Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_12 19 1983LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES DECEMBER 19, 1983 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum. A Quorum was present being 7 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members present: Members absent: George Wells Richard Yada Joe C. Norcross B.L. Murphree Steve Smith Thomas McGowan Herbert Rideout Ellis Walton City Attorney: None in attendance December 19, 1983 Item No. 1 - Z-4145 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION Ron Harb, Joe Akel, Terry Moore By: Richard Groh 1719 Merrill Drive Lots 8b and 9 of Charles Valley Subd. "C-4" Open Display District From the rear yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-103.4.3E of the Code of Ordinances to permit a new building to encroach 10 feet into a required yard area (25-foot ordinance requirement). 1. The owner identifies unusual lot configuration, non-use area created at 25' and accessibility for fire and emergency being available on adjacent lots. Present Use of the Property: Vacant lots Proposed Use of the Property: Construction of two new retail buildings STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues There are no engineering issues associated with this request. The land is platted and all utilities and drainage are accounted for, except for on -site. All of the abutting lots are developed commercial. B. Staff Analysis The site at issue is vacant with a few scattered trees and very few development constraints. All abutting properties are developed with commercial buildings and perimeter service drives exists on all sides. The drives give good separation between the structures proposed on these lots and their neighbors. However, there is no long-term commitment to retention of these December 19, 1983 Item No. 1 - Continued drives by this applicant. The standard staff response to a proposal of this nature is redesign to fit the lot. In this instance, the circumstances enforce that kind of response. This owner desires to accomplish in his rear yard what his neighbors have provided in a side yard relationship. We see little justification for the variance, except possibly the configuration of the lots. However, that is not in our judgment sufficient justification. We feel that if the lots are to be developed with common drives, parking, etc., perhaps a single structure would better fill the design needs. In addition, it might be appropriate to replat the lots as one building site for development purposes. This understandably would be difficult due to the easement running along the common line between. Should platting occur, perhaps a single building could be located without a need for a variance. C. Staff Recommendation Denial of the request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The architect, Mr. Groh, was present representing this variance and presented additional comments in support of the request. There were no objectors present. A lengthy discussion of the proposal then followed. A motion was made to approve the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (George Wells) and 1 open position. December 19, 1983 Item No. 2 - Z-3644-A Owner: Jack and Jill, Inc. Address: 6911 Geyer Springs Road Description: Lot 1, Sam Hill Addition Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial District Variance Requested: From the screening requirements provision of Section 43/7-103.C.4 of the Code of Ordinances to permit deletion of opaque screening adjacent to residential. JUSTIFICATION 1. The residential which requires the screening is the only residential lot between the subject site and West 65th Street. It has a narrow frontage and little potential for use as residential. If the lot is later used as building site for residential, this applicant suggests a fence would then be constructed. Present Use of the Property: Proposed Use of the Property: STAFF REPORT Vacant lots A retail store A. Engineering Issues There are no engineering related issues associated. The land is platted. All utilities and drainage are in place. B. Staff Analysis This request is simple and requires very little comment inasmuch as the ordinance requirement in this instance serves no practical purpose. The residential lot adjacent on the north is an isolated lot which will probably be rezoned on request. There are no other residential lots fronting Geyer Springs Road in the immediate vicinity. C. Staff Recommendation Recommend approval of the request as filed. December 19, 1983 Item No. 2 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. He stated that he accepted the staff recommendation and provided no additional comment. A brief discussion was followed by a motion to approve the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. December 19, 1983 Item No. 3 - Z-4144 Owner: Don Kirkpatrick Address: 500 East 9th Street Description: Long Legal Zoned: "HR" High Density Residential Variance Requested: Approval of a conditional use permit for the use of the site and existing structure for 2,300 square feet of office space. The subject permit is provided for in Section 43-37 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock. JUSTIFICATION 1. The applicant states that the size and nature of the structure and the level of rents available as residential will not permit the costly restoration necessary nor the required maintenance. Present Use of the Property: Residential Proposed Use of the Property: Office space in the 2,300 square feet + in the front portion of the