Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_03 16 1987( ( LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD MARCH 16, 1987 2:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 8 in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were ap proved as maile d. III.Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney : Thomas McGowan George Wells John McDaniel Ronald wood Cynthia Ald erman Joe Norcross Ronald Pierce Rex Crane Jim Mitchell Steven Giles Ma rch 16, 1987 Item No. 1 -Z-4336-C Own er: Ad dress: Description: Zoned: Va riances Requested: Justification: Arkansas Children's Hospital Marshall and Battery Streets Long Legal "O-2" 1.From the setback provisions ofSection 7-102.2/E.l to permit a newaddition with a 6-foot setback. 2.From the height provisions ofSection 7-102.2/D to permit a78-foot high addition. The addition to the patient tower will be 78' high above the first floor level at the highest point along the perimeter (there will be an elevator penthouse that is some 16' higher, but is set back some distance into the mass of the building). At the point where the 78-foot height occurs, the building is roughly 33' back from the 25-foot setback line. This is right at the breaking point for requiring a variance; however, because of the irregularities in the gr ade, the addition may exceed the height limitation by a few feet. We are requesting a variance from the height limitation of the Zoning Ordinance for this reason. Please note that at the only place where this occurs the building faces 8th Street and the interstate highway and in no way ha s a negative impact on any adjacent occu pied property. The two-story addition to the northwest corner of the hospital is in a prelim inary design and may come within 6 1 of the north prop erty line that faces 8th Street and the interstate highway. We are requesting a va riance from the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for this reason. Also, we obviously will not be able to provide March 16, 1987 Item No. 1 -Continued the 25-foot landscape buffer at this point. Please note that on July 21 , 1986, the Board of Adjustment approved a variance to the setback requireme nt for an addition with a 6-foot setback along the same propertyline. This addition is now completedand is east of the proposed additio n.Because of the current in ternalfunctional arrange ment of the hospitaland the siting of the existing buildingno other arrange ment of these additionswhich suit the needs of the hop sital. Present Use of Property: Hospital Proposed Use of Property: Hospital STAFF REPORT A. B. Engineering Issues Just a general comment and that is that the necessary parking be provided for the additions. Staff Analysis The Arkansas Children's Hospital is requesting variances from the setback and height requireme nts of the "O-2" Di strict. In "O -2," a 25-foot setback is required for all the yard areas and the heigh t is 45' with the provision for adding one-foot for each foot of additio nal setback up to a maximum of 120'. Based on the information provided by the hospital's arch itects, it ap pears that the proposed 78-foot heig ht is very clos e to being allowed with the increased setback. Staff feels that the height issue is a minor one and suppo rts the request. The setback variance is for a new addition to be constructed at the northw est corner of the existing building. The request is to reduce the required yard area to 6' or an encroachment of 19'. Along the north side of the site there are a number of accessory structures within the 25-foot setback and in July 1986, the Board of Adjustme nt approved a similar variance for an enclosed pool area. Because of the existing intrusions and the area being adja cent to an access road for the inters tate, there should be no impact from the reduced setback. Adequate justification March 16, 1987 Item No. 1 -Continued has been provided for the setback variance and staff is of the opinion that the reqest should be granted. One final item that needs to be addressed is the parking and ensuring an adequate parking ratio in the future. Currently, parking does not seem to be a problem because of recent acquisitions and a parking arrangement with the Old Baptist Hospital. To maintain this level, staff strongly suggests that a parking deck be made a top priority over any future expansion. c.Staff Recom mendation Staff recommends approval of both the setback and height variances as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: .The applicant, Ed Peek, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Peek spoke and said that he was unaware of the AP&L problem with the location of a primary li ne as described by the staff. He said that every effort would be made to reach resolution of the issue. There was some discussion about the existing parking situation, and Mr. Peek indicated that the Children's Hospital is proposing to construct a parking deck in the near future. A motion was made to grant the setback and height variances subject to the owner resolving the AP&L issue. