boa_02 28 1986LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTE RECORD
FEBRUARY 28, 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: Joe Norcross
(Acting Chairman)
Ronald Woods
Richard Yada
Thomas McGowan
Herbert Rideout
Members Absent: George Wells
(3 Open Positions)
City Attorney: Tom Carpenter
February 28, 1986
Item No. 1 - Z-2566-A
Owner: Equitable Life Assurance Society of the
United States
Address: 7123 I-30
Description: Lot 2, Tucker's Commercial Acres
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
Variance
Requested: From the height restrictions of
Section 38-3 to permit construction of a
100-foot T.V. antenna
Justification: The additional height will allow more
remote broadcast to be received. The
hill to the west is approximately 80
feet higher than this site. The
appearance of the 100-foot tower is not
significantly different than the 75-foot
size and should be acceptable to the
adjoiners.
Present Use of
Property: Office /Warehouses
Proposed Use of
Property: Television studio
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None have been reported as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to grant a height variance for a
100-foot antenna tower. The City Ordinance allows
ground mounted towers up to 75 feet so the variance is
for 25 feet. The property is located in southwest
Little Rock, adjacent to I-30 and in primarily a light
industrial area. Because of the site's location, the
tower will not have an impact on the surrounding
properties or other buildings in the immediate
vicinity. In addition, there are similar towers in the
general area, one being in excess of 300 feet, and it
appears that those towers have not created any
problems. Proper justification for the height variance
has been provided and staff supports the request.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
February 28, 1986
Item No. 1 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Bill Ruck, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Ruck made several comments and there was
some discussion about the proposal. A motion was made to
approve the height variance as filed. The motion passed by
a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions.
February 28, 1986
Item No. 2 - Z-4611
Owner: Jim Barre
Address: 15 Perdido
Description: Lot 152, St. Charles Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the side yard provisions of
Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit a new deck
with a 3-foot setback
Justification: 1. The no vehicular easement on
St. Charles Street.
2. Private drive easement across the
rear of the property.
3. Excessive slope to the property from
St. Charles Street to Perdido and
the slope from west to east.
4. Curvature of Perdido Street in front
of the home.
5. The design of the home.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family (under construction)
Proposed Use of
Property: Same
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None have been reported.
B. Staff Analvsis
The request is to allow a 10' x 26' deck on the east
side of the residence with a 3-foot setback at the
closest point to the property line. The Zoning
Ordinance requires an 8-foot side yard for this
particular lot. Because of the design of the deck,
only one corner will be encroaching into the necessary
setback. The lot is unique because of several
easements in the rear and the slope from east to west
February 28, 1986
Item No. 2 - Continued
which causes the structure to be situated on the site
closer to the east property line and creating the need
for a variance. Staff feels that a hardship does exist
and supports the request. The owner has provided
adequate justifications for the variance. The reduced
setback will not have an impact on the property to the
east because the amount of encroachment is so small.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the side yard variance be
granted.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
item was discussed briefly by the Board. A motion was made
to grant the variance. The motion was approved by a vote of
2 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions.
February 28, 1986
Item No. 3 - Z-4612
Owner: Howard Byers
Address: 812 North Cleveland
Description: Lot 54, Ridgecrest Manor Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the rear yard provisions of
Section 7-101.2/D.3 to permit a new
addition with an 18.5-foot setback.
Justification: Lot size and building configuration
prevent additions in other directions.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analvsis
The issue before the Board is to permit a rear yard
variance to allow a large addition. The new
construction is to be 22' x 41' addition which would
reduce the required rear yard setback from 25 feet to
18.5 feet and an encroachment of 6.5 feet. The
applicant has listed lot size and building
configuration as justification for the variance. The
lot is only 120 feet deep, but has 8,400 square feet in
area which is an average lot size so that does not
appear to create a true hardship. The structure as it
is situated on the property does restrict any addition
to the rear or adding a second floor. This is
justification for a variance, but staff is concerned
that building configuration is being used in this case
because of the size of the proposed addition,
approximately 900 square feet as shown on the survey.
The cover letter states that the new construction will
be 682 square feet so the owner should explain the
difference. Staff would also like the owner to
February 28, 1986
Item No. 3 - Continued
describe what the addition is for and why it requires
such a large amount of floor area. By meeting the
setback requirement, a 635-foot addition could be
constructed. Based on the information submitted, staff
feels that a true hardship does not exist and is
withholding a formal recommendation until various
issues are addressed such as the addition's proposed
size.
