boa_11 17 1986LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTE RECORD
NOVEMBER 17, 1986
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being 5 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present: Richard Yada
(Acting Chairman)
John McDaniel
Ronald Woods
Jim Mitchell
Ronald Pierce
Members Absent: Joe Norcross
Herbert Rideout
Thomas McGowan
(1 Open Position)
City Attorney: Steven Giles
November 17, 1986
Item No. 1 - Z-3671-A
Owner: P.C. Hardware Company
Address: 3201 South Elm
Description: Lots 1-7, Block 7
Dickinson Mill Addition
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
Variances
Requested: From the setback provisions of Section
7-104.2/e to permit reduced front, side
and rear yards.
Justification: This proposal will allow a logical
expansion of the existing building and
would conform to the existing site
development as well as other properties
in the immediate area. In addition,
these lots were platted many years ago
and are too small for proper "I-2" site
development.
Present Use
of Property: Industrial
Proposed Use
of Property: Industrial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None have been reported as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to permit a new addition with reduced
setbacks for the front, rear and side yards. The
proposal calls for a zero -foot setback for the rear and
side with a 16.4-foot encroachment for the front yard
which the ordinance requires to be 50 feet. It appears
that the location of the site is the only viable one
available for expansion and any addition to the
existing building would require a variance. The
building was constructed with no rear setback, and the
plan is to maintain that building line. Construction
to property lines is quite common in the area, and
there does not seem to have been any undesirable
impacts from that type of development pattern. This
November 17, 1986
Item No. 1 - Continued
has occurred because the old Zoning Ordinance allowed
for no setbacks in the industrial district. Staff
feels that reasonable justification has been provided
for the variances and supports the request.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variances as
requested.
BOARD OFADJUSTMENT ACTION: (11-17-86)
Staff informed the Board that the item needed to be
deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the
December 15, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a
vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position.
November 17, 1986
Item No. 2 - Z-4762
Owner: Merrill D. Keith, Sr.
Address: 8402 Dreher
Description: Lot 148, Windamere Subdivision
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variances
Requested: From the height and area provisions of
Section 5-101 /f.2.c to permit an
accessory building less than 60 feet
from a front property line.
Justification: The construction began prior to a
September 29, 1986, memo giving the
opinion that front line distance of
60 feet from the street also applies to
side streets. In view of this most
recent opinion, it would make it
virtually impossible to construct a
building for the purpose of housing a
boat without putting it right in the
middle of the yard. This would
certainly detract from the looks and
value of the property.
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None.
B. Staff Analysis
This issue is before the Board because the owner failed
to obtain the necessary permit prior to beginning
construction on the building. When the owner applied
for a permit, it was also determined that a variance
would be necessary because the building is less than 60
feet from the street or front property line. The
definition for front line states that in case of a
double frontage lot or corner lot, each line separating
such lot from the street shall be considered a front
November 17, 1986
Item No. 2 - Continued
lot line, and the ordinance requires that an accessory
building in the "R-1" through "R-4" districts shall not
be located closer than 60 feet to the front property
line. This requirement does place somewhat of a
hardship on corner lots because it would make the rear
yards unusable in many instances. By placing this
structure behind the platted building line and a fence,
the owner thought that he had met all the requirements
and was unaware of any other possible restrictions.
Because of being used for a boat storage, the structure
needs to be readily accessible, and the owner has
chosen such a location without creating any problems
for the adjoining properties.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to grant the variance as filed. The motion
passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open
position.
November 17, 1986
Item No. 3 - Z-4763
Owner: Briarwood Residential Care
Address: 516 South Rodney Parham
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "O-3" General Office
Variances
Requested: 1. From the parking provisions of
Section 8-101.d/2.8 to permit fewer
spaces than required by ordinance.
2. From the setback provisions of
Section 7-102.3/d.3 to permit a
reduced rear yard.
3. From the screening fence provisions
of Section 7-102/c.4 to permit
elimination of screening
requirement.