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, O noes, 1 absent and 2 abstentions (Cynthia Alderman and Joe Norcross). March 16, 1987 Item No. 2 -Z-4798 -----·----- Own er: Address: Descri ption: Zoned: Variances Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT: Jim Haygood, Sr. 7600 Frazier Pike SW 1/4, SE 1/4, Section 9, T-1-N, R-11-W "I-3" From the off-street parking pro visions of Section 8-101/B.4 to permit less spaces than required by ordinance. Haygood of Arkansas has agreed to paving in front of the business where mo torized vehicles operate. Therefore, Haygood will be able to add six new parking spaces and landscaping the above mentioned area. This will give a total of 49 parking spaces. The City Ordinance requires 96 spaces for the total square fo otage of the business. Haygood em ploys only 20 workers and in addi tion to the employee's parking, they run 6 to 8 heavy duty trucks through in one day. Therefore, if 43 spaces have been adequate in the past, then 49 spaces sho uld be mo re than adequate in the future. Industrial Industrial A.En�ineering Issues B. The Traffic Engineer strongly opposes the parkingvariance because employees park outside the fence areaalready. Staff Analysis The request is to al low a reduction in the number of parking spaces required by the Ordinance. The existinguse is a truck service facility and the proposal is toadd a 7,000 square foot addition for warehouse space. March 16, 1987 Item No. 2 -Continued With the addition and the existing building, the enforcement staff has determined that 96 spaces are required based on the Zoning Ordinance Standards for automotive services. This requirement could probably be reduced by using the warehouse ratio for the addition which is somewhat less than the other standard. Staff's position is that the request is reasonable because of the property's use and the parking ratio may be excessive for a truck repair facility. The existing and new parking areas will be paved to City standards which will be a needed imrpovement. After visiting the site and reviewing the request, staff has determined that the Board of Adjustment needs to act on a secondary variance issue. On the proposed site plan, there are locations that are identified for open storage. It is likely that the storage areas will be utilized for some parking/storage of vehicles and the Zoning Ordinance requires the paving of those areas similar to a conventional parking lot. Staff feels that the existing surface is adequate for that type of use and recommends that a variance from the paving requirements be granted for those areas referred to as open storage. C.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the necessary parking and paving variances.· BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Matt Ulmer, was present. There was no objectors. Mr. Ulmer addressed the Board and said that parking was occurring in the right-of-way because of overflow caused by the repair work being done on the heavy-duty trucks. Henk Koornstra, City Traffic Engineer, then spoke. He said that the parking was prohibited in the right-of-way and that the existing gravel should be removed from the right-of-way. There was a long discussion about the various issues. A motion was made to grant the parking and paving variances subject to the parking area (49 spaces) meeting all ordinance requirements, no parking in the right-of-way and removal of the existing gravel in the right-of-way to return it to its original appearance. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 16, 1987 Item No. 3 -Z-4749 Owner: De nnis Com pton Ad dress: 13720 Maple Leaf Drive Descrip tion: Lot 1, Block 2, Cedar Ridge Ad dition Zoned: "R-2 11 Variances Requested: From the accessory buidling pr ovisions of Section 5-101/F.2.C to permit a garage less than 60' from the front property line. Justif ication: The terrain and being on the corner does not permit a 60-foot setback from both streets for the garage. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Famil y STAFF REPORT: A. B. Engineering Issues No adverse comme nts. Staff Analysis The request before the Board is to grant a variance from the setback requirement for an accessory struc ture, a garage. The Ordinance requires that all accessory buildings be located at least 60' from the front porperty line. In this particualr situation, the lot has two front lot lines because of being on a corner. (The Zoning Ordinance states that each lot line separating such lot from the street shall be considered a front lot line). The proposed garage will maintain the platted buildi ng line of 25' which is very reasonable and preserves an adequate rear yard area. Th e owner has selected the most logical location for the struc ture because of the lot's terrain and staff sees no problem with allowing the reduced setback. The variance will not have any impact on other properties in the neighborhood. c.