Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_04 22 1985u LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTME NT MINUTE RECORD APRIL 22, 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: Members Absent: City Attorney: B.L. MurphreeEllis WaltonRichard YadaHerbert RideoutGeorge WellsThomas McGowan (Items 10, 11and 12} Steve Smith 2 Open Positions Mark Stodola Tom Carpenter April 22, 1985 Item No. A -Z-4407 Owner: Russell Matchett 87 Broadmoor Drive Ad dress: Description: Lot 386, Broadmoor Addition "R-2" Single Family Zoned: Variance Requested: 1.From the rear yard setbackprovisions of Section 7-101.2/D.3to permit an addition with a 12-footsetback (o rdinance requires 25'). 2.From the height and area exceptionsprovisions of Section 5-101/F.2.b topermit an addition with a separationfrom the accessory structure (pool)of 4' (o rdinance requires 6' ). JUSTIFICATION: The unusual and isolated configuration of the lot and the addition will upgrade the property. Present Use of the Property: Single family residence Proposed Use of the Property: Same with addition STAFF REPORT A. B. Engineering Issues None reported. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a 13' x 28' addition at the rear of the existing structure to be used for a family room. The owner has used lot configuration as part of his ju stification and hardship for the variance. The lot is somewhat irregular in shape and being located on a corner, does create some difficulties for enlarging the residence without benefit of a variance. In addition to the lot, a recent improv ement, a swimming pool, to the property also places some restrictions on the location of an ( April 22, 1985 Item No. A -Continued addition. A pool is considered an accessory structure which requires a 6-foot separation from the principle building. With this constraint, the lot and the size of the new construction, it appears that a variance is justified. Realigning the addition and moving it away from the pool would still create the need for a variance. Because of the location of the house on the lot, any new construction will encroach into the rear yard setback. Also, the existing residence does ha ve some structural limitations on where the new con struction can occur. The owner has stated there should be no impact on the abutting properties because there will still be adequate separation. A hardship does exist and staff supports the request. C.Staff Recommendation Staff re�ommends approval of the requested variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-11-85) The staff informed the Board that the owner had failed to properly notify the required property owners. A motion was made to defer the item to the March 18, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 vacant positions. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (3-18-85) The applicant or a representative was not present. A motion was made to defer the item to the April 22, 1985, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (4-22-85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to approve the requested variances as filed. The motion passed by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions. ( April 22, 1985 Item No. B -Z-4406-A Owner: G.Bryant Jones Address: #1 Riversedge Drive Description: Lot 3, Riversedge Addition "R-2" Si ngle Family Zoned: Variance Requested: From the height and area provisions of Section 5-101.F.2.d to permit a pool 12 feet from the front property line (ordinance requires 60 feet). JUSTIFICATION: Excessive slope of the lot on the order of 45 °. Present Use of the Property: Single Family Residence Pr oposed Use of the Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. B. Engineering Issues No adverse comments reported. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a swimming pool only 12 feet from the front property line. The swimming pool is considered an accessory building, and the zoning ordinance requires those types of structures not be located closer than 60 feet to the front property line, so that is the issue at hand. The owner states that the excessive slope of the lot is the justification for the variance. A site inspection of the property does confirm that. The lot drops off dramatically from south to north and does create a relatively small buildable area that would require a variance for almost any new construction. This is the second variance applied for by the owner in the last two months. The previous variance was for a garage located closer than 60 feet to the front property ( April 22, 1985 Item No. B -Continued line. The staff supported that request because of the definite hardship, and our position is the same for the current variance request. Since filing this application, a representative of the owner has stated that the location of the pool may be shifted to the northeast because of some new ci rcumstances, but still closer than the 60 foot requirement. Because of this new development and possible uncertanties associated with the lot, such as soil conditions, staff suggests that a "building envelope" be created for the pool. This would permit the pool construction to take place within a general area and not be restricted to a specific location. Details of the envelope will be pr ovided at the he aring. C.