Justification:
1. It is physically impossible to comply with the zoning
codes due to lack of space. The proposed site plan for
the new addition has 10 new spaces (15 required), and
we just cannot add any more. We respectfully suggest
that the code requiring one space per bed is excessive,
especially considering the fact that none of the 380
patients in nursing homes operated by Stites and
Morton, Inc. keep a vehicle at the facility. Employees
of the Briarwood Nursing Center park off the site.
2. The proposed addition is connected to and in line with
the existing facility which is 12 feet off the rear
property line. The proposed building is 34 feet long
at the rear property line, and the existing building is
138 feet long at the rear property line. It is our
contention that aesthetically the new addition should
be in line with the existing building.
3. We respectfully suggest that an opaque fence would
serve no practical purpose in this instance. The
residents of the nursing home need to be able to look
out the windows and see something besides an opaque
fence, and the residents of the adjacent two story
apartment buildings that are directly behind will
easily be able to see over the fence.
November 17, 1986
Item No. 3 - Continued
Present Use
of Property: Nursing Home
Proposed Use
of Property: Same with expansion
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None have been reported as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
This proposal for an addition involves three variance
requests: a reduced rear yard, waiving the screening
requirements, and allowing the reduction of the number
of parking spaces. In the "O-3" district, the required
rear yard setback is 15 feet, and in this situation,
the proposed encroachment will be slightly less than
three feet. Another requirement for the office
district is that a permanent opaque screening fence,
wall or landscape buffer shall be provided along a side
or rear property line which abuts property zoned for
residential purposes. In this situation, the property
abuts a multifamily development to the rear, and thus,
the requirement for the screening fence. The parking
requirement for a nursing home is one space for each
bed, and with this particular facility including the
addition, 76 spaces would be required and 31 are being
proposed. The setback variance is being requested to
maintain the building line established by the existing
structure, and that encroachment has not had any effect
on the property to the west. Regarding the screening
requirements, staff believes that an opaque fence will
not add to the livability of the multifamily units, and
is unnecessary. This is reinforced by the fact that a
portion of the area to the west is used for parking and
also some of the units are two stories. The parking
variance is fairly significant with the proposed
reduction of 45 spaces. The new addition will have 15
rooms requiring 15 spaces and 10 new spaces are being
proposed along the east side of the existing building.
Currently, the use does not provide the necessary
parking, and with the employees parking off -site, the
available spaces are sufficient. The applicant has
also pointed out that none of the patients are able to
keep vehicles at the nursing home so the parking
variance is reasonable.
November 17, 1986
Item No. 3 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the three variances as
requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Don Collie, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Collie made several comments and said that
the Fire Department had approved the proposed construction.
A motion was made to approve all three variances as
requested. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3
absent, and 1 open position.
November 17, 1986
Item No. 4 - Z-4764
Owner: James E. Jones
Address: 1705 North Tyler
Description: Lot 15, Block 3
Englewood Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variances
Requested: From the side yard provisions of
Section 5-101.f /2.e to permit a carport
to remain 18 -20 inches off the property
line.
Justification: The carport is behind the house. The
location was chosen because it is a
continuation of the driveway and aligns
with the preexisting storage building.
The carport is modeled after a
neighbor's carport. The two are almost
identical, and it is a compliment to the
property. A general observation of the
neighborhood showed that the carport was
in line with similar structures in the
area.
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to allow a detached carport to be
located 18 to 20 inches from the side property line.
The Zoning Ordinance requires an accessory structure to
maintain a 3 -foot setback from any side property line.
The carport is in place and the request for a variance
was filed because of an enforcement action by the City.
The owner has stated that the carport was constructed
in such a fashion as to duplicate an existing carport
on the lot to the north, and he assumed that it met all
November 17, 1986
Item No. 4 - Continued
the necessary codes. There is very little separation
between the two structures, especially the roofs, but
both are open carport and that does lessen the impact
of being constructed on the property line. The
location was chosen because of an existing driveway and
without disrupting the openness of the rear yard. All
the accessory buildings on the lot are located along
the north property line. A true hardship does not
exist, but the carport should not create any problems
for the adjoining lot.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance with the
condition that the carport remain open on all four
sides.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, James Jones, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Jones indicated that he had no problems with
the recommended condition. A motion was made to grant the
variance subject to the carport being open on all four
sides. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes,
3 absent, and 1 open position.