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends ap proval of the variance as filed. f l March 16, 1987 Item No. 3 -Continued BQARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Staff informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the April 20, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. March 16, 19 87 Item No. 4 -Z-4800 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variances Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT: Herring -Marathon Master Partnership University Avenue and west Markham (Park Plaza) Long Lega l "C-3" and "C-4" From the height provisions of Section 7-10 3.3 to permit a parking structurewith a heigh t of 60' in an officebuilding with a heigh t of 270'. The parking structure is proposed to be 60' tall and will allo w for total parking of 1,153 cars un aer the office pro viding convenient use for both the office tenants and the shopping publi c. The office building variance is for a building of approximately 12 stories not to ex ceed 210 feet in heigh t from the first floor. The appli cant feels strongly that the two structures are compatible with the existing uses of the surrounding area. There are several high-rise buildings immediately adjacent to the shopping center site including a 13 story tower directly to the northside of the site. Also, due to the terrain of this area of the City, the office building will only be 12 feet above the elevation of the existing University Avenue at the north entr ance to the site. Shopping Center Shopping Center/Office A.Enginee�ing Issues Engineering suggests that traffic access and a signalat University bet ween Lee and west Markham needs to bediscussed. March 16, 19 87 Item No. 4 -Contin ued _ __..__ .. ......,__ ___ _ B..§!_aff �al�is The request is to grant height variances for twostructures, a parking deck and an of fice building, tobe constructed as part of the existing Park PlazaShopping Center. The proposed heights will be 60' forthe deck and 270' for the office construction. Theproperty under consideration is zoned "C-3" which has apermitted height of 35'. The new construction will besituated di rectly to the north of the existing centerand be connected by several pedestrian bridges. Thearea design ated for the proposed structures ap pears tobe the only one available and should have very littleimpact on surrounding properties because of existingdevelopment and the topograp hy of the area. Currentl y,there are two mid-rise buildi ngs in the immediatevicinity, an of fice development to the northwest and to the northeast, a residential project. These twostructures are very visible bec ause they are located ona high point and then the land decreases in elevationfrom north to south. With this terrain di fference, theproposed construction will be in a lo w area and thisshould reduce any pos sible visual imp actssubstantially. To provide office space on this sitewithout disru pting it and the parking, a mid-riseoffice building is probably the most viable alternativeavailable. Also, to acommodate the needed parking forthis type of mixed development, a parking deck with aheight variance is an ap propriate use for the land andstaff su pports the necessary variances. c. Staff Recommendation--_.___. .. _ Staff recommends that the height variances be grantedas requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Cindy Jo nes, was present. There were no objectors. Ms. Jones indicated that the developer had no problems with pro viding a public access easeme nt along the north side of the proposed parking deck as suggested by the staff. Hank Hamilton, architect fo r the project, then reviewed the site plan and the new access points. There was a long discussion about the plan and traffic circulation. There were so me qu estions about the deck, and Ms. Jones said it would be used by both the proposed of fice and the shop ping center. A motion was made to ap prove the necessary height variances with the condition that a public ac cess easement be provided along the north side. The mo tion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. r March 16, 1987 Item No. 4 -Continued (A fter the hearing, it was pointed out that a statement in the justification was misleading and needed to be clarified. The applicant noted in the cover letter that the prop osed office will be only 12 feet above the existing elevation of University Avenue. That sentence/wording should have made reference to the parking deck.) March 16, 1987 Item No. 5 -z-4801 Owner: Address: Descri ption: Zoned: Variances Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Prop erty: STAFF REPORT: Westpark Deve lop ment Company 1601 westpark Dr iv e Lot 2, Block c, Westpark Addition "I-2" From the floodplain restrictions of Ordinance No. 14,534 to permit a parking lot within the floodway. The area in qu estion is in the presently defined floodway which is to be superseded by the Corps of Engineers most current plan. The new plan places the area well out of and above the floodway and floodmark. The material for the build up of the area will come from higher