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request and that this be the la st variance granted for this property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (3-18-85) The applicant was not present. A motion was made to defer the request to the April 22, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (4-22-85) The owner had submitted a letter requesting withdrawal of the variance. A motion was made to withdraw the item from the agenda. The motion passed by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions. ( April 22, 1985 Item No. 1 -Z-3153-A Owner: Robert B. Wooley 5222 "R" Street Address: Description: Lots 14 and 15, Block 1 McGehee Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the height and area provisions of Section 5-101/F .2.c to permit rear yard coverage greater than 30 percent. JUSTIFICATION: There are two reasons why we feel a need for this off-street parking. First, there has been vandalism of the cars in the neighborhood. On more than one occasion, every car on this two block long street has been broken into. The second reason is a scarcity of on-street parking space. With the customers and employees of the shops on Kavanaugh, parking on "R" Street is not always possible for the residents of "R" Street to park in front of their own house. This problem can be expected to continue increasing as the number of stores and customers increase. Present Use of the Property: Single Family Proposed Use of the Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. B. Engineering Issues None reported. Staff Analysis The issue before the Board of Adjustment is to allow rear yard coverage greater than 30 percent with the addition of a garage at the northeast corner of the lot. Currently, the property is occupied by a one story residence and a garage/workshop at the rear of the lot. The existing accessory structure over the years has been converted into more of a workshop or storage area and only has a carport on the north side April 22, 1985 Item No. 1 -Continued of it. The proposed location for the new structure appears to be the least disruptive for the lot because of having direct access to an alley and still maintaining a reasonable rear yard area. The owner has stated that on-street parking on "R" Street is a prob lem because of the commercial area to the ea st on Kavanaugh and to remedy this requires the constr uction of a new garage. In the immediate ne ighborhood, there are si milar si tuations, lots with two accessory str uctures, and the impacts from those se em to have been minimal. Staff does su pport the variance request but does recommend so me conditions. Because of the amount of structural involvement already in place in the rear yard, the proposed construction should be limited to a ca rport with a wall only on the ea st si de and that the Board of Adjustment review any additional building activity on the lot. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested variance subject to the comments made in the staff analysis. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner, Robert Wooley, was present. There we re no objectors. Mr . Wooley explained to the Board that he would prefer a garage because of the vand alism problem in the neig hborhood. He said that the existing garage had been converted into an art studio. A motion was made to approve the variance for an enclosed garage, su bject to the garage only being used for storage of wheeled vehicles, and any additional building activity on the lot must be reviewed by the Boar d of Adjustment. The motion was ap proved by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions. ( April 22, 1985 Item No. 2 -Z-4253-A Owner: Madden Ma nufacturing Company 9612 Geyer Springs Road Address: Description: Long Legal Zoned: 11 PCD 11 Planned Commercial Development Variance Requested: From the mobile home provisions of Section 3-101/C.l.d to permit a mobile home for security purposes. JUSTIFICATION: Provide secur ity for building materials and office. Present Use of the Property: Vacant Church Proposed Use of the Property: Funeral Home STAFF REPORT: A. B. Engineering Issues None expressed. Staff Analysis The request is to allow a mobile home on the property for security purposes (the mobile home is currently in place). The Zoning Ordinance empowers the Board of Adjustment "to review and approve or deny applications for the location of mobile homes or other structures in existing mobile home sites or on nonresidential sites. The use of these structures shall be limited to one single family dwelling unit for on-site security purposes only." The applicant has provided proper justification for the variance and staff supports the request. In addition, the applicant has also indicated that the placement of the mobile home will be very temporary, 3 to 4 months. This practice of locating mobile homes on construction sites in Little Rock has become very common. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the mobile home be removed within 10 days after issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. ( April 22, 1985 Item No. 2 -Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applic ant was present. There were no objec tors. A motion was made to approve the requested variance with the condition that the mobile home be removed fr om the site within 10 days after is suance of the ce rtificate of occu pancy. The motion was approved. The vote: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions. ( ( April 22, 1985 Item No. 3 -Z-4302-A Owner: Arkansas Highway & Transportation Dept. 1101 West 8th Street Address: Description: Long Legal Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial Variance Requested: From the radio tower provisions of Section 38-3/A.l to permit a tower with a height of 120' (ordinance permits 75 feet). JUSTIFICATION: 1.The towers are essential elements within the AmbulanceAuthority's emergency medical services communicationssystem which is designed to accommodate and enhance thedispatching of ambulances throughout the metropolitanarea. 2.The capability of achieving a clear path for radiosignal transmission and receipt is directly related totower height. Ozark Point was selected as a towersight because it created better signal penetration forthe downtown area where tall buildings could otherwisepresent problems. 3.Tower height is also determined by the need toestablish a direct line of sight for the microwavesignals from dishes which are mounted on the towers(proposed at Ozark Point and at 1101 West 8th Street). 4.The need for an additional 30' on the Ozark Point towerresults from a proposed cooperative use between theAuthority and Water Works. The additional space willaccommodate three Water Works antennaes associated withthe Water Works plan to convert from hard wiredtelemetry units to radio telemetry within the next yearor so. Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use of the Property: Tower site for Ambulance Authority ( ( April 22, 1985 Item No. 3 -Continued STAFF REPORT: A.Engineering Issues B. c. No adverse comments have been reported. Staff Analysis (Items No. 3 and 9 are directly related and should be discussed at the same time.) The request is to permit a communication tower with a height of 120' which exceeds the height limit of 75' set by ordinance. The prop osed tower will be self-supporting, no "guy wires," and located on the site of the Ambulance Authority central facility at West 8th and Ringo. The tower itself will be situated at the SW corner of the property and adjacent to I-630. The primary justification for the height of the tower is to establish a direct line of sight for the two proposed dis hes at the Ringo Street site and at Ozark Point. Staff believes that reasonable justification for the variance has been pr ovided and su pports the request. Because of the locati on, the potential for any adverse impacts is very limited. The Ambulance Authority previously received a variance for this site to encr oach into various setbacks. The prop osed tower is similar to an existing tower at West 8th and Izard Streets. (This is the first of two tower variances for the Ambulance Authority on this agenda.) Staff Recommendation Staff recommends appr oval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Karen Muldrow, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Ms. Muldrow discussed the proposed tower and said it was the only feasible solution/site. She said it would have low visibility and be self-supporting. There was a long discussion about various aspects of the request. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions. ( April 22, 1985 Item No. 4 -Z-4369-A Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION: R.Michael Sylvester 2822 West 13th Lot 10, Block 3 Worthen and & Brown Addition "C-3" General Co mmercial From the side yard setback provisions of Section 7-103.3/D.2 to permit a car wash with side yards of 5 and 15 feet. 1.The property in question is approximately one-half aswide as the Zo ning Ordinance requires for commerciallots. 2.This is a legal lot zoned "C-3" and I consider thepresent setback requirements to be excessivelyrestrictive and severely diminishing the use of thelot. 3.I estimate that once the present setbacks are removedfrom the area of this property, only 35 to 40 percentof the property would be available for use. 4.In closing, I'd like to say that it seems clear thesetbacks written into the ordinance are indicative ofthe fact that now large lots are necessary to develop acommercial business. However, there are still severalsmall commercial lots in the City with less squarefootage than 14,000 square feet used to define the newordinance that could be used for development if thevarious requirements were relaxed. 5.It may also be noted that the Traffic Engineer for theCity of Little Rock has approved the driveway cut andstated it would not effect the traffic flow in thearea. Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use of the Property: Car Wash ( ( April 22, 1985 Item No. 4 -Continued STAFF REPORT: A. B. c. Engineering Issues If the action is approved, the alley needs improvements. A requirement should be patching existing potholes and two inch asphalt overlay as a minimum. Also, a concrete drive should be constructed at alley from curb to property line. Another issue mentioned is the potential widening of Woodrow Street and its impact on this property. Staff Analysis The request is to permit a car wash at the northeast corner of West 13th and Wo odrow Streets with side yards of 5 and 15 feet. Being located on a corner and abutting residential use to the east, the Zoning Ordinance requires a 15-foot side yard on the east and a 25-foot on the Woodrow side. (The property was rezoned to "C-3" in December of 1984.) The proposal as submitted shows three car wash bays and an equipment room primarily situated on the east side of the property adjacent to a residential use. The owner has provided adequate justification for a variance, and there is a hardship because the lot is only 50' wide and the required setbacks almost preclude any commercial use of the property without some type of variance. The Zoning Ordinance requires "C-3" property to have a minimum lot width of 100 feet. Staff does have concern with the 5-foot setback on the east because of the residential use on the adjacent lot. The remaining lots to the east are all residential. Because of this, staff recommends that the structural involvement (car wash bays, equipment room and vacuum cleaner) on the site be shifted to the west property line of the lot with zero or little setback required. This would maintain at least a 15-foot setback between the residential and nonresidential uses which is critical. It would be more desirable to have the noise elements next to the street than to a residence. In addition to relocating the proposed structure, staff suggest that a brick wall with adequate landscaping be constructed along the west side of the lot to lessen the impact of the construction on the property line and provide a landscaping strip on the east side. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance for the exterior side yard (Woodrow Street) subject to the comments made in the staff analysis. ( April 22, 1985 Item No. 4 -Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner, Richard Lee, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Lee spoke and addressed the various aspects of the variance request. Henk Koornstra, City Traffic Engineer, spoke about Woodrow Street. He said Woodrow Street is shown on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial, but there were no immediate plans to widen it. Mr. Koornstra said that placing the structure on the property line as suggested by the Planning staff could cause a problem if the widening ever did take place. Mr. Batie of the City Engineering Office, addressed Woodrow and ne cessary right-of-way. Mr. Lee discussed the various issues mentioned by the City staff. A motion was made to grant the variance with the following conditions: 1.All structural involvement is to be shifted to thewest, with an 8-foot side yard on the west and 12-footside yard on the east. 2.The walls of the structures along the Woodrow side ar eto be brick. 3.Adequate landscaping shall be provided on the east andwest sides. 