November 17, 1986
Item No. 5 - Z-4766
Owner: Walt and Claudia Stallings
Address: 5523 Sherwood Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "R -2" Single Family
Variances
Requested: From the setback provision of Section
7-101.2 /e.1 to permit a reduced front
yard.
Justification:
1. Existing excessive slopes: The existing residence sets
on a plateau developed during the original
construction. Sherwood Road located to the northeast
of the residence is at least 30 feet above the finished
first floor of the residence. The embankment between
Sherwood Road and the residence is extremely steep and
unbuildable. The site continues to slope to the
southwest in almost an equally unbuildable fashion
leaving the plateau developed earlier as the only
viable building site.
2. Existing internal structural configuration and floor
plan: The existing roof structure is framed
northeast - southwest which dictates the most appropriate
framing scheme for the new addition. The existing
kitchen is located in the west corner of the existing
residence, therefore, dictating the most appropriate
location for the breakfast room and den addition.
3. Existing carport: The existing carport intrudes upon
the setback line south of the north boundary. In order
to best utilize the existing conditions of the site,
the new addition will generally occupy the same space
as a carport and will only intrude further upon the
setback at its most western corner.
4. Mimimal impact on subdivision: Since the new addition
will be significantly below the Sherwood Road street
grade (at least 30 feet) and since the existing
embankment is heavily wooded, it is our feeling that
the proposed addition will have almost no impact on the
existing conditions of the subdivision. (Only the roof
will be partially visible from Sherwood Road.)
November 17, 1986
Item No. 5 - Continued
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Enqineerinq Issues
None have been reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to permit an addition on the north side
of the existing residence with a 12 -foot setback. The
"R-2" district requires a 25-foot front yard so the
encroachment will be 13 feet. The site is very unique
because it is approximately 30 feet below Sherwood Road
and continues to slope to the south. The house is
located on the most buildable part of the lot which
restricts the direction that any expansion can take
place. Also, the proposed addition involves a
breakfast room, and with the kitchen being located at
the northwest corner, the location is the most logical.
The lot's topography and placement of the structure on
the site create a hardship, and staff supports the
request. Finally, the addition will occupy an area
that was previously used as a carport with a similar
setback so some type of front yard intrusion has
existed for years.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The
motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1
open position.
November 17, 1986
Item No. 6 - Z-4767
Owner: Eddie Welch
Address: 6100 Forbing Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
Variances
Requested: From the setback provisions of
Section 7-104.2/e.2 to permit an
addition with a reduced side yard.
Justification:
The new expansion will be for warehouse
storage. The existing building is
located five feet from the west property
line. The existing building is a
preengineered steel structure, and the
expansion would be a 50-foot
continuation of the existing building
toward the north property line. If the
expansion must set 15 feet from the west
property line, it will restrict the
access to the rear of the property,
increase the cost of construction and
reduce the benefit of the new storage
area.
Present Use
of Property: Vacant Building
Proposed Use
of Property: Industrial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Enqineerinq Issues
No issues have been reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board is to grant a side yard
variance for an addition to an industrial building.
The request is to reduce the setback from 15 feet to
five feet or an encroachment of 10 feet. The existing
structure has a 5 -foot setback on the west side, and
the plans are to maintain a similar side yard
relationship with the proposed addition. The structure
that is currently on the site was probably constructed
prior to the adoption of the new ordinance when no
November 17, 1986
Item No. 6 - Continued
setbacks were required in industrial districts. The
property to the west is occupied by an office use and
has inadequate setback from the lot line so the reduced
yard area for the site in question has not had an
impact on it. Staff feels that proper justification
has been provided and supports the request. Requiring
the necessary setback of 15 feet could create some
problems for the owner by restricting accessibility to
the back of the property and making some of it
unusable.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Eddie Welch, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Welch spoke briefly and said that he had no
problems with reviewing the access with the City's Traffic
Engineer. A motion was made to approve the variance subject
to the Traffic Engineer's approval of access and the parking
layout. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3
absent, and 1 open position.