eleva tions of the floodway and will thereby of fset any change in water flow caused by its construction, even un der the present floodway designation. What is being proposed will hav e a neglig ible effect un der the present condi tions and will be entirely out of the floodway when the new plan becomes ef fective. Va cant Parking Lot A.Engineering Is�ues B. The future Corps of Engineers project will move thefloodway west and put it closer to Rock Creek. Staff Analxsis The issue is to grant a floodplain variance to allowconstruction of a parking lot in a portion of theexisting floodway. The request, if granted, will onlybe tem porary because the floodway line is to be movedbased on so me new map ping recently completed by theCorps of Engineers. This action, once of ficially March 16, 1987 Item No. 5 -Continued c. adopted, will move the lot out of the floodway but until then a variance is required to permit the parking area. Parking is de f initely needed in the proposed location and is about the only ar ea ava ilable. Sta ff Recommendation Staff recom mends approval of the floodplain variance reques·t. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: -- The applicant, Jim Strawn, was present. There was one person in attendance who expressed an interest in the case. Mr. Strawn said that there was a great need for parking, and there were no other locations available. Joe White, an engineer, then spoke. He said that the Corps of Engineers had new maps for Rock Creek which moved the floodway line clos er to the creek itse lf. He also said that the variance was a reasonable request because of various factors. There were some additional comments made by the interested indiv iduals. A motion was made to grant the floodway variance. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 abs ent. A second motion was then of f ered to resc ind the previous vote because an interested party had not been given an opportunity to speak. The motion passed unanimo usly. Steve Kimbrough, an engineer for AP&L, then addressed the Board. He discussed an existing AP&L subs tation across Rock Creek and the current flood maps for the area. Mr. Kimbrough said he was concerned with development upstream and the impacts on water flow in Rock Creek. He also felt that there would be so me potential problems because of the proposed encroachment in the floodway. Mr. Strawn said that there would be no change in the water flow. Mr. White also addressed the issue and said that there would be no measurable difference in the flow because of ge tting the fill material from the creek. Mr. White then pointed out that the floodplain would be lowered from 301 feet to 299 feet. Mr. Kimbrough made some additional comments and expressed concern with granting a floodplain variance in this area. Mr. Straw n said they were unable to find other locations for the ad ditional parking. A motion was then made to grant the floodplain variance. The motion was ap proved by a vote of 7 ayes, O noes, 1 absent and 1 abs tention (John McDaniel). March 16, 1987 Item No . 6 -Z-4802 Own er: Address: Description: Zoned: Variances Requested: Justification: Magnolia Maso nic Lodge No. 60 5304 West Mark ham Lot 13, Block 9, Pf eifer's Ad dition "O-3" 1.From the area provisions of Sectio n7-102.3/D.2 to permit a newbuilding with a 3-foot side yard. 2 .From the off-street parkingprovisions of Section 8-101/B.2 topermit less parking spaces thanrequired by ordinance. 1 . Because of the narrow config ur ation of the building lot, 50', and the dim ensional requirement of the proposed building, we request that the required setback on the east sid e of the proposed building only be waived and that we be allowed to construct the building within 3' of the property line as shown in the plans. The pr oposed 35-foot width of the building represents the absolute minim um width that will result in a building suitable for its intended use. In support of the request, we agree that the building sid ew all will be constructed of fireproof maso nry concrete blocks and that the building will contain no doors or wind ows on the east sid e. 2.Because of the lim ited spaceavailable on the building lot, thenumber of wholly own ed parkingspace is limited to 13 in number.Under all except the most un usualcircumstances, that number will besufficient for the use. Werecognize, however, that the Boardmust consid er not only the pr esentintended use, but any future usesas well. We therefore request that March 16, 1987 Item No. 6 -Continued STAFF REPORT: A.Engineering Issues: the required number of parking spaces be waived provided that the Magnoli a Lodge No. 60 obtain agreements from at least one of the owners of existing parking lots immediately northeast and northwest of our parkinq lot and allowing our members to utilize their parking spaces at night when these spaces would not otherwise be used. In support of our request, we have already contacted the owners of both parking lots and have obt ained verbal agreement fo r a parking arrangement from one owner and have reason to beli eve that the others will agree to such an arrangement as well. The Traffic Engineer has so me serious concerns: 1.Parking that backs into an alley is prohibi ted. 2.Where is the overflow parking? 