C. Staff Recommendation
Until additional information is provided, staff is not
prepared to make a recommendation at this time.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The owner, Howard Byers, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Byers addressed the Board and said that the
actual north /south dimension will be 31 feet and not 41 feet
as represented on the survey. There was a long discussion
about the proposal and the need for the encroachment of 6.5
feet. John Ward, an architect representing Mr. Byers, also
discussed the request and described the addition in some
detail. The issue of a hardship was discussed at length and
Mr. Byers indicated that a true hardship did not exist.
After several additional comments, a motion was made to
approve the variance for a 22 x 31' addition with a 6.5 foot
encroachment. The motion was passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0
ones, 1 absent and 3 open positions.
February 28, 1986
Item No. 4 - Z-4613
Owner: David Grunfest, Jr. and Arnold Mayerson
Address: 6423 Forbing Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
Variance
Requested: From the pavement requirements of
Section 8-101/I to permit an
unpaved parking lot.
Justification: 1. The activity at this location is
"post secondary education." The
college is new to the location and
is undergoing curriculum and program
changes which makes it very
difficult to determine at this time
the number of students who will be
in attendance and, therefore, the
parking requirements. The college
asks not for a complete waiver, but
merely a postponement so as to
better evaluate our parking needs
and construct a more appropriate
facility.
2. The lot in current use has been
rocked and sufficient time is
requested to let the rock settle.
3. Postponement until October 1, 1986,
would also allow fair weather
construction of lot after the size
has been determined.
Present Use of
Property: Gravel parking area for school
Proposed Use of
Property: Paved parking for school
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
The entrance from Forbing Road and the angle parking
configuration must be redesigned and approved by the
Traffic Engineer. Contact the Traffic Engineer and get
his approval before any parking lot construction or
paving is started.
February 28, 1986
Item No. 4 - Continued
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to permit the postponement of paving to
City standards parking area that is currently in use.
The Zoning Ordinance states that "the minimum pavement
requirement shall be 1 1/2 inches of asphaltic concrete
hot mix with a 5-inch compacted base or a double
surface treatment with a 5-inch compacted base or a
4 -inch concrete slab." The property is occupied by a
health vocation school which has been in operation less
than a year. Because the school is still going through
some changes, the applicant is requesting just a
postponement of meeting the paving requirements to
better determine the size of enrollment and the number
of parking spaces. In addition, delay would allow the
lot to be constructed during better weather conditions.
Staff feels that adequate justification for a temporary
variance has been provided, but not until
October 1, 1986, as requested. Staff suggests that a
deferral of six months as being reasonable. This would
give the school over one year at the Forbing Road
location which should be more than enough time to
determine enrollment and the amount of parking
required. Based on the survey, it appears that the
parking design needs to be modified because the parking
layout as shown will not function properly.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends granting a temporary variance for a
period of six months from the date of approval.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Teresa Bour, was present. There were no
objectors. Staff recommended that Traffic Engineering
approval of the parking lot design be attached as a
condition to the variance if granted. Ms. Bour indicated
that she agreed with the six month time period and the
condition. A motion was made to grant the variance for a
period of six months from the date of approval,
February 28, 1986, and that the parking lot design be
approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The motion passed by
a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions.
February 28, 1986
Item No. 5 - Other Matters
Owner: Jim McClanahan
Address: 6500 Mabelvale Pike
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Request: To determine whether an addition to the
principal building constitute expansion
of a nonconforming use/structure.
STAFF REPORT:
Jim McClanahan, the owner of 6500 Mabelvale Pike, has
submitted a letter to the staff asking that this item be
brought before the Board of Adjustment. The request was
made after the McClanahans received a courtesy notice from
the City's Enforcement Office indicating that they were in
violation of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
The primary issue is the expansion of a nonconforming
use /structure. The property is zoned "R-2," but has been a
nonresidential use since before coming into the City, thus,
creating the nonconforming status. Several attempts to
rezone the site to a commercial classification have failed
in the past.
There is one principal structure on the site, and the
McClanahans made a 16' x 16' addition to it. It is staff's
understanding that the new construction is to be used for
storage only. After the addition was made, two accessory
buildings being used for storage were removed from the lot.
Because of this removal, the owners feel that an illegal
expansion did not take place and that they are not in
violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
The following paragraphs from the Zoning Ordinance address
nonconforming uses and structures.
