boa_10 20 1986LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTE RECORD
OCTOBER 20, 1986
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being 6 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present: Joe Norcross
John McDaniel
Ronald Woods
Jim Mitchell
Ronald Pierce
Herbert Rideout
Richard Yada (Item No. 4)
Members Absent: Thomas McGowan (1 Open
Position)
City Attorney: None
October 20, 1986
Item No. 1 - Z-3996-A
Owner: Little Rock Alarm Company, Inc.
Address: 217 North Chester
Description: Lots 6 and 7, Block 352
W.B. Worthen's Addition
Zoned: "O-3" and "R-5"
Variances
Requested: 1. From the area provisions of Section
7-102.3/d.1 and 3 to permit an
addition with reduced front and rear
yards.
2. From the off-street parking
provisions of Section 8-101 /B.2 to
permit less parking spaces than
required by ordinance.
Justification: We request that the variances be
approved due to conditions at the
present space. It would be a severe
hardship to move all alarm receiving
equipment now located at the present
address. We monitor 95 percent of all
high security locations in Little Rock
and North Little Rock. We operate 24
hours a day and dispatch the Police and
Fire Departments from this location. We
are not open to the public, and there
would be very little traffic in and out
of this building.
Present Use
of Property: Office and Parking
Proposed Use
of Property: Office and Parking
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
No issues have been reported as of this writing.
October 20, 1986
Item No. 1 - Continued
B. Staff Analvsis
The proposal is to add a second floor, approximately
4,500 square feet, to the existing structure. To
accomplish the desired expansion, the owner has
requested a setback variance for the rear and front
yards. Also, a variance from the required number of
parking spaces has been filed because of the increased
floor area. Currently, the building is constructed to
the side property lines and intrudes into the 15-foot
rear yard. Some of this encroachment was accomplished
in 1983 when the Board of Adjustment granted variances
for an addition to the east and south sides of the
structure. The new construction involves a stair
addition in the rear and second floor that will be
extended out over the front yard area which is being
used for parking. The structural involvement on the
north side will primarily consist of supports for the
addition. The other construction in the front will
maintain the 25-foot setback. Because of the area, the
expansion with the required variances will not have an
impact on the surrounding property and staff supports
the setback encroachments. Staff also feels that a
variance from the number of parking spaces is
reasonable because of the nature of the business.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the setback and parking
variances as requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Raymond Branton, was present. There were no
objectors. Staff indicated that AP &L had a concern with the
proposed addition and that the owner or applicant needed to
contact them. Mr. Branton then spoke. He said that the
owner was working with AP &L and made several other comments.
A motion was made to grant the variance as filed. The
motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent
and 1 open position.
October 20, 1986
Item No. 2 - Z-4676-B
Owner: Professional Land Company
Address: 3409 Baseline Road (at Hilaro Springs
Road)
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C-2"
variance
Requested: From the development criteria provisions
of Section 7-103.2/B.5 to permit drives
and parking within the 40-foot front
yard setback.
Justification: 1. To require a 40-foot landscape area
would be to give up 27,200 square
feet of parking and development area
on an already narrow frontage
corridor. The effect would be to
eliminate 4,000 square feet of
restaurant space and an additional
4,800 square feet of building in the
anchoring section of the facilities,
thus leaving an unusable plan for
locating the tenants in the most
opportune and advantageous area. An
additional 20 -foot natural and
landscaped buffer along with the
required six -foot fence was conceded
on the south and east sides of the
site, which at the extreme places
the buildings at 65 feet from the
property line and the closest
building is at 45 feet. This
results in 10,642.5 square feet of
additional property be dedicated to
the beauty and privacy of the
surrounding parties.
2. Due to the nature of the adjacent
structures along Hilaro Springs
Road, comprised of deeply set back
residences and noncompliance
commercial establishments, we feel
that the 10 -foot landscape
concession would be adequate when
added to the unused right-of-way.
October 20, 1986
Item No. 2 - Continued
This would give an area tapering
from approximately 25 to 35 feet in
the area between the entrances and
20 to 40 feet between the service
drive and the southern public drive.
There would be flare out areas at
the entrances giving additional
opportunity for landscaping and
neighborhood protection. In the
event that Hilaro Springs was
expanded some time in'the future, it
would still allow a substantial
landscape area.