November 17, 1986
Item No. 7 - Other Matters (Z-4645-A)
Owner: Holly Springs Brick and Tile Company
Address: 5705 Patterson Road
Description: To reconsider and modify a previous
Board of Adjustment approval.
STAFF REPORT:
In April of 1986, the Board of Adjustment approved a
variance for this location to waive some of the screening
requirements. The property is zoned "I-2" which requires
all outdoor storage to be screened by a 6-foot opaque area.
The Board of Adjustment allowed the owners to have a
non-opaque fence along the rear of the property line
adjacent to some railroad tracks. An opaque fence was
required to be constructed along the two streets, Patterson
and Freezer Roads. After reviewing some crime reports and
discussing security for the site with the police, the owners
are now requesting that they be allowed to place a chain
link fence along some of the Freezer Road frontage. (A
graphic will be available at the hearing that shows the
exact location.) The chain link fence would make the rear
of the site more visible and easier for the police to
control. If the opaque fence is constructed, it would be
very difficult to see any questionable activity taking place
on the site.
Staff feels this is a reasonable request and sees no problem
with modifying the approval.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Henry Fullmer, manager of the proposed brick yard, was
present. There was a long discussion about the request and
Mr. Fullmer reviewed the reasons for needing the chain link
fence along Freezer Road. He said that the Police had
recommended it to make the rear yard more visible. A motion
was then made to modify the previous Board of Adjustment
approval to allow a chain link fence along a portion of the
Freezer Road frontage. The motion was approved by a vote of
5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position.
November 17, 1986
Item No. 8 - Other Matters
Owner: Heavrin Construction Company, Inc.
(The Fishing Hole)
Address: 9823 Hilaro Springs Road
Request: Appeal of the Zoning Enforcement Office
decision to deny a privilege license
for The Fishing Hole.
STAFF REPORT:
The primary issue is to determine whether The Fishing Hole,
a "for pay" fishing facility, is an expansion of a
nonconforming use. At the time of annexation, a
contractor's storage yard was on the property, and it came
into the City as a nonconforming use. The contractor's
operation, Heavrin Construction Company, still occupies the
site which is zoned "R-2." The Enforcement staff's position
is that The Fishing Hole is an illegal expansion and
requires a "C-4" reclassification for outdoor amusement.
The Zoning Ordinance provides for some changes or expansions
of nonconforming uses, and the applicable provisions are
found in Section 5-101.c.
1. Expansions
A nonconforming use shall not be extended, expanded,
enlarged, or increased in intensity to any structure
or land area other than occupied by such
nonconforming use on the effective date of this
ordinance or any other amendment hereto which causes
such use to become nonconforming.
2. Change in Use
If no structural alterations are made, a
nonconforming use of a building may be changed to
another nonconforming use of the same or more
restrictive classification. In no case, however,
shall such use of a building be reverted back to a
more intensive nonconforming use.
The Planning staff is still reviewing this issue and will
provide additional information at the time of the hearing.
(Attached are various written materials between the City and
Heavrin Construction Company /The Fishing Hole.)
November 17, 1986
Item No. 8 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (11-15-86)
A representative of the Fishing Hole was not present so
staff recommended that the issue be deferred. A motion was
made to defer the matter to the December 15, 1986, meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3
absent, and 1 open position.
HEAVRIN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
9823 Hilaro Springs Road
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72209
October 20, 1986
Board of Adjustment
Office of Comprehensive Planning
Room 311 City Hall
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: The Fishing Hole
9823 Hilaro Springs Rd.
ATTN: Mr. Antoni Bozynski
TELEPHONE:
565 -5521
On May 29, 1986 I contacted and was assured by the City Collector's
Office that we did not need a Privilege License. The reasons given
were three fold - 1) Our present license, #02049 is the most expensive
and extensive we could purchase, costing us $535. 2) No new buildings
have been constructed (only a remodeling of an old oil storage building)
and both lakes existed prior to being annexed into the city 3) The
Fishing Hole and Heavrin Construction have the same address - on the
same piece of property.