Expansions:
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 effective date of this ordinance, or any amendment
hereto which causes such use to become nonconforming.
February 28, 1986
Item No. 5 - Continued
Enlargement, Repair or Alterations:
Any nonconforming structure may be enlarged, maintained,
repaired or altered provided, however, that no such
enlargement, maintenance, repair or alteration shall
either create an additional nonconformity or increase the
degree of existing nonconformity of all or any part of
such structure.
(Attached is a letter of request and a survey with the
described modifications.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The owners, Jim and Liz McClanahan, were present.
Liz McClanahan addressed the Board of Adjustment about the
issue. She said that they have not increased the use or
have not extended the nonconforming use. There were a
number of other comments made. A motion was then made that
stated the addition in question was not an expansion of a
nonconforming use because of the Enlargement, Repair or
Alterations provision in the Zoning Ordinance which states
that
"Any nonconforming structure may be enlarged,
maintained, repaired or altered provided, however, that
no such enlargement, maintenance, repair or alteration
shall either create an additional nonconformity or
increase the degree of existing nonconformity of all or
any part of such structure."
The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1
absent and 3 open positions. The Board of Adjustment
indicated that the action taken was for this particular
piece of property only.
6500 Mabelvale Pike
Little Rock, Arkansas
January 27, 1986
Board of Adjustment
City Hall, Room 311
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
We have received a courtesy notice from the city stating
that we have violated.a city zoning ordinance.
We have enclosed a plot plan showing the 16 ft. X 16 ft.
addition to the building. The two storage buildings have
been removed from the property.
We do not believe that we have violated a zoning or-
dinance and respectfully request that you place this
matter on your February 18th agenda.
Sincerely,
v,---
Jim McClanahan
February 28, 1986
Item No. 6 - Other Matters
Name: Fay Granger
Request: To review the "C-3" district and to
render an opinion as to whether a retail
shop with some boarding of animals, but
no sale of the animals can be placed in
the "C-3" district.
STAFF REPORT:
The request is being made by Fay Granger after discussing
the matter with several members of the City's Zoning
Enforcement and Planning Offices. After those
conversations, it was suggested that the issue be taken to
the Board of Adjustment for a decision.
Ms. Granger is planning to open a shop selling cat related
items in the West Chase Plaza which is zoned "C-3." In
addition to the retail aspects, Ms. Granger also would like
to board cats for short periods of time with 250 square feet
devoted to the boarding and 800 square feet for the retail
space. Ms. Granger states that the boarding service will be
for clients and customers with 8 to 16 stainless steel
cages.
The "C-3" district does permit some animal related uses,
animal clinic and pet shop. The Zoning Ordinance provides
the following definitions for those uses.
1. Animal Clinic (Enclosed): A facility without outside
runs. The diagnosis and treatment of pets and other
animals including but not limited to dogs, cats, birds
and horses. No outdoor boarding of these animals shall
be allowed overnight.
2. Pet Shop: A facility for display and sale of animals,
fish and birds as pets, such as dogs, cats, parakeets,
goldfish, tropical fish or canaries without involving
commercial boarding or treating of any animal, fish or
bird.
Boarding of animals is specifically addressed in the
definition of an animal pound or kennel.
Animal pound or kennel: A public or private facility
including outside runs for enclosure or animals,
especially stray or unlicensed pets or for pets being
boarded for short periods of time.
This particular use is not listed in the "C-3" district
but rather as a conditional use in "C-4" and a permitted
use in "I-2."
February 28, 1986
Item No. 6 - Continued
Ms. Granger's position is that there is only a very fine
line between what she is proposing to do and a pet shop.
She's contending that the only real difference is the
selling of the animals in the pet shop. (Attached is a copy
of Ms. Granger's request.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
A motion was made to withdraw this item from the agenda.
The motion pased by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3
open positions.
1-16-86
Attn: Tonv Bozynski
305 Little Rock City Hall
Little Rock, Ar 72201
Dear Mr. Bozynski,
I am writing this letter per the recommendation of Mr.
Richard Wood; he informed me that the January agenda is
fall and closed and if I get this request to voa by January
27th, then I should be able to present my case to the
Board at the 2-18-85 meeting.
I will try to state my request as briefly as possible.
