Loading...
03 JAN 13 MINUTES: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING DATE AND TIME: January 13, 2003/ 6:30 p.m. – 7:02 p.m. ATTENDANCE: Commissioners: Martha Boyd, Mark Stroud, and Chairman Perry, City Engineer Whisker City Clerk Susan Davitt recorded those listed above in attendance and Chairman Perry declared a quorum. APPROVAL AND/OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Commissioner Stroud moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyd to approve the minutes of the Regularly Scheduled Board of Adjustment meeting of December 9, 2002. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE(S): a. PARKING AND SIGNAGE VARIANCE/2301 T.P. WHITE DRIVE LOWE’S HOME CENTER Chairman Perry opened the public hearing at approximately 6:31 p.m. Mr. Lance Mills with Ozark Civil Engineering introduced Mr. Marc Millis a Lowe’s representative from Austin, Texas. He related that Lowe’s is requesting a variance regarding Lowe’s Home Center Inc. standard sign package and a variance regarding parking space size. Mr. Marc Millis related that the 9 X 18 is the standard parking stalls size that has been established at their 800 plus stores across the country, adding that the size has proven to be adequate. He then related that they also provide some 10’ wide spaces near the lumberyard side of the building for the larger vehicles. Mr. Lance Mills stated that the signage request is similar to that used on the Lowe’s building located in North Little Rock. Chairman Perry clarified that Lowe’s is seeking a Code variance from the required 200 parking spaces to 162, a decrease of 38 spaces. He then questioned the requirement for parking size, City Engineer Whisker related that the Code requires spaces to be 10 X 20. He added that Lowe’s is requesting parking spaces of 9 X 18. Commissioner Stroud questioned if they have a target number of spaces they were trying to establish mentioning approximately 600 spaces and pointing out that with 9-foot spaces there would be room for approximately 436 spaces. Mr. Millis stated that if the size of the spaces were increased they would lose additional parking spaces. City Engineer Whisker stated that 9 X 18 has generally become the standard size regarding parking spaces, adding that the Code might need to be amended to reflect that change. Discussion ensued regarding the standard size of 9 X 18 for parking spaces and what businesses feature this size parking. Commissioner Stroud then pointed out that 9 X 18 is larger than the North Little Rock store. City Engineer Whisker addressed the signage, saying that Lowe’s would like to use their signage package referring to photographs presented. He stated that they are requesting to use a slightly larger sign near the elevated freeway. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING January 13, 2003 continued: He stated that the sign dimension is 15 square foot larger than Code restrictions from 200 to 215 square feet. In response to a question from Chairman Perry, City Engineer Whisker stated that they are requesting one pylon sign in front of the building, Mr. Millis added that the front of the store would feature a Lowe’s Home Center sign over the main entrance, the Garden Center would have a directory sign and indoor lumber yard on the other side of the building. Mr. Mills related that the reason for the proposed signage is that the building is 700 linear feet across, explaining that someone that wanted to purchase lumber and parked in front of the garden center would have a difficult haul to load the lumber, adding that the signage is mainly for directional purposes. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Stroud, Mr. Mills related that the signs are basically the same size as the ones in North Little Rock, adding that the indoor lumber sign is a little smaller. He stated that Lowe’s has changed the façade of the building and has a different elevation, adding that the signage had to change because the architect of the front of the building changed. Mr. Raymond Ellis of 21 White Oak Cove expressed concern for the decrease in parking sizes. He also questioned if Wal-Mart had requested smaller parking spaces. Alderman Stroud pointed out that the standard parking spaces for developments is 9-foot, pointing out that the parking spaces in front of and City Hall and the Community Center are 9-foot parking spaces. He stated the only parking spot he is aware of that has 10-foot spaces is Landmark Baptist Church. Mr. Ellis noted that sign codes provide the allowable square footage, adding that he owns a business in town and has to abide by the codes. Commissioner Stroud related that individual consideration is applied for each a sign variance regarding uniformity. He then answered that the Board weighs the differences in a per case basis regarding the request and how that may encroach upon the City in any way. He stated that Lowe’s is replacing three business and are not requesting a large variance regarding square footage increase. Mrs. Barbara Batiste of 2916 Northeastern Avenue, questioned if the proposed parking spaces are the same as size as the parking spaces at the North Little Rock store. Mr. Millis stated that the parking was the same at the North Little Rock store as well as all the other Lowe’s stores. He added that almost 99% of all retail facilities has 9 X 18 size space. Barbara Batiste questioned if this was the same as Wal-Mart’s spaces. Mr. Millis stated that was correct. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING January 13, 2003 continued: Commissioner Stroud moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyd to approve both the sign package and parking variance to 9 foot at 2301 T.P. White Drive. MOTION CARRIED. b. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE /504 PARRISH STREET Mrs. Christine Diamond of 504 Parrish Street stated that they purchased a new truck, which did not fit into their garage, adding that they purchased a portable carport. She apologized saying that they were not aware that the portable carport was a violation. She stated she believed that since it was not permanently attached to the house it was not a violation. She stated that they are asking to be allowed to keep the portable carport, adding that otherwise their only other option would be to move it to the other side of the house, which would require them to pour a concrete drive. It was noted that the truck is a Ford F-250 diesel costing $38,000.00. In response to a question from Commissioner Stroud, City Engineer Whisker related that the existing garage is right on the 35’ line. He then answered that the entire portable structure is over the 35’ setback and that the line is measured from behind the curb at 11 ½ feet. Mr. Diamond stated that the structure is about 24 feet from the end of the awning to the front of the road. City Engineer Whisker explained that the actually property line is 25 feet north of the centerline of the road. He stated that 25 feet from the centerline of the road is the property line and the building line is 35 feet so you would measure 60 feet from the centerline of the road to the house. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Stroud, Mr. Diamond related that they had lived at 504 Parrish for approximately two or three years and that they also owned a mustang and a Volkswagen Beetle. He then stated that truck is too wide and too long to fit into the garage. He then answered that the mustang and beetle are in the garage. Mr. Charles Lewandoski of 708 Parrish expressed concern for property values, adding that the lot at 504 Parrish was originally plotted to be corner lot at Parrish and North Bailey. He stated that North Bailey has been abandoned and he assumes that half of that street reverted to the lot, which means they would have room to put in a driveway. When asked to comment, City Engineer Whisker stated that when North Bailey was abandoned in some cases it was half and in some cases it was more than half. Discussion ensued and Mrs. Diamond stated that at one time they were told the City abandoned it and a surveyor has told them that technically they could have moved their fence over. Mr. Lewandoski stated that even without that Bailey Street property, he felt sure there is a restriction as far as building on North Bailey Street that would be another 35 feet where a driveway could be put in. Mr. Diamond stated a driveway would cost $3,000 and Mrs. Diamond stated that they would then have two driveways. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING January 13, 2003 continued: In response to a question posed by Commissioner Stroud, Mr. Lewandoski stated that he lives on the same side of the street, but added that if this is granted he would request one and would hope that the Board would grant him the same consideration. He stated that he would imagine that half the residents on the street will want one because most made their double garages into either family rooms or like he did make it into a shop. He pointed out that his automobile is out in the weather and he would like a carport over it too. Mr. Diamond stated that they have had hail damage before. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Boyd, City Engineer Whisker stated that residents are required to get a building permit and the proposed construction would have to follow building guidelines regarding the front yard setback. Commissioner Boyd stated that she has noticed a lot of portable carports in town. City Engineer Whisker stated that some people have received a variance and some were constructed before he was hired and that some of them were here before the building permit/line was available. City Engineer Whisker stated that he has talked with the salesman and explained the problem the City was having with placement beyond the building line. Mr. Diamond explained that they had an outside company from North Carolina put it in. Commissioner Stroud stated that if it were approved the entire neighborhood would apply for a variance for a similar type. Mr. Diamond noted other