building and three apartments with a total of four bedrooms in the rear of the site. STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues The subject site has several street and access related issues. The new parking lot on the east side of the lot requires that cars be backed into East Ninth Street from the stalls. The applicant suggests the turnout stub adjacent to the sidewalk would accommodate this maneuver. We have reservations about that stall being retained as constant open maneuvering space. The lot width is too narrow, plus the house on the east is quite close to the property line allowing no overhang of vehicles for a maneuver. The stalls dimensions are to narrow to comply with ordinance. The street adjacent on the west is approximately 30 feet in right-of-way with a narrow roadway and tight turning radius off East Ninth. The corner radius at Ninth Street should be reviewed for possible reconstruction to a larger radius. December 19, 1983 Item No. 3 - Continued B. Staff Analysis The staff view of this proposal is that the owner proposes excessive use of the site. It appears that even when developed as residential, five or six units, the site cannot accommodate parking within the property line. As an office use, the problem is magnified by the unknown associated with simply authorizing a quiet use as office. Quiet office group of uses within the ordinance permits an array of activities that are totally unacceptable even if parking were not an issue. The site is impacted by narrow yard spaces, narrow streets, high traffic volume and two principle structures on one lot. There are options available in almost any circumstance which may resolve serious concerns. In this case, the option apparent is to acquire additional land for the vacant site to the north. Staff views the existing design of parking in the front and side yard as totally nonfunctional. It would become a long-term problem both for the tenants in apartments and office use. The potential for backing into East Ninth Street is too great. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that a conditional use permit not be issued for the use as proposed. We feel that there are too many associated problems without ready resolution. There is only one approach which we feel will receive our endorsement. That is, a single user office such as an attorney with living quarters above. This approach also requires the addition of properly designed parking in a maneuvering area which would require additional land be added to the lot. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Mr. Don Kirkpatrick, filed a letter of request for deferral of this item to the January 17, 1984, meeting. A motion was made to accept the request and defer the matter. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position and 1 absent. December 19, 1983 Item No. 4 - Z-4143 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION St. Clair Development Company 612 East 6th Street Long Legal "HR" High Density Residential Approval of a conditional use permit for use of the subject site as off-street parking in support of condominiums on a lot approximately 60' to the west. This permit is provided for in Section 43-37 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock. 1. The applicant states that these spaces are needed in order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance and the mortgage company requirements. Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use of the Property: Construction of 26 parking spaces for existing condominiums. STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues There are no engineering issues associated with this request. All design of paving, landscaping and drives will require approval of the City Engineer. The subject site is separated from the site served by a 60-foot lot occupied by a vacant two story multifamily structure. B. Staff Analysis There is little to be said except that the condominium project to be served certainly needs the parking. There are no design or related issues we are aware of as all of the numbers appear to meet ordinance requirement. The only negative noted is the 4-foot front landscape strip. The ordinance requires that the front 10' be retained as landscaping, except for driveways. December 19, 1983 Item No. 4 - Continued We have received comment from staff members associated with the Historic District Commission and the State Preservation Office. That comment includes specific recommendations dealing with drives, trees, walks and landscaping which will be required through their review process. We feel those points made are in tune with our position. We would accept their direction. C. Staff Recommendation Approval of the requested conditional use permit, subject to attaching the requirements of the Historic District Commission approval, so far as no conflict will be presented with safety or traffic codes. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was not in attendance. A motion was made by a Board member that this item be deferred to January 17, 1984, due to the failure of the applicant to appear and represent the application. The vote on that motion: 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. December 19, 1983 Item No. 5 - Z-4142 Owner: C-F-B Partnership By: J. Richard Taylor Address: 723 South Arch Street Description: All of Lots 5 and 6 of Block 114, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial District Variance Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-104.2 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit erection of a new warehouse building with a 2-foot setback (ordinance requires 15-foot side yard) . JUSTIFICATION 1. The applicant states that a 15-foot setback precludes the provision of a double row of parking spaces between the building and the Eighth Street property line causing a loss of + eight spaces. The 15-foot setback will be nonfunctional and unusable. Further, most structures in this area are on the property line. Present Use of the Property: Vacant and parking lot Proposed Use of the Property: Warehouse for a new tire store STAFF REPORT A. Engineerin Issues The only issue developed in our review is a possible problem with the fire district provisions of the Little Rock Building Code. Certain provisions of that code restrict the location of bulk storage of flammables such as automobile tires in the downtown area. The architect should familiarize himself with these regulations. Normal street improvements and sidewalks will apply after inspection by the City Engineer on Broadway as well as Arch and Eighth Streets. December 19, 1983 Item No. 5 - Continued B. Staff Analysis The proposed layout suggests two rows of 90° parking in 63 feet. This may not work, dependent on the Landscaping Ordinance and its application to the site. We have discussed the building code issue with Mr. Roy Beard of the Public Works Department. He has agreed to discuss the code problem with the architect and attempt to resolve it prior to the meeting on the 19th. As to the setback variance at hand, we have no problem with the request inasmuch as the entire area was developed under "I" zoning in the old code which required 0' setback. The building proposed will require compliance with certain fire resistive construction requirements for a close relationship to a property line. This issue can be reviewed with Mr. Beard in conjunction with the fire code issue. C. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to the resolution of the issues raised and provision of any needed street improvements along the boundary streets. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The application was represented by Mr. Taylor, the architect, who offered no additional comment, but stated that the staff recommendation was acceptable. A brief discussion followed. A motion was made to approve the application as filed, subject to final resolution of those issues pointed out in the staff recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. December 19, 1983 Item No. 6 - Z-4140 Owner: Larkin Builders By: Brent Dunlap Address: 516 Nebling Road Description: All of Lot 4, Nebling Park Addition Zoned: "R-4" Two Family District Variance Requested: From the provisions of paragraph B of paragraph 2 of Section 1 of Ordinance No. 14,534 to permit construction of a duplex on a lot with a finished floor elevation below the now established floodplain requirement. JUSTIFICATION 1. The builder states that information relative to floodplain elevations indicate a rise of + 3' above the elevation established by the Corps of Engineers at the time the plat was approved. This would require him to build 4' above what his neighbors have constructed too. Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use of the Property: New duplex STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues The Engineer staff forwarded this variance request inasmuch as the 100-year floodplain elevation requirement for a finished floor has been changed to 3' in this area. This is approximately 2' higher than earlier stated at 338.5. We were advised by the Engineering Department that existing duplexes adjacent were constructed with floor elevations at 338.5 to comply with elevations set by the approved subdivision plat authorized by the Planning Commission several years ago. The Engineering staff reports that the change in elevation is somewhat modified for this reach of Rock Creek by the widened channel behind the Wal-Mart store site. December 19, 1983 Item No. 6 - Continued B. Staff Analysis This lot is one of three or four remaining in a duplex subdivision approved by the Planning Commission. At the time of approval, the best information on the 100-year flood set minimum floor elevations at 338.5 in order to clear by 1-foot 337.7 main elevation. Most, if not all of the existing duplexes were built with that plat information. If we enforce the new information on this builder, he will have a foundation considerably higher than what his neighbors have constructed on a flat lot. The structure would not be in character with its neighbors and would have access problems both for parking and pedestrians. C. Staff Recommendation Inasmuch as the Engineer staff supports the request as reasonable, we recommend the approval of the variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The application was represented by Mr. Brent Dunlap and Mike Batie of the Engineering Department. Mr. Batie's participation was in support of the request on an informational basis only. Mr. Batie provided history of the floodplain regulation in this area and the justification for the extension of a variance to this property. After a brief discussion of the proposal, a motion was made to approve the variance request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. December 19, 1983 Item No. 7 - Z-4139 Owner: Little Rock Municipal Water Works By: Dale Russom Address: 10400 Block of Kanis Road on the North Side of the Street Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial District Variance Requested: From the height provisions of Section 43/7-103.3 of the Code of Ordinances to permit erection of a water storage tank to a height of 160 feet in a 35-foot zone. JUSTIFICATION 1. Provide for service to the intermediate system during periods of power outage. The tank will: (1) reduce pressure changes which can reduce pipe breakage during power outage, (2) provide water during outage, (3) increase fire flows, (4) reduce reverse flow and (5) reduce costs at certain times. Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use of the Property: Erection of 2 million gallon elevated water storage tank to a height of 160' above the existing grade. STAFF REPORT A. Engineering ^Issues There were no adverse comments received at this writing. B. Staff Analysis The staff has discussed with Mr. Russom of the Water Works the siting of an elevated tank for some period of time. Since the refusal of the use of the Walnut Valley site, the Water Works staff has sought to locate property in this general area with sufficient elevation to serve their requirement. After dealing with the Baptist Medical Center on several sites, the site at December 19, 1983 Item No. 7 - Continued issue was chosen. The Planning staff advised Mr. Russom of the several approvals required which are: (1) platting the lot and access easement to provide for permanent legal identity, (2) obtain a height variance for the structure and (3) obtain a conditional use permit for the use of the site as a utility storage and distribution facility. C. Staff Recommendation We find no problems with the proposal. It is apparent from our limited involvement that the facility is needed. We recommend its approval. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Dale Russom of the Little Rock Municipal Water Works was present and represented the request. Mr. Russom presented supporting information as to the need of the tower height proposed. There were no objectors present. A lengthy discussion of the proposal followed. A motion was made to approve the height variance as filed, subject to provision of a 25-foot green strip lying along the west property line left in its natural undisturbed state, except for a 25 x 25 foot area in the southwest corner of the lot which may be utilized as access easement for the water line and service vehicles. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Joe Norcross) and 1 open position. December 19, 1983 Item No. 8 - Z-4141 Owner: Phyllis R. Haynes Address: 124 South Booker Description: Lot 7 of Block 2, C.S. Stifft's Addn. Zoned: "R-2" Single Family District Variance Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of Section 43, Article 5., Section 5-101.F of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of a 12' x 24' one story detached garage on the property line (ordinance requirement is 3' for accessory structure). JUSTIFICATION 1. The owner states: (1) a 3-foot setback would prohibit vehicular access to the new construction due to the building location and its proximity to the residence, (2) would require relocation of the driveway, (3) setback would create a gulley and possible erosion of neighbors property, (4) would reduce usable yard area, (5) the replacement of a building which existed over 50 years in the same place and (6) would cause damage to nearby tree if structure were moved. Present Use of the Property: Proposed Use of the Property: Residence Remain the same STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues There were no adverse comments received at this writing. B. Staff Analysis A staff visit to this site revealed a circumstance while not a true hardship case does have merit from a function and aesthetics viewpoint. The existing building is an eyesore and does have grade change problems associated with on line construction. That is, a retaining wall. The neighbors house on the north has an unimproved driveway along the property line and a good side yard relationship. There would be no adverse impact on the neighborhood by this proposed construction. December 19, 1983 Item No. 8 - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Approval as filed for a one story garage for automobile parking. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present and stated the staff recommendation was acceptable and offered no further comments in support of the request. There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, the Board voted on a motion to approve the application. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. December 19, 1983 Item No. 9 - INTERPRETATION Agent for the Request: City of Little Rock Environmental Code Section; Jim Hathcock, Chief Request: To review for interpretation the use and placement of tractor trailers as accessory structures Zoning Districts Involved: "C-3" and "C-4" Commercial Districts Issue Outline and History: The Administrative Staff Comment Richard Wood Several years ago, the Gulf Oil Company introduced to several of its sites in Little Rock an activity which consisted of placement of a van type trailer for purposes of tire storage allied with on -site sales. At that time, my office made a brief inquiry into the practice, but did not pursue the matter since that was not our function. We did not, at that time, observe a serious violation of ordinance. Over the next couple of years, a number of other commercial users began this practice and this expanded activity closer to more sensitive neighborhoods brought about a series of calls and formal complaints. Earlier this year, Jerry Speece and I visited