I am currently doing research on the possibility of my
having a retail shop that will strictly be selling cat
related items - from cat litter, toys, - to quality cat
pictures, cat statutes, cat designs on all types of items -
planters, offica accessories, etc; not only do I want to
sell gift items, I want about Dart of the shop to have
boarding for cats only. (250 so. ft Board; 800 sq ft shoe)
I currently have a Privilege License now, but it is for
office only; currently, I have decided to have my shop
at one of the suites at the WestChase Plaza; in talking
to Flake and Company, they feel there should not be a
problem as far as they are concerne.d. ThE:ir representative
sent me a copy of the Section 7-103.3 "C-3 "; it lists
animals Clinic & Pet Shop as permitted uses of a zoned C-3
building.
When I called Kenny Scott of the Zoining Dept (371-4844),
he said West Chase Plaza was zoned C-3 Commercial and he
said that meant I could not keep animals overrnite; he suggested
I try a a place zoned Industrial R-2; after telling me this,
he did say, to be zoned C-3, I would have to be a pet shop;
the fine line being, that the cats would be available for sell
and not nmcessarily boarded overnite; I told him I did not see
the difference; that I did not want to sell cats because you
have control over the kittens you get and there
are too many health problems involved and I do not want to
sell cats; my boarding will be a service for my clients and.
customers; there will be approximately 8 to 16 stainless
steel, large cages; all inclosed separatnly from the main
shop, with viewing windows for the in-store customer; no
one other then employees will be allowed in the area.
Mr. Scott was very nice but he was very sit in what he
told me; b asked him if I could talk to someone else and
he gave me the name of Richard Wood (371-4790); Mr. Scott
did tell me that Mr. Wood would tell me the same thing.
Before I called Mr. Wood, I called Mr. Johnston with SCORE
and he suggested I contact the City Manager, the Mayor or
the Board of Commission.
Mr. Johnston did not understand the difference as Mr. Scott
had outline. he sugggested I call Mr. Scott back to verify
that he was telling me that thn difference was the selling
aspect I did.
I called Richard Mood and he suggested I take an appeal
step before.the Board of Adjustment.
Thank you reading this letter; please let me know if I
need to send you any more forms or additional information.
I do not want to spend a lot of monev on the boarding
facility of the shop and then find out later down the
road, I have to take it out because of a zorin.g conflict.
Sincerely,
Fay Granger
14 Flintwood Dr.
Little Rock, Ar 72207
225-7300
February 28, 1986
Item No. 7 - Other Matters - Interpretation
Issue: A request from Planning staff for review
and interpretation of Section 5-101,
paragraph D.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
which deals with nonconforming
structures and their expansion.
The issue at hand is a property occupied by a single mobile
home. The owner has contracted with a builder to construct
a shed roof type of structure which will provide the mobile
home with an all weather cover of wood frame with
composition shingles.
The supporting structure will be one of poles set in
concrete against the side of the mobile home. This type of
cover provides not only a damping action for the rumble
noises of mobile home roofs, but will avoid the continuous
roof maintenance required.
The Zoning,Ordinance provision at issue reads as follows:
D.1 ENLARGEMENT, REPAIR OR ALTERATIONS
"Any nonconforming structure may be enlarged,
maintained, repaired or altered provided, however, that
no enlargement, maintenance, repair or alteration shall
either create an additional nonconformity or increase
the degree of the existing nonconformity of all or any
part of such structure."
The basic issue to be determined is whether this added roof
element is in fact an expansion of the nonconforming
structure. The structure in this instance is only
nonconforming with respect to structural composition and not
bulk and area requirements.
The definition of structure within the Zoning Ordinance is
svnonvmous with buildinu and reads as follows:
73. Structure: Anything constructed or erected or
installed by man the use of which requires more or less
permanent location on the ground or attached to
something or attached to something having a permanent
location on the ground including but not limited to
buildings, towers and smoke stacks."
February 28, 1986
Item No. 7 - Continued
The definition of structural alteration within the Zoning
Ordinance reads as follows:
72. Structural Alteration: Any external change in either
the supporting members of a building such as bearing
wall, column, beam or girder or in the dimension or
configuration of the roof or other exterior wall.
The defintion which is a key to this issue is "mobile home"
and as constructed within the ordinance, identifies a
structural design and not a land use. The omission of this
structural design from "R-2" Single Family District and the
requirement for placement within the "R-7" district only is
the source of nonconformity.