3. In closing, the owners are willing
to meet and exceed all the
requirements but feel that the
unusual configuration of the site
and the usable furnished quarter is
paramount to the designing function
of the site. To reduce that
corridor any more would render it
sterile.
Present Use
of Property: Vacant and Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Shopping Center
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
Engineering reports that the north entrance on the
Hilaro Springs side needs to be redesigned.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to permit parking areas and driveways in
the required 40 -foot setback for the front yard on the
Hilaro Springs Road side of the property. In the
"C-2" district, the required 40-foot front yard setback
shall be landscaped and maintained by the property
owner, and no parking of wheeled vehicles shall be
allowed in the said 40-foot buffer. This particular
site is somewhat unique because of having two street
frontages thus requiring two front yard setbacks. The
owners are proposing to maintain the 40-foot buffer on
the Baseline Road side but to provide the necessary
parking circulation for the project, the owners find
October 20, 1986
Item No. 2 - Continued
it necessary to encroach into the 40-foot strip along
Hilaro Springs. Even though the 40-foot area will be
primarily paved, some landscaping is still being
proposed within the buffer. The site in question has
already been reviewed on two separate occasions by the
Planning Commission through a zoning change and site
plan review. The site plan was endorsed by the
Planning Commission with the owners agreeing to several
conditions, including a 20-foot landscape buffer along
the south and east sides. In addition, the owners were
required to dedicate additional right-of-way for both
Baseline and Hilaro Springs so that creates somewhat of
a hardship because it reduces the amount of land
available for development of the project. Staff feels
that adequate justification for the variance has been
provided, and that there will be no impact on other
properties in the area.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was represented by John Ayers, an architect.
There were no objectors. Mr. Ayers spoke briefly and said
that the applicant had no problems with redesigning the
north entrance on Hilaro Springs Road. The motion was made
to grant the variance subject to design of the north
entrance being approved by the City Engineer. The motion
passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open
position.
October 20, 1986
Item No. 3 - Z-4737
Owner: Donald Kirk
Address: 6209 Murray Street
Description: Tract 48, Little Rock Industrial
District
Zoned: "I-2"
Variance
Requested: From the setback provisions of Section
7-104.2/d.2 and 3 to permit an addition
with reduced side and rear yards.
Justification: 1. The variance in the side yard
setback is requested for the south
side of the property. This variance
is requested in order to allow the
new addition to line up with the
existing structure which is 14.7
feet from the property line rather
than the required 15 feet. This
variance is needed to avoid the
necessity of constructing a building
with a 0.3-foot offset which would
certainly appear strange.
2. The variance in the rear yard
setback is needed in order to allow
the addition of a 54-foot wide
addition across the back of the
building. The 54-foot dimension is
necessary both to meet the needs of
the tenant and because the owner
already has the steel needed for the
construction, and it conforms to
this dimension. Should this
variance be denied, the building's
tenant will have to accept a less
usable interior space, and the owner
will have to make costly changes on
the existing steel. As the plan
indicates, the rear property line is
adjacent to a railroad right-of-way
thus the loss of 9.35 feet of
setback would not adversely effect
the adjacent property.
October 20, 1986
Item No. 3 - Continued
Present Use
of Property: Industrial
Proposed Use
of Property: Industrial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None have been reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal involves an addition, 5,400 square feet,
to be constructed on the east side of the existing
building with the reduced rear and side yards. In the
"I-2" district, a 15-foot side yard and a 25-foot rear
yard are required. The encroachment on the south side
will be very minor, less than one foot, and will
maintain the existing building line. There will
continue to be adequate separation between the new
construction and the structure to the south. The rear
yard intrusion will be 10 feet, and this should not
have any impact on the properties to the east because
there is a railroad right-of-way adjacent to the site,
and the area to the east is currently wooded. It
appears that because of the size of the addition the
proposed arrangement is the only reasonable option
available that still provides adequate parking and
vehicular maneuvering.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the setback variances as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. After
a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the
variance as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 6
ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
October 20, 1986
Item No. 4 - Z-4739
Owner: Darrell Dover
Address: 22 River Valley
Description: Lot 24 and Part of Lot 25
River Ridge Manor
Zoned: "R-2"
Variance
Requested: From the rear yard provisions of
Section 7-101.2/D.3 to permit an
addition with a reduced setback.
