Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5000-A Staff AnalysisApxi1 18, 1988 Item No. 11 - Other Matters - Z-5000 Address: 2100 North Beechwood Description: Lot 1, Block 4, County Club Heights Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Request: From the bylaws governing the Board of Adjustment, Article 5, Sections 1-4 to permit a rehearing. STAFF ANALYSIS: The issue before the Board at this time is for reconsideration to the approval grant for case no. Z-5000 which occurred at the March 21, 1988, meeting. The variance requested at that time was for a front yard setback on Stonewall Street which was for 7.5 feet. At the meeting on March 21, 1988, there were several persons present in objection. After a considerable amount of discussion between the Board, staff, applicant, and those in opposition, the item was deferred until the end of the agenda to allow time for the applicant and objectors to meet and to come some agreement. The agreement reached by the applicant and objectors and voted on by the Board consisted of three conditions: (a) the newly constructed house would be one and one -.half stories, (b) the width of the house would be 31 feet, and (c) the frontage to Stonewall Street would be 9 feet. In order for a reconsideration to approval by the Board to occur, the applicant has to (a) make a written request within ten days of the approval date, indicating any new evidence showing just cause for the request, (b) approval by at least five members of the Board agreeing to the rehearing, (c) renotice of the property owners within 200 feet of the site, and (d) the understanding of the applicant that the Board can at the time of the rehearing vote to address the new evidence or vote to defer the item for another month in order to allow time for the evidence to be reviewed. April 1.8 1988 Item No. 11 - Continued The applicant stated in the written request that the reconsideration is only for that part of the approval that stated the house should be one and one-half stories instead of the two of which was part of the original plan for the site. Plans for the new house, as the original approval stands, has been considerably compromised by trying to convert the house to one and one-half stories, resulting in the upstairs rooms being disproportionately smaller and not in keeping with the dimensions of the downstairs area. The applicant further states that she was not adequately prepared to meet the numerous and sometimes misinformed objections of those opposed to the construction and would like a chance to properly refute their allocations and show that she is only asking for the right to build a house which conforms to the numerous other houses in that immediate area. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was in attendance and was represented by David Henry, her attorney. There were approximately 12 people in attendance opposed to the request. The Board first had to make a motion in order for the new evidence to be presented and open for public discussion. A motion was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent. Mr. Henry stated the conditions under which the variance was approved from the last month. Those conditions included: (a) the house being one and one-half stories, (b) the frontage to Stonewall Street being 9 feet, and (c) the width of the house being 31 feet. Since that time, the purpose of the limitation can still be achieved by constructing two stories. It was his understanding that the purpose was to prevent the house from overshadowing the house next-door. With a little redesign, it has been proven that the house could have two stories. The presentation then is for the redesign with. modifications for two -stories with the height remaining the same. The purpose would be to allow for the second floor to be more usable, improve the value of the property, and would be in the best interest of all parties. Mr. Henry stated that it is his understanding that there has been some collaborative effort and other issues that have clouded the variance request. But the fact of the matter of hardship is that the lot was platted in the 1940's, a corner lot, and based on a 1986 administrative decision, the interpretation is that a corner lot has two front yards. April 18, 1988 Item No. 11 - Continued It is believed that the ordinance does not state that fact. Again, the applicant does want to stick to the agreement except for the fact of needing to build two stories instead of the one and one-half stories. The Chairman then addressed the opposition, and Mr. George Holitick spoke first. He stated he had spoken to the neighbors and all were disappointed that the agreement voted on last month was not abided by. He appreciates the fact that the lot is still only 45 feet in width and still would be overbuilt. The applicant did send letters out showing the plan, but the house will be some 85 to 90 feet long extending along the street. The major concern still is the fact that the lot will be overbuilt. The attitude of the Board should be to maintain the quality of the neighborhood and not be concerned about the financial hardship of the builder. There also is the concern about the acquisition of the drainage problem and what will happen to the trees and drainage if this is approved. Mr. Cliff Asknew who lives at 4617 Stonewall Street said the property owners he is representing live on the south side on Stonewall and between Beechwood and Spring Streets, which is the first street to the west. The concern that they have is one of drainage. He understands that the Board does not address drainage, but this is the only opportunity that he will have to address someone in authority about the concern. He stated a letter had been submitted to Mr. Dalton's office, City Manager, to ask the City Engineer to investigate this concern and offer some recommendations. It is his understanding that the City Engineering Office is a part of the Board and wonders if any comments have been received regarding the drainage problem. Most of the residents have lived in the area for 23 to 25 years and have been fighting the drainage problem during that time and feel that the construction of this house will only increase the problem. There is no underground drainage, no curbs, and no gutters in order to catch the water. This is an opportunity in order to get the problem corrected. A Board member then asked if drainage was an issue which the Board could address. Staff stated that the Board has the right to place any conditions, restrictions, and recommendations it likes, but as stated last month, the Board has not in the past placed conditions of curb and guttering on residential variances. A legal opinion was then requested and the City Attorney stated that as long April 18, -1988 Item No. 11 - Continued as the conditions were reasonable, then legally it would stand. It was then asked by a Board member how would construction of the new house increase the drainage problem? Mr. Asknew stated that the only analysis was the history of the drainage problem over the prev-i-ous -years. - The --concern is this standard area which is north of Stonewall would not be improved and will be allowed to continue as is without improvements. After further discussion, one member of the Board stated that in his opinion, curb and guttering would not help the problem without a storm drainage system. A Mr. Porter then addressed the Zoard. He spoke regarding the alley and street being too narrow and the fact that two cars could not pass on the street if cars are allowed to park on Stonewall. Mrs. Connie Holitick stated that her main objection