4.Improve the alley with minimum of 2-inch asphaltoverlay, and a concrete drive should be constructed atalley from curb to property line. A motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions. L April 22, 1985 Item No. 5 -Z-4425-A Owner: Various Owners (By: James Isom) 914 Broadway (West 10th & Broadway) Lots 4, 7, 8 and 9, Block 112 Original City of Little Rock Address: Description: Zoned: "GB" General Business Request: Conditional use for bus terminal JUSTIFICATION: None required. Present Use of the Property: Used Car Lot Proposed Use of the Property: Bus Terminal STAFF REPORT: A. B. Engineering Issues The traffic engineer requires: (1) pedestrian signalsat the corners of Broadway and West 10th Street and (2)widening driveway on Broadway to 30 feet minimum.Other concerns expressed by engineering are: (1) Taxiparking as shown is difficult; taxis normally willrequire curb side loading; and (2) As shown, passengerswill be required to walk between buses to get tocustomer parking. This could be dangerous. Pl anning Staff Analysis The issue befor e the Board of Adjustment is whether to grant a conditional use permit for a bus terminal at the northwest corner of Broadway and West 10th. This is the second time this request has been before the Board of Adjustment. The previous application was withdrawn from the agenda without prejudice. With the initial site plan, the staff had 9 or 10 concerns with the plan, and based on those items, recommended denial of the previous conditional use permit application. These issues were primarily engineering or technical concerns. Following is a list of the issues and how the current site plan has addressed them. ( ( ( April 22, 1985 Item No. 5 -Continued 1+2 The site providing customer parking is a poor choice due to access restrictions at one point too near an intersection. Also, internal circulation is poor both for pedestrians and vehicles due to fragmented vehicle use area. The plan is now providing vehicular access through the site and only one curb cut is provided on Broadway. Employee, customer, taxi and handicapped parking areas are provided along the north side of the site. 3.The site configuration provides limited designalternatives for facilities served by long wheelbased vehicles. 4. s. The driveway access onto Broadway has an increased radius to facilitate bus turnings in order not to block the two traffic lanes. The plan area is almost void of livability factors, i.e., landscaping and people areas. The existing large surface area of the sidewalk has been maintained and a landscaped area has been created between it and the building location. Additional landscape buffer zone along West 10th Street frontage area has been provided. There appears to be no provision for parcel pickup or additional parking for that use. Parcel pickup is located in close proximity to the west end of the building where this service will be provided as direct access to the concourse. 6.Facilities of this character require immediatearea parking for taxi service. This is notindicated on or off the site and is probablyimpractical. Handicapped parking and taxi zones are located in the closest proximity of the entryway to the building. 7.The alley closure may cause a design problem atthe southeast corner of Lot 4 inasmuch as thestate will receive one-half of the right-of-way.The present design of bus parking cuts thatcorner. April 22, 1985 Item No. 5 -Continued The angle of parking for the bus concourse has been changed from 45 ° to 60 ° in order that the buses do not cross the Highway Department right-of-way upon closure of the alley. 8.The plan area incorporates a presently usedparking lot for the veterinary clinic adjacent onthe north. No provision has been made forreplacement of those stalls. This issue has not been resolved and staff stillviews it as negative aspect of the site plan. 9.The plan does not reflect the site for a proposedbillboard on Lot 4. This could be critical toboth parking and landscaping. The proposed billboard is shown on the south sideof Lot 4 which is the natural location for thissignage, giving it the closest proximity to thefreeway. Staff is now satisfied that the technical issues have been addressed with the exception of the needed parking for the building directly to the north. The final issue is one of land use. After carefully reviewing the proposal, the staff feels that the proposed location is appropriate for bus terminal use based on the following points. 1.Being adjacent to I-630, which provides directaccess, creates a suitable site. 2.The new site plan has met the previous concerns. 3.The proposed use is compatible with the existingadjacent land uses and should not adversely impactthe adjacent and nearby uses. 4.I-630 and the cemetery provide an adequate bufferfor the residential neighborhood to the south. 5.The Downtown Plan recommends the expresswaycorridor as an in-town location for distribution,warehousing and mini-warehouse functions. It also suggested that the corridor should be redeveloped by land uses requiring ready access to and from the freeway. Staff believes that the bus terminal is consistent with this type of proposed land use pattern. April 22, 1985 Item No. 5 -Continued c. (The plan also addresses the issue of mass transit by recommending construction of a multi-modal transportation center to be utilized by private bus companies along the Chester Street corridor north of I-630. The center would consolidate all private bus line services at one location at the periphery of downtown. The staff feels that this is very long-term and not viable at the present time.) Staff's position is now one of supp ort, with conditions, for the bus terminal at the proposed location. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions that: (1) the owner of the building directly to the north (existing animal clinic) must receive approval for any new use from the Board of Adjustment, to ensure compliance with the appropriate parking ordinances; and (2) the traffic engineer's requirements are satisfied. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner was represented by Robert Brown, a landscape architect. There were 20 plus persons in attendance regarding this issue. Staff informed the Board of Adjustment that the owner had submitted a written request for deferral to the May 20, 1985, meeting. Mr. Brown addressed the deferral request and said it was to permit better coordination between various gr oups and to resolve the remaining engineering issues. Dickson Flake, a property owner, spoke against the deferral request. He said the owner was only tr ying to get additional votes and asked that the issue be heard. Cheri Nichols of the Quawpaw Quarter Association said the Engineering issues were not concerns, but the station itself was the issue. Sylvia Caruth, representing the Downtown Neighborhood Association, requested that a vote be taken on the proposal. Mr. Brown spoke again and answered several questions. A motion was made to deny the deferral request. The motion failed because of gaining only two positive votes (George Wells abstained). A second motion was made to defer the re quest to the May 20, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of: 4 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent and 2 open positions. A fi nal motion was made that no additional deferral requests will be considered beyond the May 20th meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions. ( ( April 22, 1985 Item No. 6 -Z-4426 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION: Winburn Tile Manufacturing Company 1721 East 9th Street (East 9th at Bond Street, SW Corner) Long Legal "I-3" Heavy Industrial From the side yard provisions of Section 7-104.3 /D.2 to permit an addition with zero-foot setback (ordinance requires 30 feet). 1.The addition will simply be an extension of the presentsouth wall of our existing factory building. 2.The east end of the building fronts on the MissouriPacific Railroad. We have an easement from therailroad east of our property line that providesadditional setback. Existing buildings on both sidesof our proposed addition are built to the line that wepropose. 3.The installation of equipment and the proposed additionis the first step in an extensive modernization of ourfactory. Because of the nature of the manufacturingprocess of ceramic tile, use of the full east/westlength of the existing buildings and proposed additionis essential. 4.We have more than adequate parking space on an existingparking lot as indicated on the aerial photograph. Ourpresent parking lot will acco mmodate 200 automobiles.Approximately 87 spaces are presently used. As apractical manner, the modernization of our factory willneither increase or decrease employment and so will noteffect the number of parking spaces required. Present Use of the Property: Manufacturing Proposed Use of the Property: Same ( ( April 22, 1985 Item No. 6 -Continued STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues B. c. None have been reported. Staff Analysis The request before the Bo ard of Adjustment is to permit an addition with no setback for the east side yard. The area of the proposed expansion is adjacent to the MOPAC railroad tracks and further to the east is Bond Street so continued adequate building separation will be provided. From the information provided by the owner, the practice of constructing to the property line in the immediate is common so new precedent will not be established by granting this variance. It appears that hards hip does exist and sufficient justification has been provided. Because of the nature of the tile manufacturing process, this particular facility must gain full use of the east/west orientation of the building. The impact from the variance on the surrounding properties will be minimal and staff supports the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: The appl icant was present. There were no objectors. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve a bulk and area variance for all required yards and the height. The motion was approved by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions. April 22, 1985 Item No. 7 -Z-4428 Owner: R.B. Ferguson Address: Eastwood Court (Off High Point Drive) Lot 10, Block 7, Parkwa y Place, Second Phase Description: Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the rear yard provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.3 to permit new construction with an 18-foot rear yard. JUSTIFICATION: Lot configuration. Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use of the Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. B. Engineering Issues There are no issues associated with this request. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a new residence with an 18-foot rear yard. The Zoning Ordinance requires a25-foot rear yard setback. Lot configuration doescreate a hardship and appears if the rear yard isincreased to meet the ordinance standards, a variancefor one of the side yards would be necessary. Be causeof the lot shape, an adequate rear yard will beprovided even with the requested variance. Asatisfactory building separation will be maintainedbecause of the layout of the lots in the area, andthere shoul d be no impact from the variance. There areno outstanding issues associated with this variancerequest and staff supports the variance. C.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. u April 22, 1985 Item No. 7 -Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner was present. was made to approve the passed by a vote of: 5 positions. There were no objectors. A motion variance as filed. The motion ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open April 22, 1985 Item No. 8 -Z-4430 Owner: R.Carl and Lark Hu nter 5909 Valley Drive Address: Description: Lot 174, Hoyt's Replat of Tract B, Section A, McClellan Place Zoned: "R-5" Urban Residence Variance Requested: From the pavement requirements of Section 8-101.I to permit use of materials not meeting ordinance requirements. JUSTIFICATION: The end result is a major improvement that appears to be permanent and very similar to hot asphalt. Present Use of the Property: Multifamily units Proposed Use of the Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. B. Engineering Issues Driveway needs to be concrete from street to right-of-way line. Also, parking lot needs to be upgraded to current standards. Staff Analysis The issue at hand is to grant a