mr. Richard Wood 500 West Markham Room 305 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Wood: In regards to our phone conversation yesterday on concerning our wishes to build a small barn on a lot we own on Susie Lane, I am sending the information you requested. I am enclosing a plot plan of the rental property we own adjoining the vacant lot we would like to build the barn. Also, a drawing of the vacant lot and the spot we would like to build. I am also sending a brochure on the type of barn we would want. The size planned is approx.'24' by 40' and be constructed of wood. Also, we need to fence the property and a wooden fence is planned. We live at 821 Stagecoach, which is across Susie Lane from the lot in question, As I stated on the phone; the partner who has been caring for the horse is re-locating in California due to the lack of work here, and we have been unable to buy any acreage close to us or to find a place to board him since he is a stud (he is a re- tired thoroughbred race horse). We would really appreciate a response as soon as possible. If we are allowed to build; we will heed to have a plot plan drawn and the lot surveyed. if you need more information; you may call me or.my husband. My work number is 378-1476 (Worthen Bank -Town & Country Branch), and Joseph's office number is 562 -6858. Sincerely, Versie Burch October 21, 1985 There being no further business before the Board of Adjustment, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. Chairman Secretary Date