still is the height and by redesigning the two stories for additional rooms does not change that fact. She then presented pictures showing the drainage problem at the house on the corner of Stonewall and Beechwood. She then asked what Possibly could be done since the water just stands and has no way to run off. If the normal street width was built, what would the 9 feet on Stonewall be for, the present street, or the width of the street if widened. The Chairman stated that the street width isn't 37 feet but possibly if widened would be 8 feet on each side. It was asked what was the setback of the houses on Stonewall, was the 9 feet in keeping with those houses. Mrs. Holitick stated that the houses set back a considerable more distance than 9 feet. Mr. Henry addressed the Board concerning the points that the opposition presented. He stated that the footprint plan isn't what is at issue but the height of it and doesn't see that much difference between a one and one-half story and two stogies as long as it does not rise above the house behind it as the intent of the original agreement. It doesn't affect the drainage of the streets. The way the footprint on the drawing has already been approved. The intent is only to make the house more livable and attractive. Nobody is trying to damage the adjacent Property or create an hardship for the property owners. But on the other hand, the applicant does not want to build a 13 -foot house which wouldn't help the drainage. What is proposed is in the best interest of all parties concerned. A Board member then made the point that he disagreed with , AprI1 18 , 19.88 Item No. 11 - Continued the fact the footprint was not at issue. What was voted on last month was what was agreed upon by the parties concerned. He then stated that he was unsure why the compromise did not work out and the applicant was back before the Board. Mr. Henry stated that the agreement was that the house wouldn't be any higher than the one behind it, and at that time it was thought that the house would have to be one and one-half stories instead of two stories, but after careful redesign, the applicant saw where the two stories could be accomplished and maintain the height. A Board member then stated that in the opinion of the Board the case was being heard anew and that the original approval was no longer in existence. Mr. Henry stated that the Board could read into it whatever, but the applicant wanted only reconsideration to the one and one-half stories. Another Board member stated that due to that fact he wishes to rescind his original vote for the rehearing. Mr. Henry was then informed that it wasn't fair for the Board to just address the concern of the applicant and not that of the people in opposition, which is also the drainage problem. Mr. Henry then asked for time to- confer with his client. Mr. Henry returned and asked if the Board would be willing to withdraw the application totally. The Chairman stated that in his opinion he felt that the Board would be willing to do that. The Board then asked for a clarification on whether the applicant was withdrawing the application for rehearing or the previous application from last month. Mr-. Henry stated the whole application which includes last month's approval. The Chairman requested legal opinion and the City Attorney stated that it was the applicant's right to withdraw and the Board could take a vote on that request. The Chairman then asked the City Attorney if he should address the opposition's response, and the City Attorney stated that since they were in attendance, then yes, the Board should hear them. Dr. Holitick stated that Mr. George Cook had sent out a letter dated the 15th of April and he read a portion of it as well as submitted a copy to be placed in the file. A letter addressed to Ms. Brown from Rhonda and Matt Morrison was then asked to be read into the records. Staff informed Rhonda Morrison that the letter had been circulated among the Board members and would be placed into the file which is the record, but if she felt it needed to be read, then it would be. Rhonda Morrison stated that placing it into the file record would be fine. April 18, 1988 Item No. 11 - Continued Mr. Henry then requested action on his requestfor withdrawal. The Chairman stated he was following directions from counsel and the Board was not allowing the opposition to speak in opposition to the withdrawal. The Board requested reading of the section. of the .ordinance that addressed the corner lot. The Chairman then stated that it was the intention of the Board to negotiate the proceedings so all parties are happy, and it appears that intention was not achieved. Mr. Henry restated the request to withdraw the application totally.. A motion was then made to withdraw the rehearing application Z -5006-A and expunge the previous approval on Case No. Z-5000 from last month's -agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (McDaniel). April 18, 1988 Item No. 11 - Other Matters - Address: Description: Zoned: Request: STAFF ANALYSIS: Z-5000 A 2100 North Beechwood Lot 1, Block 4, County Club Heights Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas "R-2" Single Family From the bylaws governing the Board of Adjustment, Article 5, Sections 1-4 to permit a rehearing. The issue before the Board at this time is for reconsideration to the approval grant for case no. Z-5000 which occurred at the March 21, 1988, meeting. The variance requested at that time was for a front yard setback on Stonewall Street which was for 7.5 feet. At the meeting on March 21, 1988, there were several persons present in objection. After a considerable amount of discussion between the Board, staff, applicant, and those in opposition, the item was deferred until the end of the agenda to allow time for the applicant and objectors to meet and to come some agreement. The agreement reached by the applicant and objectors and voted on by the Board consisted of three conditions: (a) the newly constructed house would be one and one-half stories, (b) the width of the house would be 31 feet, and (c) the frontage to Stonewall Street would be 9 feet. In order for a reconsideration to approval by the Board to occur, the applicant has to (a) make a written request within ten days of the approval date, indicating any new evidence showing just cause for the request, (b) approval by at least five members of the Board agreeing to the rehearing, (c) renotice of the property owners within 200 feet of the site, and (d) the understanding of the applicant that the Board can at the time of the rehearing vote to address the new evidence or vote to defer the item for another month in order to allow time for the evidence to be reviewed. April 18, 1988 Item No. 11 - Continued The applicant stated in the written reauest that the reconsideration is only for that part of the approval that stated the house should be one and one-half stories instead of 'the two of which was part of the original plan for the site. Plans for the new house, as the original approval stands, has been considerably compromised by trying to convert the house to one and ane -half stories, resulting in the upstairs rooms being disproportionately smaller and not in keeping with the dimensions of the downstairs area. The applicant further states that she was not adequately prepared to meet the numerous and sometimes misinformed objections of those opposed to the construction and would like a chance to properly refute their allocations and show that she is only asking for the right to build a house which conforms to the numerous other houses in that immediate area.