On September 24, 1986 Maxine Biggers sent a letter to us stating, "Mr.
Heavrin, I am very sorry you were given incorrect information. Your
'Fishin' Hole' sounds like an excellent family recreation and I hope
you will be able to continue its operation. It would be a shame to
let $156.75 deter this activity."
On September 30, 1986 we sent a check for $156.75 to the City Collector.
They have returned the check and if we do not file for a waiver, they
will close our doors in 30 days.
We request a review of the staff decisions and want to appear before
your board to clarify the facts about this matter. If would be a
shame to have to close a business that - 1) Reinforces the family unit
by providing a place where parents /grandparents can bring their children/
grandchildren for a family outing and be confident they will catch fish,
which is clean fun and more fish needs to be a part of the family diet -
fun, health, family bonds and safety are of prime importance to us.
2) It brings in much needed tax dollars for Little Rock.
We appreciate your consideration.
Respectfully,
Roy Dale Clark
The Fishing Hole
II Cor. 13:14
City of Little Rock
Office of the City Collector
100 City Hall
Markham at Broadway
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
371-4566
September 24, 1986
Mr. Jimmy Heavrin
9823 Hilaro Springs Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
Dear Mr. Heavrin:
I wanted to clarify certain parts of the Privilege License Ordinance for you.
1. Any person, firm, or corporation engaging in more than one business,
occupation or profession shall be required to obtain a license and pay
the tax for each such business, occupation or profession. (Sec. 21-3)
2. Mistakes in computation or incorrect information given verbally shall
not prevent or prejudice the collection by the city of what is actually
provided for as due under the provisions of this article. (Sec. 21-9a)
Mr. Heavrin, I am very sorry you were given incorrect information. Your
"Fishin' Hole" sounds like an excellent family recreation and I hope you
will be able to continue its operation. It would be a shame to let $156.75
deter this activity.
If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me.
Yours truly,
Maxine E. Biggers
City Collector
cc: Charles Alale, Revenue Collector
MEB /cc
City of Little Rock
Office of the
City Collector
100 City Hall
Markham at Broadway
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
371-4566
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Jim Hathcock, Environmental Codes.Chief
FROM: Maxine E. Biggers, City Collector
SUBJECT: Privilege License Application -The Fishing Hole
DATE: October 7, 1986
Attached is a letter to the owner of "The Fishing Hole ". This business has
been operating for several months and has had a most favorable newspaper
article written about it.
It was with great difficulty that we were able to secure payment for this
new business. Mr. Alale and I each had to do much convincing to have them
not be completely hostile to the city and take up the matter with the
City Manager.
I would appreciate your reviewing this application. Hopefully, you will
be able to approve it. If you are unable to do so I wanted to alert you
to all possible ramifications.
Please advise your decision as soon as possible.
Enclosures
cc: Charles A. Alale
MEB /cc
Engineering Division
Department of Pubtic Works
701 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
371-4800
M E M O R A N D U M
October 9, 1986
TO: Maxine Biggers, Clty Collector
FROM: Jim Hathcock, Environmental Codes Chief
SUBJECT: "The Fishing Hole ", 9823 Hilaro Springs Road
Upon investigation of the above situation, it has been determined that
there is an illegal expansion of a non - conforming use at this location.
When this property was annexed there was a contractors operation at this
location, which was annexed as non - conforming. With the development of
the pay to fish operation the expansion occurred. Therefore, the only
alternative the owner has is to request a re- Zoning of the entire property
to C-4. The application process for this request should be initiated with
a visit to the Office of Comprehensive Planning.
Until this particular issue is resolved we cannot approve a privilege
lidense for this business.
JRH /ps
cc: Enforcement File
November 17, 1986
Item No. 9 - Other Matters
Owner: Fred Baresch
Address: 5911 "H" Street
Request: To review the "O-3" district and to
determine if an unlisted use is
compatible.