variance to allow the use of paving materials not meeting the ordinance standards. This request was filed by the owners of the property as a result of enforcement action by the City. The Zoning Ordinance states that the minimum pavement requirement shall be "l 1/2" asphaltic concrete hot mix with a 5" compacted base or a 4" concrete slab and shall have the appropriate bumper guards where needed." In stead of meeting the ordinance standards to repair a driveway and parking area for an eight unit multifamily project, the owners utilized asphalt tabs or clippings. These are the remains from production of asphalt ( April 22, 1985 Item No. 8 -Continued shingles. The owners have stated that the cracks and potholes were caused in part by he avy equip ment accessing through this property to cl ean and improve the drainage ditch to the south. The problem was corrected by use of the asphalt cl ippings and the owners are now requesting permanent use of these materials for this location and similar situations. After viewing the site, staff cannot supp ort the request even as a temporary solution. The materials in question do not appear to provide a permanent surface and are very unsightly. The improvement is not similar to hot asphalt as suggested by the owners and staff questions whether the asphalt tabs can withstand the influences of the el ements for a long period of time. The ordinance provides for the necessary pavement materials and it should be adhered to at all times. c.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner, Carl Hunter, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Hunter spoke and requested a deferral to the May 20, 1985, meeting. Mark Stodola, City Attorney, addressed the deferral issue briefly. A motion was made to defer the item to the May 20th meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions. ( ( , '-'- April 22, 1985 Item No. 9 -Z-4432 Owner: Address: Description: Zo ned: Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION: Little Rock Water Works Martin at Hill Road (Ozark Point) Long Legal "R-3" Single Family From the radio tower provisions of Section 38.3/A.l to permit a tower with a height of 180 feet (ordinance permits 75 feet) 1.The towers are essential elements within the AmbulanceAuthority's emergency medical services communicationsystem which is designed to accommodate an enhance thedispatching of ambulances throughout the metropolitanarea. 2.The capability of achieving a clear path for radiosignal transmission and receipt is directly related totower height. Ozark Point was selected as a tower site because it created a signal penetration for the downtown area where tall buildings could otherwise present problems. 3.Tower height is also determined by the need toestablish a direct line of sight for the microwavesignals from dishes which are mounted on the towers(proposed at Ozark Point and 1101 West 8th Street). 4.The need for 30 additional feet on the Ozark Pointtower results from a proposed cooperative use betweenthe Authority and Water Works. The additional spacewill accommodate three Water Works antennaes associatedwith the Water Works plan to convert from hard wiredtelemetry to radio telemetry within the next year orso. Present Use of the Property: Water Storage Fa cility and Radio Tower Proposed Use of the Property: Same with addition of radio tower ( April 22 , 1985 Item No. 9 -Continued STAFF REPORT: A. B. Engineering Issues No comments have been reported. Staff Analysis (Items No. 3 and 9 are directly related.) This is the second of two tower variances for the Ambulance Authority on this agen da. The location is on the Ozark Point water treatment plant in the Hillcrest area of Little Rock. The proposal is to construct a 180-foot tower adjacent to an existing 300-foot City ofLittle Rock communications tower. Because of the existing structu ral involvement on the site, it appears that the proposed tower should have little impact on the surrounding area. Staff feels that adequate justification has been provided and supports the request. The Ambulance Authority ha s stated that they will provide additional landscaping to improve the overall appearance of the site. c.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Karen Muldrow, was present. There were no objectors. Ms. Muldrow spoke and described the proposed tower. She said it would be enclosed by a fence and adjacent to the existing 300-foot tower. Joe Colford of the Ambulance Authority staff discussed the line of site concern. He said the critical location was not Ozark Point, but rather the West 8th Street site and the 120-foot he ight there. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions. April 22, 1985 Item No. 10 -Z-4433 Owner: Donaghey Fo undation Address: The 100 Block of West 7th Street Lots 11 and 12, Block 72 Or iginal City of Little Rock Description: Zoned: "M" Metrocentre Request: Conditional use permit for a telecommunication tower. JUSTIFICATION: None required. Present Use of the Property: Parking Proposed Use of the Property: Telecommunication Tower STAFF REPORT: A. B. Engineering Issues None reported. Staff Analysis (Item Nos. 10 and 11 are concerning the same proposed tower) • The request before the Board of Adjustment is to issue a conditional use permit for a 270-foot telecommunications tower at West 7th Street and Main Street, the southern anchor of the Metrocentre Mall. The site in question is currently being used for surface parking much of which will be displaced if the tower is constructed. Other uses in the immediate area include a church, office building and some retail operations.Directly to the west of the proposed location is a telephone building with existing transmitting dishes/antennaes that will be located on the tower if the conditional use permit is granted. ( April 22, 1985 Item No. 10 -Continued The primary concern of the staff is the land use and the potential impacts on the area. Staff recognizes that the tower is not a desirable use for the area, but feels that the issue of public need must take precedence. The public need involved with this request is continued long distance phone service to the northwest third of the state which is vital for Little Rock and the entire state. (The existing signal path will be blocked by the construction of a building at West 6th and Broadway.) In addition, the impact of the tower should not be as great because this is only a temporary solution. Should the Board of Adjustment vote to grant the conditional permit, the staff recommends that the following conditions be placed on the permit. 