The mobile home definition within the Zoning Ordinance reads
as follows:
2. Mobile Home: A detached single family dwelling unit
with all the following characteristics: (a) designed
for full -time occupancy and containing sleeping
accommodations, flush toilet, tub or shower bath and
kitchen facilities with plumbing and electrical
connections provided for attachment to outside systems;
(b) designed to be transported after fabrication on its
own wheels or on flatbed or other trailers of
detachable wheels; or by other means; (c) arriving at
the site where it is to be occupied as a dwelling
complete and ready for occupancy except for minor or
incidental unpacking and assembly operations, location
on and connection to foundation supports, connection to
utilities and the like. Anchorage must comply with
design load requirements of the Building Code of the
City of Little Rock, Arkansas.
The Planning staff continues to review this matter and will
provide supporting information and commentary at the meeting
as required.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Arli Barger was present and representing the owner of the
property in question. Mr. Barger discussed the issue and
said that an existing carport and porch were attached to the
mobile home unit in a permanent fashion. Staff then
reviewed the primary issues and addressed nonconforming uses
and structures. There was a long discussion about
nonconforming structures. Mr. Barger then described the
February 28, 1986
Item No. 7 - Continued
proposed structure, a roof placed on top of the mobile home,
and staff indicated that the roof was the issue. After
several additional comments, a motion was made that stated
the addition of the roof should not be allowed under the
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. Prior to a vote on
the motion, Tom Carpenter of the City Attorney's Office
addressed the Board. He said he was concerned with the
proposed Board of Adjustment action and asked for a possible
delay to allow the City Attorney's Office to research the
issue. There was a long discussion, and no vote was taken
on the initial motion. A second motion was made to defer
the item to the March 17, 1986, meeting and that no
construction take place until a final decision is made by
the Board of Adjustment. The motion was approved by a vote
of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions.
February 28, 1986
Item No. 8 - Rehearing Request
Owner: Lynn and Sherry Harris
Address: #2 Pleasant Forest Drive
Request: To grant a rehearing for a previous
denied setback variance
STAFF REPORT:
The rehearing provisions in the Board of Adjustment bylaws
(Article V) are as follows:
Section 1. No rehearing of any decision by the Board of
Zoning Adjustment shall be had on except on motion by a
member of the Board to reconsider the vote made and acted
on within 10 days after the decision and carried by not
less than five concurring votes.
Section 2. No motion for a rehearing shall be entertained
except upon request for a rehearing and then not unless
new evidence is submitted which could not reasonably have
been presented at the meeting at which the hearing was
originally had.
Section 3. If a rehearing is granted, the case shall be
put on the calendar for a rehearing and the notices issued
in accordance with the notice provisions of these rules.
Section 4. No additional application to the Board of
Adjustment shall be allowed unless there shall have been a
substantial change in the circumstances effecting such
property since the prior decision on the same piece of
property.
The primary reason for requesting a rehearing is that the
Harrises are now the owners of #2 Pleasant Forest Drive and
that is a substantial change in circumstances according to
Walter Murray, the Harris' attorney. A copy of Mr. Murray's
letter is provided. The letter goes into great detail about
the various issues involved with this particular piece of
property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Walter Murray was present and representing the Harrises.
Mr. Murray gave a history of the previous request and
described the City Attorney's involvement in the matter. He
went on to discuss the court action and the reasons for the
refiling. Mr. Murray said that the Harrises were the new
owners of the lot and that was a change in circumstances.
February 28, 1986
Item No. 8 - Continued
A motion was made to grant the rehearing request. The
motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent
and 3 open positions.
WALTER A. MURRAY
ATTORNEY AT LAW (501)372-7000
912 WEST FOURTH STREET
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
WALTER A. MURRAY
WILLIAM C. FRYE
January 27, 1986
Board of Zoning Adjustment
City of Little Rock
Dear Sir:
On behalf of Lynn and Sherry Harris, I respectfully request
a rehearing on the matter described in your file BZ-4261.
Very truly yours,
Walter A. Murray
WAM:dr
WALTER A. MURRAY
ATTORNEY AT LAW (501)372-7000
912 WEST FOURTH STREET
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
January 27, 1986
WALTER A. MURRAY
WILLIAM C. FRYE
Board of Zoning Adjustment
City of Little Rock, Arkansas
Gentlemen:
Your file number BZ-4261 contains board proceedings
regarding an application for variance from a setback
requirement filed by Mr. Caroll Garner. Proceedings on
this matter are still pending. However, the parties in
interest have changed. This letter accompanies a new
application for variance in the names of the new parties in
interest. Those parties are Lynn and Sherry Harris.
