Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_04 20 1987LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD APRIL 20, 1987 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eight in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Thomas McGowan George Wells John McDaniel Ronald Woods Joe Norcross Jim Mitchell Ronald Pierce Rex Crane Members Absent: Cynthia Alderman City Attorney: Steven Giles April 20, 1987 Item No. A - Z-4749 Owner: Dennis Compton Adiress: 13720 Maple Leaf Drive Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Cedar Ridge Addition Zoned: "R-2" Variances Requested: From the accessory buidling provisions of Section 5-101/F.2.0 to permit a garage less than 60' from the front property line. Justification: 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 Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No adverse comments. A. Staff Analvsis The request before the Board is to grant a variance from the setback requirement for an accessory structure, 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 building line of 25' which is very reasonable and preserves an adequate rear yard area. The owner has selected the most logical location for the structure 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 approval of the variance as filed. April 20, 1987 Item No. A - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (3-16-87) 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (4-20-87) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested that the variance be withdrawn from consideration. A motion was made to withdraw the item. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. April 20, 1987 Item No. 1 - Z-4569-A Owner: New Benton Highway Properties (Warden Motors) Address: 9800 I-30 Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-4" Variances Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-103.4/E.1 to permit a new addition with a reduced front yard setback. Justification: The owners feel that if they were forced to comply with the 45 -foot setback that they would have to abandon their present showroom or have two separate showrooms. This would be either more expensive or be awkward, inefficient, and cause a strain on their effective operation. An addition at the required 45 -foot setback would cause a functional hardship on the auto sales and service. Present Use of Property: Auto Sales and Service Proposed Use of Property: Auto Sales and Service STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit an addition with an encroachment into the required front yard. The site under consideration is zoned "C-4" which requires a 45-foot setback, and the proposal is to reduce that area to 30 feet. The existing structure's setback is 30 feet, and the owner desire is to maintain that same building line to make the new construction more functional and efficient. Because of the property's use, auto sales and service, the proposed addition seems to be the most reasonable option available April 20, 1987 Item No. 1 - Continued and staff supports the variance. The reduced setback will not have an impact on the area because the site fronts on an interstate, and the majority of the existing development does not conform to the setback requirements because of being constructed prior to being annexed to the City. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Andrew Hicks, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Hicks spoke briefly and discussed the proposal. He said that he had spoken to the City's Traffic Engineer about potential conflicts with the canopy and it was decided to locate it behind the 45-foot setback line. A motion was made to grant the setback variance with the condition that the Traffic Engineer approve access and circulation. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. April 20, 1987 Item No. 2 - Z-4810 Owner: Alton and Marlene Bush Address: 70 .Laver Circle Description: Lot 600, Phase 4 -B -1, Otter Creek Subdivision Zoned: "R-2" Variances Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.3 to permit a deck with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: (1) The height of the finished floor at the rear of the house is approximately four feet. (2) The use of the steps would pose a safety hazard to the occupants and their guests. (3) The house plans exit to the rear out of the den. This major exit would be safer if a platform (deck) could be constructed instead of the landing or steps. Present Use of Property: Single Family (under construction) Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues have been reported. S. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a wooden deck with an average encroachment into the rear yard of five feet. In the "R-2" District, the rear yard area is 25 feet, so the proposed setback will be between 18 and 20 feet if the request is granted. The house is nearing completion, and because of its structural arrangement, there is not any other reasonable location for the deck besides one that requires a variance. In addition April 20, 1987 Item No. 2 - Continued to the justification provided by the applicant, staff believes that the lot configuration creates a hardship and supports the request. Also, there are several easements along the property lines which restrict the way the residence is placed on the lot and locating a deck or similar construction without a variance becomes very difficult. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the setback variance for an open deck only. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Orville Thompson, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Thompson spoke and said he had no problems with the condition as recommended by the staff. Additional comments were made by several Board members and Mr. Thompson. A motion was made to approve the variance for an open deck. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. April 20, 1987 Item No. 3 - Z-4811 Owner: Greval Development Company Address: 1301 West 10th Description: Parts of Lots 11 and 12, Block 326, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: "R-4" Variances Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-104 /D to permit a new structure with reduced front yard and rear yard setbacks. Justification: (1) The land is to be used for a duplex. This duplex will face 10th Street with the proper 25-foot setback. However, since it is a corner lot, it must be set back 25 feet from Pulaski Street also. Because of the width, it is impossible to accomplish this without a variance of 5 feet to the 25-foot setback requirement. (2) This lot is of a irregular size relative to other corner lots in the area and as such is limited in its other options of locating the structure on the land. Because of its shortened nature, this variance is requested. (3) We have noted several structures in this area that are currently less than the required 25-foot setback on side streets where corner lots exist. This variance should not detract from the existing property values. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Duplex April 20, 1987 Item No. 3 - Continued STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a duplex on the tract in question. To accomplish this, the applicant is requesting variances to permit encroachments into the rear and front yards. Because of being a corner lot, a 25-foot setback is required from both streets, and the rear yard setback in "R-4" is 25 feet also. The proposed setbacks will be 20 feet on the Pulaski Street side and 8 feet in the rear. (Staff has designated the west side as the rear yard because of the original platting of the lots.) The decreases in the yard should not create any impact on the neighborhood or adjacent lots. The residence to the west has a side yard relationship, but there will still be adequate separation between the two structures. The only significant issue attached to this request is providing the necessary off-street parking. For a duplex, the requirement is 1.5 spaces per unit or a total of three. The site plan does not idenify any locations for parking, so even the approval of this request will not guarantee a building permit. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of requested variances subject to the required off-street parking being provided. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, George Mays, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Mays addressed the Board and said that each unit would have a carport with a driveway for the necessary parking. A motion was made to grant the variance as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. April 20, 1987 Item No. 4 - Z-4812 Owner: Brad and Rita Wooley Address: #9 Lombardy Lane Description: Lots 39 and Part of Lot 40, Normandy Addition Zoned: "R-2" Variances Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit an addition with a reduced side yard. Justification: (1) The owners are requesting a variance in the side yard setback to 3.9 feet which is that of the original attached garage and storm cellar. The proposed addition would extend the limits of the front of the garage by approximately seven feet of which five feet is a bay type window extension that violates the setback by only eight inches. The back of the addition extends the existing storm cellar by approximately 20 feet. The adjacent neighbor's house is 11 feet from the garage. (2) In designing the addition, this is the only practical solution to a rather restrictive lot. The front building line is 30 feet back from the street, and the rear building line is 35 feet back from the property line and angled toward one corner of the house. Considering this, the floor plan, and the window locations of the existing house, this addition is limited to the location chosen. (3) The size of the addition cannot be reduced and still remain functional. The two main rooms of the addition will be a master bedroom and den. The maximum inside width of these rooms this design allows is 14 1/2 feet. If April 20, 1987 Item No. 4 - Continued the design of this addition were to be based on the seven-foot setback, this maximum width would be reduced to less than 11 1/2 feet. This dimension is too narrow to make the addition either practical or functional. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None have been reported. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to reduce the side yard on the north side to permit addition to the existing residence. The required setback for this particular lot is 7.4 feet, and the request is for a side yard of 3.9 feet. This dimension represents a setback line that had been established by an attached garage which has been removed to accommodate the proposed construction. (The concrete slab is still in place.) To construct any addition to the residence without a variance, the owners are somewhat restricted because of platted building lines in both the rear and front. Also, the type of construction being proposed places an additional constraint on its location. Because of the previous encroachment for the garage and adequate separation to the north, staff feels comfortable with supporting this request. The yard area directly to the north is landscaped so that will help lessen any potential impacts from the addition. To help maintain this area and not create any runoff problems, the overhang of the addition should be limited to one foot. Staff would like to point out to the owners that the approval of this variance is not an endorsement of any future request to change the front building line for a carport or similar structure. April 20, 1987 Item No. 4 - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the side yard variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to grant the variance as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. April 20, 1987 Item No. 5 - Z-4817 Owner: Carl Nash Address: 2016 Peyton Description: Lot 9, Block 3, Sam W. Welch Addition Zoned: "R -3" Variances Requested: From the area provisions of Section 5- 102/2.0 to permit a carport with a reduced setback and a four -foot separation from the residence. Justification: Only location available because of lot size and no alley. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues have been identified. B. Staff Analysis This issue is before the Board of Adjustment as a result of an enforcement action initiated by the City. The carport in question was constructed without benefit of a building, and it does not meet several ordinance requirements for an accessory structure. In the residential districts, "R-1" through "R-4," an accessory building must be located 60 feet from the front lot line and be separated from the residence by at least six feet. The carport is only four feet from the house, and the setback is substantially less than the requirement of 60 feet. The lot is 50 feet wide which is typical for the neighborhood, but the depth is less than what is found in the area. Another unique feature is that the property does not abut an alley which is somewhat uncommon for the neighborhood. Because of these factors, locations for a carport are limited, and it appears that the owner has selected the most reasonable option. In the immediate area, there are several other residences that have substandard April 20, 1987 Item No. 5 - Continued front yards because of porches or other additions, so the request does not totally change the character of the block. The carport is an open structure so that it enhances its appearance and does not make it a visual problem for the neighborhood. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the necessary variances for an open carport. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Board discussed the item briefly. A motion was made to approve the necessary variances for an open carport only. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. April 20, 1987 Item No. 6 - Z-4818 Owner: Parkway West Limited and Wal -Mart Stores, Inc. Address: 12201 West Markham (at Bowman Road) Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-3" Variances Requested: From the off - street parking provisions of Section 8-101 for the spaces not meeting ordinance design standards. Justification: The total proposed number of automobile parking spaces (738) far exceeds the Ordinance requirements. The request is to allow 17.89 percent of the required total (341) spaces to be striped at a reduced width of 8' 6". This is 7.89 percent in excess of the 10 percent that is allowed to be utilized as compact spaces. (See attached parking summary.) Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Shopping Center STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None have been reported as of this writing. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to allow a large parking area for a commercial center to have a percentage of the required spaces not meeting Ordinance design standards. The Ordinance requires all stalls to be 9' x 201, but for parking areas which require greater than 100 spaces, 10 percent of said requirement may be utilized for compact auto parking. For the smaller spaces, the ordinance permits the dimensions to be 80 percent of the standards as a minimum. The proposal is to have approximately 18 percent of the required parking with 8.5 foot stalls. This translates to 61 spaces out of a total of 341 required by ordinance. In addition to April 20, 1987 Item No. 6 - Continued to meeting the ordinance requirement, the developer is proposing to have 397 spaces at 8.5 feet for a total of 738 spaces to be provided on the site. After reviewing the site plan and the request, staff supports the variance because all other design standards are being met and doubling the number of spaces required. The reduction of one -half foot for the stalls should not pose a hardship for the user of the center or impact the overall development of the site. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the design variance as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (Rex Crane). — PARKING SUMMARY 1. PARKING REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE Wal -Mart: 81,922 SF = 225 Spaces Shops: 40,690 SF - 116 Spaces Total Requirement: 341 Spaces 2. PARKING PROVIDED FOR ORDINANCE REQUIREMNT 280 Spaces @ 9' -0" = 82.11% of Requirement 61 Spaces @ 8' -6" = 17.89% of Requirement 341 Total Spaces Provided 3. PARKING PROVIDED IN EXCESS OF ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT 397 Spaces @ 8' -6" 4. TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED ON SITE 280 Spaces @ 9' -0" +458 Spaces @ 8' -6" 738 Total Spaces MEHLBURGER, TANNER, ROBINSON &ASSOCIATES April 20, 1987 Item No. 7 - Z-4822-A Owner: Noel Gattis and Terry Jones Address: Sibley Hole Road at Nash Lane Description: Long Legal Zoned: "R-2" (an "I-2" request has been filed) Variances Requested: From the floodplain restrictions of Paragraph A of Paragraph 4 of Section B of Article 5 of Ordinance 14,534 to permit a roadway at existing elevations and levees for ponds, the total of which is 25 feet from the floodway. Justification: (1) The applicants propose to use the property (and property adjacent thereto) for the sale of dressed catfish (food store) and to provide catfish ponds for the public to catch fish that they can purchase for consumption off the premises. The variance for the roadway is requested because the City Planning officials have indicated that they do not desire additional commercial traffic on Sibley Hole Road and the entrance off the Interstate 30 Frontage Road is necessary for the promotion of the proposed business. The roadway will be at an elevation no greater than that existing. (2) The variance for the pond is necessary to build levees, the tows for which are 25 feet from the floodway. The ponds will be no deeper than five feet, and appropriate excavation will be done to more than offset any necessary filling. The ponds will increase the water storage capacity in the area, and the plan development is a beneficial use for a floodplain area. Rather than proposing to build a structure, the development will be attempting to maintain the natural character of the area. April 20, 1987 Item No. 7 - Continued Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Catfish Fishing Pond STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Engineering has no problems with the variance requested if the roadway is constructed at the existing elevation. B. Staff Analysis The request is to grant several variances from the floodplain restrictions of the City Ordinance to permit the site to be developed for a commercial catfish fishing facility. To accomplish this, two ponds and an access drive to the I -30 Frontage Road will have to constructed for the development. A portion of the proposed roadway is in the designated floodway, and the levees will be 25 feet from the floodway line, thus creating the need for the variance. (Based on conversations with the Engineering staff, the 25 feet is the City requirement so that part of the request needs to be clarified by the applicant.) The roadway will be built at the existing elevation and should help direct traffic flow away from Sibley Hole Road which staff strongly supports and encourages. Because of development in the vicinity, the ponds should not create any problems and could possibly add to the storage capacity of the area. The proposed use is reasonable as is the necessary variance, but in addition to the BOA action, an "I-2" rezoning must also be approved by the City to permit the operation. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the floodplain variance be granted subject to the "I-2" rezoning being approved by the City Board of Directors. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (4-20-87) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred because the required notification of property owners had not been completed. A motion was made to defer the request to the May 18, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. April 20, 1987 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned At 2:20 p.m. Chairman Secretary Date