STAFF REPORT:
The use in question is a surveying instrument repair
facility. The space is a part of a small office building
and would be divided up between an office in the front and
the repair operation in the rear. The work would be similar
to watch repair and originate from customers across the
United States who would ship the instruments needing the
repair work. There would be minimal walk -in business.
Attached is a copy of the "O-3" district from the Zoning
Ordinance with the permitted, accessory and conditional
uses.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (11-15-86)
Mr. Fred Baresch was not present. A motion was made to
defer the item to the December 15, 1986, meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of a 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent,
and 1 open position.
SECTION 7 -102.3 "O-3" GENERAL OFFICE DISTRICT
(a) PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The 110 -3" General Office District is established to accommodate
offices and associated administrative, executive and professional
uses in new and existing structures together with specified
institutional and accessory uses. The "O-3" District is
characterized by freestanding buildings and ancillary parking,
and shall be limited to arterial street locations in developed
areas of the City and other carefully selected areas where public
utilities, community facilities and other public services are
adequate to support general office development.
(b) USE REGULATIONS:
1. Permitted Uses
a. Bank or Savings and Loan
b. Church
c. Clinic (medical, dental or optical)
d. College Dormitory
e. College Fraternity or Sorority
f. Community Welfare or Health Center
g. Convent or Monastery
h. Day Nursery or Day -Care Center
i. Duplication Shop
j. Establishment for Care of Alcoholic,
Narcotic, or Psychiatric Patients
k. Establishment of a Religious, Charitable
or Philanthropic Organization
l. Laboratory
m. Library, Art Gallery, Museum or Other Similar
Use
n. Lodge or Fraternal Organization
o. Mortuary or Funeral Home
p. Nursing Home or Convalescent Home
q. Office (general and professional)
r. Photography Studio
s. Private School, Kindergarten or Institution
for Special Education
t. Rooming, Lodging and Boarding Facilities
u. School (business)
v. School (public or denominational)
w. Studio (broadcasting and recording)
x. Studio (art, drama, speech, dance or similar
skills)
y. Travel Bureau
2. Accessory Uses
The following accessory uses are permitted only in
09
conjunction with an allowable use or uses in the "0-3"
District and shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the
total floor area on this site.
a. Antique Shop
b. Barber or Beauty Shop
c. Book and Stationery Store
d. Camera Shop
e. Cigar, Tobacco, or Candy Store
f. Clothing Store
g. Custom Sewing or Millinery
h. Drug Store or Pharmacy
i. Eating Place without Drive -in Service
j. Florist Shop
k. Health Studio or Spa
l. Hobby Shop
m. Jewelry Shop
n. Key Shop
o. Tailor Shop
3. Conditional Uses
a. Barber and Beauty Shops
b. Animal Clinic (enclosed)
c. Cemetery or Mausoleum
d. Health Studio or Spa
e. Job Printing, Lithographer, Printing or
Blueprinting
f. Parking, Commercial Lot or Garage
g. Multi- family Dwellings (as per "R -5" District)
h. Orphanage
i. School (commercial, trade or craft)
j. Studio (music, dance or ceramics)
November 17, 1986
Item No. 10 - Other Matters
Name: Ray Camp
Address: 2017 Kavanaugh
Request: Appeal of a staff's decision regarding
a nonconforming use.
STAFF REPORT:
2017 Kavanaugh is the location of the Colonial Flower Shop,
and the property is nonconforming because of no off street
parking. A florist requires a parking ratio of one space
per 300 square feet of gross floor area. The Zoning
Ordinance allows other uses with the same parking ratio to
occupy the building but ones requiring a greater ratio are
prohibited.
After Mr. Camp completed remodeling of the structure, he
leased some of the area to a beauty salon which requires a
parking ratio of 1 space per 200 square feet. At some point
Mr. Camp was informed that the necessary privilege license
for the beauty shop would not be issued because of the
parking nonconformity. Mr. Camp feels that the parking will
not be a problem because the beauty salon's business will be
by appointment only, and this section of Kavanaugh is not as
congested as the Hillcrest neighborhood commercial area.