Lynn and Sherry Harris are citizens and residents of Little
Rock, Arkansas. They own property described as #2 Pleasant
Forest Cove within the Pleasant Forest Park Addition.
The former parties in interest, Caroll and Frances Garner,
applied to the City of Little Rock Board of Zoning
Adjustment (BOZA) for a variance from the side yard setback
provisions of Section 43/7-101.2.D.2 of the City of Little
Rock to permit said residence and garage to remain as
constructed. On or about the 16th day of July, 1984, BOZA
denied the Garners' request for variance. The Garners
appealed from the BOZA denial in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County.
Section 43/7-101.2.D.2 requires an eight-foot side yard
maximum in the "R-2" district. The subject property which
consists of a garage and residence is 90 percent complete
and has received all the necessary inspections, except
final City approval. Sometime during the construction of
the subject property, the outer wall of the garage was
constructed approximately 40 inches closer to the north
fall property line creating an encroachment to the side
yard.
If this variance is not allowed, it will cost the new
parties in interest approximately $15,000.00 to remove the
garage wall and all the utilities that enter the structure
at that point.
BOZA's denial of the requested variance was improper for
the following reasons:
(a) A setback variance of 40 inches on the subject
property is within the spirit and intent of the provisions
of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance.
(b) Strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance in this
instance would cause undue hardship due to the
circumstances unique to the property under consideration.
(c) The denial of the variance severely impacts the
property owned by the Harris'.
(d) Strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance in this
instance would cause undue financial hardship to the
Harris'.
(e) The variance would not interfere with the Harris'
and those similarly situated quiet and peaceful enjoyment
of their individual properties.
(f) Denial of the variance will result in damage to the
Harris' in diminution and property value and limitation of
the available market for resale of their home.
(g) The variance would not result in a blighting
influence or a total incompatibility of the character of
the neighborhood or the residential use of the Harris'
property.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Walter A. Murray
WAM:dr
February 28, 1986
Item No. 9 - Other Matters
Owner: Catholic Diocese of Little Rock
by Dickson Flake
Request: To review a previously approved
Conditional Use Permit for a
possible change in use
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Staff discussed the issue and recommended that the change in
use requires a new conditional use permit because of the
Zoning Ordinance provision addressing use changes.
Dickson Flake was present and representing three owners.
Mr. Flake said the new proposal would return the property to
its original use, an elementary school and the day-care
would only have twenty-five (25) children. Mr. Flake
discussed the various issues at length. Staff responded by
saying the original use became nonconforming and an
ordinance was needed to change the initial ordinance
approving the existing conditional use permit. Mr. Flake
make several other comments and said that there was a time
problem. A motion was presented to the baord which stated
that the applicant must follow the procedures set out in the
Zoning Ordinance for a new conditional use permit. A motion
was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3
open positions.
Barnes, Quinn, Flake & Anderson, Inc. REALTORS
2100 First Commercial Building • (501)372-8181
PO. Box 3548 / Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
February 11, 1986
Mr. Gary Greeson, Director
Comprehensive Planning
City of Little Rock
City Hall
Markham at Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Mr. Greeson:
The purpose of this memorandum is to request an interpretation
by the Little Rock Board of Adjustment for a zoning compliance
issue concerning the St. Bartholomew Elementary School at 1601
Marshall Street in Little Rock. This property is owned by the
Catholic Diocese of Little Rock and has been utilized by the
vocational division of Capital City Junior College under a con-
ditional use permit approved by the City Board of Directors on
July 5, 1983.
Representatives of Capital City Junior College and the Montessori
School have requested that the Diocese approve the transfer of the
premises from Capital City to Montessori for use as a pre-school
center. The leadership of the Diocese welcomes this request and
thinks that the proposed use will provide a real service to the
immediate neighborhood rather than simply being a utilization of
church-owned facilities. Montessori School management, repre-
sented by Dr. A. Earl Wilkinson, anticipate a total enrollment
of approximately 125 children.