a site on Rodney Parham Road and immediately agreed that these trailers are an unsightly use. However, we could find no ordinance basis for their removal so long as they remained trailers retained the wheels and functionally were vehicles. The only point we could make is that they should be located on paved surfaces in the manner of any other wheeled vehicle. After that visit, we were not involved in further pursuit of the matter until a recent conversation when Mr. Hathcock of the Environmental Code Section suggested we needed to do something about the practice and not merely ignore what he observed as a problem. We suggested that the Board of Adjustment might be the approximate route by way of an interpretation request. December 19, 1983 Item No. 9 - Continued Enforcement Staff - Jim Hathcock This office on several occasions has received complaints of tractor trailer rigs being used as temporary and permanent storage buildings throughout the City. The structures are being placed in the front, side and rear yards. There have been occasions where more than one trailer has been placed in the front, side and rear yard for extended periods of time. These units are in many instances unsightly, uncontrollable by the Zoning Ordinance and may be anywhere on the premises. They also sometimes create traffic hazards on the premise and this office feels that the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and its enforcement are significantlly effected by allowing these units without control. This office also feels that to allow these units in their natural state is not good development practice and does not protect the integrity of our City. Therefore, we recommend that these trailers and the placement of them be required to meet the same standards as accessory structures. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Jim Hathcock of the Environmental Codes Section of the Public Works Department was present and offered some additional background information in support of his request for a board interpretation on this subject. Staff offered additional comments from their prospective as to the resolution of the problem and conflict with other uses and/or structures located within the front of commercial properties. After a lengthy discussion of this request, a motion was made to defer this matter to the Planning Commission for resolution inasmuch as it appeared to be a question of land use which should be dealt with by that body rather than on an interpretive basis. Deferral would be for purposes of inclusion with the next Planning Commission review package for ordinance amendment. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. December 19, 1983 Item No. 10 - Z-4146 Owner: Edward L. and Bernice L. Smith Address: 3723 West 12th Street Description: Lot 6, Block 1, Worthen Addition Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial District Variance Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-103.3.D.2 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of a new building with a side street setback of 111. (ordinance requires 25-foot setback on side street). JUSTIFICATION 1. The owner states: (1) that the purchase of additional land is not possible, (2) all adjacent land in this block is residential and a 15-foot side yard is required by the ordinance on the east and (3) the smallest building possible is proposed to serve the needs of a travel agency. Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use of the Property: Construct a new building for a travel agency office. STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues There were at this writing no adverse comments. However, preliminary review of this proposal suggested that one or both of the curb cuts in place be closed due to insufficient depth for parking and maneuvering within the site. Parking stalls would require backing into the street to exit the site. December 19, 1983 Item No. 10 - Continued B. Staff Analysis The lot in question contained until recently a commercial building which had a long and varied history of many uses. Widening of West 12th Street to a four lane facility severely impacted this site. The use at that time was a small service station. The site since that construction project has had problems with retaining a user. Since the building has been eliminated, we have an opportunity to upgrade this block and the neighborhood in keeping with the neighborhood plan. An office building and use could provide incentive to neighbors to improve their properties and the neighborhood appearance in general. The only design related comment we would offer would be that the parking area be moved to the side street for access purposes and be placed south of the building. This would permit an attractive front yard area to be maintained which would be in keeping with the residential uses adjacent on the east. C. Staff Recommendation Approval of the variance, subject to the parking design comments above. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicants were present and stated their willingness to accept the staff recommendation as to the location of the proposed parking. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, the Board voted on a motion to approve the application subject to comments made in the staff recommendation relative to offstreet parking. The vote: 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. December 19, 1983 There being no further action, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m. Date �tV-P Y —Secretary Chairman