Justification: Because of the terrain which slopes
steeply from the rear of the lot to the
street, it is not feasible economically
or aesthetically to make any addition to
the front of the house. The original
owner /builder favored front yard space
at the cost of rear yard space to the
extent of locating the main part of the
structure on the rear yard line, meaning
that virtually any addition to the rear
necessitates a variance from the rear
yard provisions of the ordinance.
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analvsis
The request is to allow a rear yard encroachment of
approximately nine feet for two additions, a bedroom
expansion and additional space for storage and a
workshop. In the "R-2" district, the rear yard setback
is 25 feet, so the yard area will be reduced to 16 feet
if the variance is granted. The lot is unique because
the slope and placement of the residence right on the
rear building line to take advantage of the site's
topography. Any type of addition to the rear
October 20, 1986
Item No. 4 - Continued
would require a variance, and this is not normally the
case with a lot that has a depth of 140 feet. So,
staff feels that a true hardship does exist. Because
of the type of addition and structural configuration,
the design concept chosen by the owner appears to be
the most functional and the best option available.
Adequate justification for the variance has been
provided, and the new construction will not have an
impact on any of the surrounding properties.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Darrell Dover, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Dover spoke briefly and said that he would
contact AP &L concerning their service entrance to the
residence. A motion was made to approve the variance
subject to the owner contacting AP &L. The motion passed by
a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
October 20, 1986
Item No. 5 - Z-4749
Owner: Jim Bottin
Address: 9808 Rodney Parham
Description: Lot 4-C, Old Forge Subdivision
Zoned: "C-3"
Variance
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-103.3/E.3 to permit an addition with a
15 -foot rear yard setback.
Justification: 1. The area shown for expansion in no
way interferes with bordering
property.
2. We feel that the present large
drainage easement taken from the
property gives little ability to
expand any other way.
3. Fifteen feet is still adequate
access to the rear of the property.
Fifteen feet would be level to the
fenced property and maintained in an
orderly fashion from the adjacent
parking lot.
Present Use
of Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
No issues have been reported by the Engineering staff.
B. Staff Analvsis
The request is to permit an addition with a 15-foot
setback. The "C-3" district requires a 25-foot rear
yard so encroachment will be 10 feet, if the variance
is granted. The new construction will involve
additional space, a training room and storage for a
martial arts school with a majority of the new area
being utilized for the training facility. The site
October 20, 1986
Item No. 5 - Continued
is located on Rodney Parham Road and abuts commercial
uses on three sides. The proposed addition will not
have impact on any of those properties because there
are parking areas separating this structure and the
buildings to the north and northwest. Staff feels
proper justification has been provided for the variance
and supports the request. The location is the only
one available because of a large easement and another
structure on the site. The new addition does raise one
concern, and that is parking. The other building on
the property is an eating establishment which has a
higher parking ratio, so the addition could create the
need for additional parking spaces.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the rear yard variance
subject to adequate parking being provided for all the
uses located on the site.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Larry Townley, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Townley spoke and said that he had no
problems with contacting AP &L, meeting a minimum floor
elevation of 382 feet, and providing the necessary parking.
He also went on to say that he had discussed the proposal
with the Fire Marshall's Office and they expressed no
concerns. A motion was made to approve the variance subject
to adequate parking being provided for all uses, the new
construction having a minium floor elevation of 382 feet,
and the applicant contacting AP &L. The motion passed by a
vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
October 20, 1986
Item No. 6 - Z-4753
Owner: Gary Jones
Address: West 6th Street and Izard
Northwest Corner
Description: E 104 feet of Lots 7, 8 and 9
Block 251, Original City of LR
Zoned: "I-2"
Variance
Requested: From the parking design provision of
Section 8-101 /1 to permit a variance
from the design standards for 90"
parking.
Justification: 1. Dillard's subsidizes parking for its
employees and contracts for parking
in the immediate vicinity of the
building at 900 West Capitol for
several very important reasons:
A. Over two-thirds of the employees
in the corporate offices are
female.
B. To provide operational support
for stores, the corporate
offices must open before 6 a.m.
and do not close until after
10 P.M.
C. When we have provided parking
outside the proximity of the
office building, we have had
major problems with harassment,
thef t and damage to employee
vehicles.
2. To date, we have been able to
contract for parking no further than
one block from our building at
900 West Capitol for over 370
employees. However, we still have
47 employees on the waiting list.