The property is zoned R-4. It has been utilized as an elementary
school, a vocational training school by UIC, and last, a vocational
school by Capital City Junior College under a conditional use per-
mit favorably recommended by the staff and Planning Commission,
then approved by the City Board of Directors. We are requesting
an interpretation by the Little Rock board of Adjustment that the
proposed daycare center use is similar enough to both the previous
C.V. BARNES. CRE, CCIM INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE MEMBERSHIPS
L DICKSON FLAKE, CRE, CCIM, SIR
SAMUEL W ANDERSON, CPM American Institute of Reel Estate Appraisers
NOLAN L RUSHING
RONALD E. BRAGG. MAI American Society of Reel Estate Counselors
PHYLLIS LASER GLAZE, CPM
JIM MITCHELL, CCIM Institute of Real Estate Management
DALE L. COOK, CPM
DIANA G SMITH
DRU E. SPINKS, CPM International Council of Shopping Centers
RAMSAY BALL
ANNE E. PADGETT Little Rock Board of Realtors, Inc
LEO E OLBERTS. JR, CIC
MELINDA B THOMAS National Association of Realtors
OF COUNSEL
JACK FARRIS, CPM. MAI Society of Industrial Realtors
Mr. Gary Greeson
February 11, 1986
Page Two
uses and the
obtain a new
We understand
of Adjustment
1986.
most recent approved use that it is not necessary to
conditional use permit from the Planning Commission.
that this is short notice but request that the Board
consider this issue at its meeting of February 18,
Sincerely,
L. Dickson Flake
LDF/lgg
Barnes, Quinn, Flake 6 Anderson, Inc. 8 REALTORS
2100 First Commercial Building • [501) 372-6181
P O Box 3546 / Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
February 28, 1986
Item No. 10 Other Matters
Owner: Nancy C. Stephens
Address: 1904 Shadow Lane
Request: To interpret the Zoning Ordinance
and determine whether the placement
of an awning structure on the property
line is in violation of the setback
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance.
STAFF REPORT:
This request is being made as a result of a violation notice
from the City's Enforcement Office because of a complaint
from an adjoining neighbor. The primary issue is whether an
awning which is attached to the residence and constructed to
the side property line must meet the setback requirements
for a structure. The awning covers part of a driveway and
functions as a carport.
The Zoning Ordinance provides the following definition for a
structure:
Anything constructed or erected or installed by man for
use of which requires more or less permanent location
on the ground or attached to something or attached to
something having a permanent location on the ground
including but not limited to buildings, towers and
smokestacks.
The side yard setback in the "R-2" District is not less
than 10 percent of the average width of the lot not to
exceed 8 feet. The structure in question is constructed to
the north property line with a 0 foot setback.
Attached are two letters from Nancy Stephens addressing the
issue and her concerns.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Nancy Stephens, the owner of 1904 Shadow Lane was present.
Staff briefly reviewed the issue before the Board.
Ms. Stephens discussed the matter and asked how could a
permanent structure be cleaned. She said that the maximum
width of the awning was ten feet and there was a
neighborhood complaint involved with the matter. There was
a long discussion about the various issues. A motion was
made that stated the awning /carport meets the ordinance
definition of a structure and should meet all the necessary
requirements. A motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0
noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions.
NANCY C. STEPHENS
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
February 12, 1986
Mr. Gary L. Greeson
Board of Adjustment
City Hall
Markham at Broadway
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Mr. Greeson:
Per our conversation today on the phone, I am hereby requesting
an interpretation from the Board of Adjustment of the ordinance
involved with regard to my awning.
As I mentioned in my letter and on the phone, the awning has
been in place for three and one -half years (3 1/2) without any
complaints. We removed the canvas this month to have it re-
paired and cleaned, as it decays with wear and must be maintained.
At this time, we received notice from the City to remove it.
When we originally purchased the awning, I called City Hall and
was told that the awning would be acceptable under the existing
City regulations. The contractor who installed it (Little Rock
Tent & Awning) also informed me that the awning was legal.
Had we been told at the time it was not permissible, we would
not have invested several thousand dollars, nor would we have
removed the canvas to have it cleaned and repaired at this time.
I would like to ask the Board to examine the time the canvas
awning has been in place without complaint, and also the issue
of equity involved.
I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
NANCY C. STEPHENS
NCS/yt
February 28, 1986
Item No. 11 Discussion Item (Z-1937-B)
Owner: Greater Paradise Missionary Baptist
Church
Address: 3023 West 12th Street (West 12th and
Johnson Street)
Request: To grant a six month extension for
a previously approved variance.