3.With the informa tion provided, the TrafficEngineer's opinion is that this proposal will notwork. B.Staff Analysis The propos al is to construct a new Masonic Lodgebuilding at 5304 West Markham with a reduced side yardsetback and fewer spaces than required by the ZoningOrdinance. The side yard setback for the "O-3"district is 10' and the request is to permit a 3-footsetback along the east side of the propos ed struct ure.The parking space requirement for a Lodge is one spaceper 100 square feet of gross floor area or 31.5 spacesfor this particular building. In this sit uation, theapplicant is only able to pr ovide a total of 13 spaces,inc luding five on a lot directly to the north wh ich theLodge does own. To lessen the impact of this, theLodge is proposing to obtain ag reements from the own ersof two parking lots to pr ovide some addit ional parking. March 16, 1987 Item No. 6 -Continued The lots are located to the northwest and northeast with driveways coming off "A" Street and they are both zoned "O-3." This arrangement should work because the Lodge is a nig httime use and the lots are currently used only during the day by several office buildings in the im mediate vicinity. {The Lodge has submitted a written agreement fr om the owner of the lot to the northw est). By introducing this use to the neighborhood and utili zing the lots at night, staff feels that some additional screening of the parking areas along "A" Stre et should be done to protect the residences on the north side of "A" Street. The lot in question is only 50' wide and to construct a buidling of a reasonable size with the required side ya rd area could create some difficulties. With the driveway being located on the west side of the property, a reduc ed setback along the east line appears to be reasonable and necessary to make the lot usable. After reviewing the prop osed site plan, st aff is of the opinion that a 5-foot setback is more desirable because it would allow for an 11-foot sep aration betw een the Lodge and the building to the east. It appears that decreasing the width of the structure should not pose a har dship because the building could be enla rged to the nort h if the additional square footage is necessary. c.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends a 5-foot setback and not 3-foot asrequested and approval of the parking variance subjectto written agreements being furnished for the use ofthe parking areas by the Lodge and providing additionalscreening/landscaping of the lots along "A" Street. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, J.B. Johnson, was present. There were no objectors. Staff recommended that the traffic engineer's approval of parking circu lation be added as a condition. Mr. Johnson said that a 35-foot building was the minimum widt h needed and that the 50 foot lot would place some restrict ions on developing the prop erty. He went on to discuss the alley and parking off the alley which he said could be removed. Mr. Johnson then po inted out to the Board that the driveway coming off West Markham would only be one-way to the north. Henk Ko ornstra, City Tr affic Engineer, discussed the condition of the alley and said that the proposed 9 foot driveway caused some problem s because a car would not be able to ma ke the turn and a 14-foot wide March 16, 19 87 Item No. 6 -Continued driveway was needed. Mr. Johnson made several comments about the driveway and the three foot side yard request. Mike Howard, a lodge member, said that usually 15 to 20 memb ers attended the meetings. There was a long discussion about the setback variance and parking in the area. A motion was then made to approve the 3-foot side yard and the parking variances subject to written agreements being furnished for the use of the parking areas by the lod ge, providing additional screening of the lots along "A" Street and the tra ffic engineer's approval of the parking la yout and circulation. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Rex Crane}. March 16, 1987 Item No. 7 -Other Matters Owner: Address: Request: STAFF REPORT: Family Dollar Stores 4500 Block of West 12th To grant an extension of the time period for obtaining building permits after a variance receives final approval by the Board of Adjustment. In September 1986, the Board of Adjustment approved a rear yard variance for a Family Dollar Store at 4500 West 12th. The approval was fairly routine and the only condition attached to the variance was that a screening fence be constructed along the north property line. The Board of Adjustment Bylaws state that: If an application is granted by the Board, all permits necessary for the prosecution of the work shall be obtained within six months and construction completed within 36 months from the date of permisison by the Board unless an extension of said time is granted by the Board. Owtherwise, such permission should be considered void. The six month period will expire on March 15, 1987, and Family Dollar is requesting that the time be extended for a period of six months. Staff sees no problem with granting the extension. (The letter of request is attached). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Larry Stoelzing, was present. There was a brief discussion about the request. A motion was made to grant a 6-month extension from March 16, 1987. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, O noes and 1 absent. • February 21, 1987 Mr. Gary Greeson, Dir. of Planning 2nd Floor -City Hall Annex 500 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Extension of Variance Dear Mr. Greeson: On September 15, 1986, Baird, Inc., received a setback variance for the property described as Lots 1 through 6, Block 31 Cunningham Addition as part of a sales contract to my company, Family Dollar Stores, Inc. in order that we might construct a new retail building on this site. It is my understanding that if we don't apply for our building permits within six months after the variance is granted, then it is null and void unless extended. Since my company didn't get the purchase of this land completed until late 1986, we didn't get started hiring an engineer and architect until late January, 1987. Since we have run into some unexpected design problems that had to be decided upon by my management before the engineer could proceed, we have been delayed in applying for the permits. In talking to my construction manager last week, he informs me that they are close to resolving these problems and expect to apply for permits in late March or early April. It is for the above reasons that I am requesting that we be granted an extension on this variance so we don't have to reapply before the Board of Adjustment again and further delay this project. Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. Manager FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., P.O. BOX 25800-10401 OLD MONROE ROAD, CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28212 (704) 847-6961 March 16, 19 87 Item No. 8 -Other Matters Ow ner: Address: Request: STAFF REPORT: Terry Benefield 4013 Baseline Road To appeal a zoning enforcement staff decision concerning the nonconforming status of the property located at 4013 Baseline Road. The owners are requesting the Board of Adjustment to review a determination made by the Enforcement Office that when this property was annexed it came into the City as "R-2" Single Family with no nonconforming status. Staff made this decision because the structure was unoccupied at the time of annexation. The owners feel that this is incorrect and have provided documentation to support their position. This matter is before the Board as the result of a rezoning case. In Sep tember of 1986, a "C-3" rezoning request was filed with the Planning Commission to permit a key shop. After debating the issue, the Planning Commission recommended approval of "C-1" because of it being a more restrictive district. The request was forwarded to the Board of Directors which denied the "C-1" rezoning. Throughout the process, staff did not support any commercial reclassification of the prop erty. Since the Board of Directors' decision, a legal action has been filed which is still pendi ng. The owners have also attempted to establish a nonconforming status for the property and that is the que stion before the Board of Adjustment at this time. (Attached is the documentation provided by the owners for the Board's consideration.) BOARD OF ADJUSTM ENT ACTION: --�---- The owner was represented by Robbie Wilson, an attorney. Steve Giles of the City Attorney's Office spo ke briefl y and described the pending court case from the rezoning action. Mr. Wilson then addressed the Board and said that information provided by Mr. Benefield showed that a nonconforming activity had continued after the 12 month period. He went on to review the area and discussed the court case. Jim Hathcock of the Zoning Enforcement Office said that his staff had limited information when their decision was made determining the status of the property. Mr. Giles indi cated to the Board that the ordinance has a ( I \_,, March 16, 1987 Item No. 8 -Continued deficiency in the nonconforming section and they would be justified in finding a nonconforming status for the site. David Noble, proposed buyer of the property, said that the structure had experienced many internal changes and that it could never be used as a residence. Additi onal comments were made by the various individuals includ ing Mr. Giles who discussed the rezoning action. A motion was then made which stated that the nonconformity had not been'discontinued and that the site was a nonconforming property. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. ( March 16, 1987 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m. Lf-lo-B!foare----·-------------