1.The conditional use permit be issued for a periodof up to three years with no provisions for anyextensions. It is suggested that every effort bemade to remove the tower prior to the end of threeyears because of incompability with the area andpotential adverse impacts. At the end of thefirst and second years, the applicant should berequired to: (1) demonstrate continuing need forthe tower� and (2) specify the actions takenduring the previous year to find an alternatesolution to the signal blockage problem. Theconditional use permit should be subject torevocation if the applicant fails to demonstratecontinuing need or a good faith effor t to find analternate solution. 2.That a wall of appropriate brick, compatible withother structures in th� area, be co nstructedaround the base of the tower. The wall should beat least 10 feet in height. In addition,landscaping should be provided to soften the walland create an attractive appearance on theWest 7th Street and Main Street sides. Thelandscaping plan should include trees along thenorth, east and south sides of the lot. ( l_, April 22, 1985 Item No. 10 -Continued c. 3.The top of the tower should be treated in such away that the transmitting dishes are screened.This should be possible because of signals only tothe northwest. 4.A written agreement from Southwestern Bell besecured for additional parking to replace thespaces lost on the tower site. 5.Color of tower below roofline of adjacentbuildings should be soft natural color rather thanorange and white segmented. 6.The applicant be placed on notice that the Boardof Adju stment will seek the maximum penaltiesavailable under zoning regulations should thetower remain beyond the stipulated time period. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit based on public need and not on compatible use of the land, subject to the six points outlined in the staff analysis. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (Items No. 10, Z-4433 and No. 11, Z-4433-A were discussed at the same time.) The applicant, Brad Walker, was present. There were approximately 15 persons in attendance who expressed an interest in the request including one objector. Brad Walker explained that he was representing AT&T who was leasing the site from the Donaghey Foundation. Mr. Walker spoke at length about the issues. He said that the request was for three years and AT&T would agree to updating the Board of Adjustment on a regular basis. He went on to present some graphics which included a landscaping plan. The plan indicated a chain link fence on the west and south sides with a wood fence on the north and east sides, including landscaping on those two sides. Mr. Walker said that the landscaping will provide a visual buffer and immediate impact because the trees will be 18 to 20 feet tall. He indicated that screening of the dishes was impossible because of weight. He then presented letters in support of the tower. Mr. Walker said that the tower was ( April 22, 1985 Item No. 10 -Continued the only appropriate option because of the time constraint. There was a long discussion about the yearly review requirement, and the City Attorney addressed it in detail. Robert Brown, landscape architect, discussed the screening arrangements and why there were problems and risks associated with the brick wall. Several Board of Adjustment members indicated dissatisfaction with the wood fence. Brad Walker spoke again about the tower location and its impact on the downtown skyline. Doug Murray, AT&T representative, reviewed the reasons for the tower at the location under consideration by the Bo ard of Adjustment. Paul Roth of Southwestern Bell said that a second person discovered the problem of the microwave path being blocked in March 1985. Mr. Roth said that initially it was determined that the construction at Broadway and 6th Streets would not cause any disruption of service. There was a long discussion about various issues, includ ing some legal matters. Buddy Benafield, member of the City Board of Directors and an objector, spoke and discussed a number of items. Mr. Benafield made a long speech and questioned the entire process and the proposed location. He said that the tower will impact the skyline and that there will be no new development or redevelopment in the area if the tower goes up, and nothing will lessen the impact of the tower. He went on to say that AT&T does not care about Little Rock and asked for an independent study to determine the need for the tower. Mr. Benafield then recommended that the conditional use permit and variance be granted for one year only. There was a long discussion about that recommendation and some legal issues. Mack Norton, attorney for AT&T then addressed the Board of Adjustment. He discussed some zoning issues and various alternatives to the tower that he indicated were impractical. Mr. Norton said that the necessary engineering for a new location could be completed in three years and not sooner. Brad Walker said that AT&T could possibly provide the City with the construction schedule after one year. Buddy Benafield spoke again. Mack Norton said that AT&T could not agree to a one-year permit because they could not come up with the information necessary for a permanent solution. He also indicated that AT&T could not agree to an independent study . There was additional discussion about a construction schedule and progress reports. A motion was then made to grant the conditional use permit and the height variance for a period of two years beginning June 10, 1985. Included in the motion were five conditions addressing screening, a constructiong schedule and an independent study. The vote on the motion was 4 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent, 1 abstention (George Wells) and 2 open positions. The motion failed for ( April 22, 1985 Item No. 10 -Continued lack of five positive votes. A second motion was made and approved to reconsider the previous motion. It received 5 ayes. At this point, the Board of Adjustment took a five minute recess. Another motion was then made to grant the conditional use permit and height variance for 18 months, starting June 10, 1985, with six conditions. 