Not only do these employees have to
park further from the building than
is desirable, but they are paying up
to $25 per month for parking.
October 20, 1986
Item No. 6 - Continued
3. The parking lots that we provide for
our employees generally do not
conform to existing codes. They
were built before the new codes were
established. However, this does not
cause a problem, because most
employees drive substantially
smaller cars than were in existence
when the code was established, and
the building that is being
demolished on the lot in question is
more of an eyesore than an extension
of a parking lot would be. In fact,
parking lots exist immediately
north, south and west of the area in
question.
Present Use
of Property: Vacant Building and Parking
Proposed Use
of Property: Parking
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
The City's Traffic Engineer reports that he has
problems with the proposed design and cannot support
the variance. This position will be expanded on at the
public hearing.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board is to grant a variance from
the design standards for a parking lot providing 900
spaces. The Zoning Ordinance standards for 90° parking
are a width of 9 feet and a depth of 20 feet with a
20 -foot maneuvering lane. The proposal meets two of
requirements, width and maneuvering. The design for
the lot proposes a stall depth of 16 feet and not the
required 20 feet. Currently, the property is occupied
by parking, the existing 33 spaces on the west one -half
and a vacant structure on the east one -half. Should
this variance be approved, the building will be
removed, and the parking lot will be constructed with
some modifications being made to the existing spaces.
The reduction in depth should not create any problems,
because an adequate maneuvering lane is being provided,
and staff supports the design variance for the use of
the lot by Dillard's employees only. Any change in the
users of the parking spaces in the future will have to
reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. One final item
October 20, 1986
Item No. 6 - Continued
is the Landscaping Ordinance, and staff would like to
remind the applicant that this request is only for the
design of the spaces, and the landscaping requirements
will have to be met.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the design variance for
the parking lot with the condition that it is only to
be used by Dillard's employees.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Dan Garner, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Garner discussed the request briefly. Ed
Auffert, representing Dillard's, then spoke. He described
some of the problems at other locations and Dillard's
experiences with the existing 16 foot stalls. Mr. Auffert
went on to say that Dillard's has a policy of reassigning
cars to accommodate the size of the parking space.
Mr. Garner spoke again and addressed the landscaping
requirements. There were some additional comments made by
the various parties. A motion was made to grant the
variance subject to the condition that the parking lot is
only to be used by Dillard's employees. The motion was
approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open
position.
October 20, 1986
Item No. 7 - Z -4754
Owner: Pulaski Heights Presbyterian Church
Address: 4321 Woodlawn (at Walnut)
Description: W 1/2 of Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 6
Pulaski Heights Subdivision
Zoned: "R -2"
Variance
Requested: From the off - street park provisions of
Section 8- 101 /H.2 to permit a commercial
parking facility on property zoned
"R -2.'1
Justification: 1. There is inadequate space for
off - street parking.
2. Curbside parking existing is
sufficient to accommodate parking
needs but lacks the off - street
required by ordinance.
Present Use
of Property: Church Parking
Proposed Use
of Property: Parking for a Commercial Use
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
No issues have been identified.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to allow a church parking lot, zoned
"R -2," to be utilized as a commercial parking area for
a business located at 2611 Kavanaugh. The Board of
Adjustment is given the authority to approve detached
or satellite parking facilities when the location is
not zoned to allow the use which the parking will
serve. This issue has developed over the last two to
three months because the food store at 2611 Kavanaugh
is serving food which requires a greater amount of
parking, and this is the third time the matter is
before the Board. In September of this year, the
owners of 2611 Kavanaugh filed for a variance to allow
no off - street parking for the existing use. During
October 20, 1986
Item No. 7 - Continued
the public hearing, there was a lengthy discussion, and
after a number of comments were made, the issue was
withdrawn from consideration. This action was taken to
allow the applicant to develop a more formal agreement
with the church and to file the necessary variance to
permit the off -site parking. An agreement has been
signed by all the parties involved, and a copy is
attached. After carefully reviewing the request, staff
has some concerns with the proposed arrangement and
does not support the variance. Staff does not feel
that this is a viable option /location primarily because
of the distance, approximately 1 -1/2 blocks from the
business to the parking area. Another concern is that
the parking lot is somewhat removed from the commercial
area along Kavanaugh, and it is questionable whether
patrons of the food store would even make the effort to
find the parking at this location. If the spaces were
located along Kavanaugh, within 300 feet as required by
the ordinance, the lot would have greater visibility
which is important to making this type of parking work
and be a more viable alternative than what has been
offered through this request.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the parking variance as
requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Jim Moses, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Moses said that he was representing both the
Pulaski Heights Presbyterian Church and the owners of the
building at 2611 Kavanaugh. He then proceeded to review the
issue and pointed out that this was the third time it was
before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Moses said that a
hardship did exist because of an existing user in "C -3" and
that the area was unique because it was built up. He also
said that the variance was filed because the Board of
Adjustment requested a more structured agreement and then
reviewed the document. Sheri Pryor, owner of the business
at 2611 Kavanaugh, then spoke and presented a petition in
support of her store being located in the neighborhood.