Attached is a copy of Mr. Camp's letter requesting that this
decision be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Ray Camp was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Camp
discussed location and the parking issue. He said that the
building had a total of 3,400 square feet with the beauty
salon occupying 800 square feet and requiring four
off-street parking spaces. There was a long discussion
between Mr. Camp and the Board. A motion was then offered
to reaffirm the staff's decision and that the owner should
file for the necessary parking variance. The motion was
approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open
position.
November 17, 1986
Item No. 11 - Other Matters (Z-4714-A)
Owner: Laurie Dwyer
Address: 905 or 911 West 14th
(SW Corner of West 14th and Izard)
Request: Reconsideration of a previous variance
approval.
STAFF REPORT:
In August of this year, the owner was granted two variances
to allow reduced front and side yards for a new building.
The Board of Adjustment approved a 5-foot setback for
West 14th Street and a 20-foot front yard for the Izard
Street side with a privacy fence to be constructed along the
south property line. At that time, the lot was occupied by
a duplex and a small commercial building. The duplex was
removed to allow for construction of the new structure.
After receiving the necessary approvals from the City,
application was made to the Alcoholic Beverage Commission
for the new building. The license was denied because of
insufficient distance between a building located on the
Philander Smith campus and the proposed structure.
On October 15, 1986, the existing commercial building was
damaged by a fire. After the owners began the repair work,
they ran into some difficulties and decided to tear down the
entire structure. Work was then initiated on a new building
using the same slab without first obtaining a permit. The
City stopped the work for various reasons, including removal
of a nonconforming structure. The Zoning Ordinance states:
"In the event that any structure that is devoted in whole
or in part to a nonconforming use is destroyed by fire,
explosion or other casualty or the public enemy to the
extent of more than 50 percent of the current replacement
value immediately prior to such damage, such structure
shall not be restored unless such structure and use
thereof shall thereafter conform to all regulations of the
zoning district in which such structure and use are
located. When such damage or destruction is 50 percent or
less of the reasonable replacement value of the structure
immediately prior to such damage, such structure may be
repaired, reconstructed and used for the same purposes as
it was before the damage or destruction; provided that
such repair or construction is commenced and completed
within 12 months of the date of such damage or
destruction.
November 17, 1986
Item No. 11 - Continued
Structures which are developed prior to the passage of
this ordinance that complied with the then existing
standards for development and which now have been rendered
substandard by these new regulations shall be termed
"preexisting conforming structures," and in the event of
damage or destruction, may be allowed to build back to the
original placement."
If the building was in place and in use prior to 1937, the
adoption of zoning regulations by the City of Little Rock,
then the building would be "a preexisting conforming
structure." At the suggestion of the staff, the owner
researched this and could only find records verifying a
commercial use dating back to 1942.
The issue before the Board is to determine whether the
building can be finished and occupied by applying the
previous variance approval to the new location. The
structure does not meet the setback requirements for the
side and rear yards with the West 14th Street side having a
greater setback than what was initially approved.
Staff feels comfortable with the new proposal and can
support a restructuring of a variance approval with no
modification made to the privacy fence requirement. Also,
the owner should review the parking layout and circulation
with the City's traffic engineer.
(Attached is a sequence of events as outlined by
Laurie Dwyer.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The owner, Laurie Dwyer, was present. There were eight
interested residents in attendance. Ms. Dwyer discussed the
issue and the request before the Board. A representative of
Philander Smith College addressed the Board and stated for
the record that the College did not support any waiver of
the ABC regulations. Hazel Bowers, a resident on Izard
Street, then spoke. She expressed concerns with traffic
circulation and parking on Izard. Mrs. Bowers said that
traffic in the neighborhood would increase and that could
have a real impact on Izard Street. Jewel Williams also
discussed traffic movement and potential loitering problems.
Mildred Branson, operator of a beauty shop across Izard,
said that she was concerned with the congestion in the
immediate area. Tommy Davis, property owner directly to the
south, suggested that the alley should be one -way to the
south and that he wanted a real privacy fence. Another
resident discussed parking problems on Izard and traffic.