1.The conditional use permit for the tower is not toexceed 18 months, starting June 10, 1985. 2.A written agreement from Southwestern Bell be securedfor additional parking to replace the spaces lost onthe tower site. 3.The color of the tower below roofline of adjacentbuildings should be a soft natural color rather orangeand white segmented bands. 4.The applicant be placed on notice that the Board ofAdjustment will seek the maximum penalties availableunder zoning regulations should the tower remain beyondthe stipulated time period. 5.A wall of appropriate brick, at least 10 feet inheight, be constructed on the north, south and eastsides with a chain link fence with barbed wire on thetop along the west or alley side. Appropriatelandscaping is to be planted along the West 7th andMain Streets sides of the wall in accordance with theplan presented. 6.At the end of 12 months (June 10, 1986), AT&T mustprovide the Board of Adjustment with a constructionschedule for a permanent solution/location and forremoval of the temporary tower at West 7th and MainStreets. If this cannot be accomplished at the end ofthe 12-month period, AT&T must provide for anindependent review of the situation indicating the timerequired to achieve a permanent solution and remove thetower. This report is to be completed within threemonths from June 10, 1986, and the person/firmpreparing the study must be approved by the Office ofComprehensive Planning staff. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (George Wells} and 2 open positions. ( u April 22, 1985 Item No. 11 -Z-4433-A Owner: Donaghey Foundation Address: The 100 Block of West 7th Street Lots 11 and 12, Block 72 Original City of Little Rock Description: Zoned: "M" Me trocentre Variance Requested: From the height provisions of Section 38.3/A.l to permit a tower with a height of approximately 275 feet (ordinance permits 75 feet). JUSTIFICATION: Public need. Present Use of the Property: Parking Proposed Use of the Property: Parking and Communications Facilities STAFF REPORT: A. B. c. Engineering Issues Engineering reports no adverse comments. Planning Staff Analysis The issue is to grant a height variance for a tower of approximately 275 feet. The ordinance permits towers of 75 feet. The tower in question is to be located at West 7th and Main Streets in downtown Little Rock. Staff's position is that proper justification, public need, has been provided for the requested variance, and the site does create a hardship which requires a tower height in excess of 250 feet. With the conditions attached to the conditional use permit (Z-4433) for the tower to locate at the site, the impacts from the height variance should be minimized somewhat. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the tower being removed within three years. r u Ap ril 22, 1985 Item No. 11 -Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (Refer to Item No. 10, Z-4433 for co mp lete min ute A motion was made to grant the height variance for not to exceed 18 months, beginning June 10, 1985. motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 1 abstention (George Wells) and 2 open positions. re cord.) a period The absent, ( { April 22, 1985 Item No. 12 -Z-4434 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION: American Manufacturing Corporation 1010 Jessie Road Tract A, Riverfront Addition "I-3" Heavy Industrial 1.From the rear yard setbackprovisions of Section 7-104.3/D.3to permit a rear yard setback of5 feet (ordinance requires 25 feet). 2.From the side yard setbackprovisions of Section 7-104.3/D.2to permit a side yard of 15 feet(ordinance requires 30 feet). The Riverdale levee located in the rear of this site will provide a 55-foot buffer between this proposed building and future buildings located on the adjacent Riverdale tract. In addition, the concept at the time this lot was platted in 1974 was to build adjacent to the rear lot line as shown on the plat and as was allowed on the adjacent Tract B of this subdivision. Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use of the Property: Office Warehouse STAFF REPORT: A.Engineering Issues No adverse comments have been reported. B.Staff Analysis The request is to permit construction of a newwarehouse facility with encroachments into the requiredrear and side yards. The property is located in theRiverdale area just to the northeast of theintersection of Cantrell and Jessie Road. The April 22, 1985 Item No. 12 -Continued Riverdale area is developing as a mix of office and warehouse uses with some residential development taking place along the river and closer to the golf course. Directly to the south of this site is an existing warehouse that is con structed on the re ar property line. The properties abutting this tract to the east and north are vacant. The west side of the property fronts onto Riverfront Drive. The proposed warehouse has been located on the ea st side of the site to accommodate future expansions to the west. Even if the requested set backs are granted, it appears that there will still be adequate separations between this building and any new construction that takes place on the tract to the north and east. This is because of a large levee to the north and a rear/side yard relation ship on the east. Staff feels that the var{ances will not have any adverse impacts on the surrouding properties and supports the request. c.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The ow ner was represented by Ronnie Hall. There were no objectors. Mr. Hall spoke briefly and presented a preliminary site plan. There was some discussion about various issues. A motion was made to grant the variance as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (George Wells) and 2 open position s. ( u April 22, 1985 There being no further business before the Board of Adjustment, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Date S-/zo /�_s;- •�rt''�L