STAFF REPORT:
The Greater Paradise Missionary Baptist Church was granted a
variance in August 1984 to delay the necessary paving and
landscaping of a parking lot. The lot is located at the
northwest corner of West 13th and Johnson Streets. The
variance was for a period of 18 months with the church to
report back to the Board of Adjustment on the status of the
parking area at the end of that time. They initially had
requested a six year postponement of the ordinance
requirements. The church is now requesting an additional
six months to comply with the paving section of the
ordinance. (Attached is the church's letter of request).
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Sam Shackleford was present and representing the church.
Mr. Shackleford said that the church was requesting a 6
month extension to secure a loan and complete all the
necessary parking lot improvements. The Board then
discussed the matter at length. A motion was made granting
a 6 month extension from February 28, 1986. The motion was
approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open
positions. The Board also indicated that this action would
be the last extension.
Greater Paradise Missionary Baptist Church
3023 WEST TWELFTH STREET, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204 666-1982
REVEREND JERRY D. BLACK, PASTOR
February 18, 1986
Mr. Richard Wood
Mr. Tony Bozynski
Office of Comprehensive Planning
City Hall /3rd Floor
500 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Re: Greater Paradise Missionary Baptist Church Parking Lot /3023 W. Twelfth
Dear Mr. Wood or Mr. Bozynski:
It has been brought to the attention of the newly elected board of trustees
of Greater Paradise Missionary Baptist Church, that through an over-sight
we have failed to comply with the directive issued through your office -18
month ago- to pave and landscape our church parking lot. We sincerely
apologize for this over-sight.
The board has initiated steps to iumiediately rectify this situation and bring
our church parking lot into full compliance with the City of Little Rock
zoning codes. We are in the process of selecting a design for the layout of
the lot and landscaping. After this is completed, we will begin assembling
bids from compaines to pave and landscape the parking lot.
Since the period for compliance has already passed, we request an additional
extension of (6) six months in order to complete the proposal.
We would appreciate the opportunity to attend your next Board Meeting and
answer any questions you may have.
Again, we apologize for not complying with your directive on time, but with
a (6) six month extension we are confident that the church will be able to
comply with the City's zoning codes.
Thanking you in advance for your consideration.
Respectfully yours,
Clifton Wilson
Church Trustee Board Member
CW:scm
cc: church file copy
February 28, 1986
Item No. 12 Other Matters
Owner: Tab Powell
Address: 12,110 Stagecoach Road
Request: To determine if a landfill is a
permitted use in the "I-2" District.
STAFF REPORT:
The owner of the landfill has been directed by the
Environmental Protection Agency to place a building on the
site to control the type of materials that are brought to
the location. The landfill is to be used for only clean
type materials and no garbage or chemicals will be
premitted. Mr. Powell has received all the necessary
approvals to operate the landfill and the only requirement
he has left to fulfill is the attendants office. Some
filling has already occurred on a restricted basis and the
property is zoned "I-2."
With the office and opening the site to the public, there is
a question of the status of the landfill and how it
conforms to the Zoning Ordinance. In the Ordinance only
sanitary landfills are listed as a premitted use in "I-3"
Heavy Industrial. The definition of a sanitary landfill is:
A site for the accumulation of refuse or discarded
materials. However, this use shall not be construed to
be a junk or salvage yard which is maintained, used or
operated for storing, keeping, dismanteling, salvaging,
buying or selling inoperable, wrecked, scrapped, ruined
or discarded automobiles, automobile parts, machinery
or appliances.
There is no other type of landfill mentioned in the
ordinance.
The City's concern is with the office which is required by
EPA and how that affects the use. Does the site with the
office then become a conventional sanitary landfill
operation and require "I-3?"
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Tab Powell, the owner, was present. Mr. Powell said that
the office will not be a permanent structure, but indicated
he was uncertain about the length of time that it would be
up. He went on to say that because of State requirements,
he had to provide some type of control and that was the
primary purpose of the office.
February 28, 1986
Item No. 12 Continued
There were some additional comments made by Mr. Powell and
the Board members. A motion was made to allow the office
structure for a period of 30 months with a written report
submitted to the Staff after 18 months on the status of the
landfill operation. The Board also stated that the use was
not a sanitary landfill. The motion was approved by a vote
of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions.
February 28, 1986
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Chairman
Secretary
Date