November 17, 1986
Item No. 11 - Continued
Mrs. Bowers spoke again and made the suggestion that parking
be prohibited along Izard at certain times of the day.
There were several other comments made by the various
individuals. A motion was then made which stated that the
original Board of Adjustment approval be modified to allow
side and rear yard encroachments for the building under
construction with no waiver of the six foot privacy fence
requirement and that the City's Traffic Engineer approve
circulation, access, and parking. The motion passed by a
vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position.
30 October, 1996
City Board of Adjustment
Little Rock, Arkansas
14c�i"t4Y P_wT
Members of the Little Rock Board of Adjustment
Attached please find an application for variances to the front, side and back
yard provisions of the Little Rock Code of Ordinaces for property located at
the SW corner of 14th and Izard Streets. The lot is zoned "C-3 ".
would like to list the sequence of events which placed me in the present
dilemma
( I ). I purchased the liquor store in November, 1985 as a profitable
and going business.
(2). 1 was informed by the traffic control office (Mr. Henk
Koomstra) that the drive -in window (located on the alley) must be
moved to another portion of the building because of traffic
problems. The situation was caused by the backup of traffic on 14th
Strcct of our customers seeking service at this drive-in window on
Saturday nights.
(3). As a prelude to building a new facility, I purchased the property.
At that time it contained the liquor store building, and a fully
rented duplex.
(4). 1 was given to understand that the ABC would permit a new
building and the east end of the lot.
(5). 1 demolished the duplex in preparation for new construction.
(6). 1 applied for and recieved variances from your board for a new
building.
(7). The ABA, in a adverse interpretation of the school /church
"off-set" distance requirements, informs me that now it will no
(8). On 15 October, 1986 the building was damaged by a arsonist fire.
About 3 feet by 5 feet of the back wall was destroyed and a 3 feet
by 5 foot patch of the roof was damaged.
(9). Subsequent to the f ire I have had to destroy over $ 12,000 worth
of beverage stock (of which only $2,000 is covered by insurance).
(10). My husband and his friends gutted the building of internal wall
surfaces and al I electrical wiring in preparation for repair and
remodeling work. He applied for a repair /remodeling permit at the
city and started work. We had planned to replace the back wall and
portions of the side walls with concrete block. This was
accomplished and work started on the roof. Because of the hidden
damage to the roofing trusses, my husband made a decision based in
good faith and on common sense. The whole structure was unsturdy
at that time. He took the rest of the building down. However, the
decision was made without a complete knowledge of the intricacies
of the city building regulations. If hewould have only took down 1/2
of the building we would have no problems now. He instructed
the masons to exactly replace the stud walls with concrete block
ones and pour a concrete roof. This took place on a Saturday(18
October) andwork continued until stopped by a building inspector on
Monday(20 October). The roof was about to be poured within 2 hours.
I make no excuses for what happened but would like to explain the
circumstances.... the store was closed, employees were kept on,
expenses were mounting andliterally "our time was money ". We only
wanted to reopen the store.We did not use this opportunity to expand
the building and in our eyes we entended no deception. We intended
originally only to repair the building with a fireproof rear wall and
ended up w i th 4 new w 1 I surfaces.
As indicated in my previous variance requests the drive -in window is 95% of
our business.,Moving it to the rear of the building seems my only option now.
Your granting the variances and movement of the drive -in window to the
rear of the building with access on Izard Street would enable me to stay in
business, while complying with the demands of the traffice control office and
the ABC.
It is obvious to me that whoever burned our building counted on our going out
of business and without your help now and expedious handling by the permit
staff later that is exactly what will happen. I sincerly implore you to grant
my requests. My livelihood depends on your decision.
Yours Truly,
Laurie Dwyer
November 17, 1986
Item No. 12 - Adoption of the 1987 Calendar of Meetings
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The 1987 calendar was adopted as submitted by the staff.
The vote 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position.
November 17, 1986
Item No. 13 - Proposed Change_in Filing Fees
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The Board deferred action on the proposed filing fee changes
to the December 15, 1986, meeting.
November 17, 1986
There being no further business before the Board. the
meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Secretary Chairman
Date