in the neighborhood; Commissioner Stroud noted that the one he saw in the same neighborhood was behind the house. Mrs. Diamond stated that there was another one off Lessell Street. City Engineer Whisker stated that he would check to see if it were against Code. Mr. Diamond stated that they have asked their neighbors and they expressed they did not have a problem with it, adding that his neighbor next door has lived there thirteen years. Mrs. Diamond stated that the next-door neighbor stated that if they had to move the carport, he would be willing to let them place part of it in his yard, adding that he does not have a problem with the carport. City Engineer Whisker stated that they would not be able to put in their neighbor’s yard because you cannot cross property lines adding that it would have to be 5-foot from the side yard. Commissioner Stroud made a motion to deny the request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING January 13, 2003 continued: Mr. Diamond stated that if he has to move the carport to the other side of the yard it will look bad, explaining that he would have to drive through the yard to get underneath it. He stated right now it looks good with the house and if he places it elsewhere it would be an eye sore. He stated that he would not be able to get his money back, he would have to place it somewhere. Mr. Lewandoski stated that with Bailey Street being abandoned, would that eliminate the set back that was required because it was a corner lot. City Engineer Whisker clarified that the building setback line from the Bailey Street would be abandoned but not Parrish Street. Mr. Lewandoski pointed out there would be ample building space. Mrs. Diamond stated they would, but it not only a matter of moving the carport but of getting the money to pour concrete for a new driveway. She stated that it would be muddy without a driveway until they could afford one, adding that she is sure the neighbors would hate that more than they would seeing the awning. Mr. Lewandoski stated that he does not have that option and no one else on that street has that option. Commissioner Stroud explained that the reason for setbacks is to provide a uniformed view, adding that even though it is on a corner lot it still protrudes. Mr. Diamond questioned that it is not because it is an eye sore. Commissioner Stroud stated it is because it protrudes. In response to a comment made by Mrs. Diamond regarding property depreciation, Chairman Perry stated that it is not necessarily depreciating property but unfortunately if they allow one variance then everybody is going to want one. Mr. Diamond questioned if the Board had granted similar variances in other areas. City Engineer Whisker stated that the portable ones are fairly new, adding that the last one reviewed by the Board was not a portable carport but one constructed by the homeowner and he had to tear it down. Mr. Diamond questioned if the City had ever given a variance on a carport. City Engineer Whisker and Chairman Perry stated that it had not be granted over the building line. City Clerk Susan Davitt stated that there was one granted regarding a hardship case dealing with health reasons. Mr. Diamond questioned if he wanted to extend his garage, he would not be allowed do that either. City Engineer Whisker stated that he could toward the rear but not toward the street or build a separate garage on the other side and turn the existing garage into some type of room. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING January 13, 2003 continued: Mr. Diamond clarified that he could move the carport to the other side of the house and not worry about a driveway. City Engineer Whisker stated that he could in rock. Chairman Perry offered that initially it would only cost $50.00 to $100.00 for a load of rock or SV2 to eliminate the wear and tear in the yard. Mrs. Diamond questioned if they a certain amount of approval would that make a difference. Commissioner Stroud stated that even if all the neighbors agreed it would not be automatically approved. Chairman Perry stated that the people in the neighborhood could all agree to have portable carports. Discussion ensued regarding various reasons residents might want to purchase a portable carport. Mr. Diamond stated that he did not realize he needed a builders permit. He thought if it was not attached to the house he did not need a building permit. Commissioner Stroud moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyd to deny the front yard setback variance at 504 Parrish and allow forty-five days to move the structure. MOTION CARRIED. City Engineer Whisker informed Mr. and Mrs. Diamond that they would need to apply for a building permit regarding replacement of the structure. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Perry adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:02 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully, _________________________ _____________________________ Susan L. Davitt Mark Perry CITY CLERK - TREASURER CHAIRMAN