There were some additional comments made about the petition
and the parking lot for the Masonic Lodge. A motion was
then offered which stated that the variance be approved with
the stipulation that the present lease never be assigned and
the intent of the motion is that it will only run with the
present leasee. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0
noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
September 16, 1986
PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
PULASKI HEIGHTS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (PH PC)
and
2611 KAVANAUGH PARTNERSHIP (2611)
In response to'the Partnership's desire to accommodate both their
tenant, Sheri's Natural Food Grocery and the City of Little Rock, the
above mentioned parties hereby agree to the following.
1. PH PC hereby agrees to make available their parking lot located on
the southeast corner of Woodlawn and Walnut Streets for patrons of Sheri's
Grocery, located at 2611 Kavanaugh, Little Rock, Arkansas. (see
Attachment "A ") _
2. Said use shall continue through June 30, 1989, (the date Sheri'-s
lease and options with 2611 Kavanaugh Partnership expire).
3. Should this agreement be terminated for any reason, by either
party, the Owners of the property, 2611 Kavanaugh Partnership shall within
30 days notify the City of Little Rock's Planning Staff that such
termination has occurred.
4. No alcoholic beverages shall be served in the.grocery.
5. Signage notifying Sheri's patrons that said parking is available
shall be posted within the grocery /restaurant. No signage will be posted
on the lot.
Agreed this 18thday of September, 1986.
oil
G<2 G<2xg6 W. Gunn
on behalf of Pulaski Heights Presbyterian Church
Sheri Pryor
on behalf of Sheri's Natural Food Grocery
J m uses
ehalf of the 2611 Kavanaugh partnership
October 20, 1986
Item No. 8 - Other Matters
Owner: Mr. and Mrs. K.A. Mueller
Address: 5212 Maryland Street
Request: Appeal of the Planning staff's
decision regarding expansion of a
nonconforming use.
STAFF REPORT:
On two separate occasions, the owners of 5212 Maryland
Street tried to obtain the necessary building permit to
construct a 6' x 10' addition to the rear of their
residence. In each instance, the City did not issue a
permit because the new construction would constitute the
expansion of a nonconforming use. This has occurred because
the existing structure is a single family residence, and the
lot is zoned "0 -3" General Office which does not permit
single family units by right.
The Zoning Ordinance is very specific when addressing
nonconforming uses and states that:
A nonconforming use shall not be extended, expanded,
enlarged or increased in intensity to any structure or
land area other than that occupied by such
nonconforming use on the effective date of this
ordinance whereby any amendment hereto which causes
such use to become nonconforming.
The staff has explained this provision to the owners and
offered two options, rezoning the lot to "O -1" or bringing
the issue before the Board of Adjustment as an appeal of the
staff's decision. After discussing the issue at length with
the staff, the owners requested that the Board of Adjustment
review the matter.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Staff briefly reviewed the matter and explained the issue.
Mrs. K.A. Mueller then addressed the Board. She discussed
the emergency situation because of her husband's condition
and said that to provide the needed space to do the
necessary modifications to the bathroom, that the proposed
addition was the only option. There was a long discussion
about the various concerns. A motion was then made which
stated that the intended use of adding an addition will not
expand the existing use of the structure and the original
intent of the ordinance is still valid and the structure
will be of a nonconforming status. In review of the
October 20, 1986
Item No. 8 - Continued
nonconforming status, the Board finds that the anticipated
addition to the existing structure is not an expansion of
the nonconforming use, therefore it meets the intent of the
ordinance and an addition can be allowed to be constructed.
The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1
absent and 1 open position.
October 20, 1986
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
? C�/ 1
ec etar irman
Date