boa_07 21 1986LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
JULY 21, 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
Minutes of the previous meeting were approved as
mailed.
III. Members Present: John McDaniel
Tom McGowan
Joe Norcross
Richard Yada
Jim Mitchell
Herbert Rideout
Ronald Pierce
Members Absent: George Wells
Ronald Woods
Attorney: Steven Giles
Pat Benton
July 21, 1986
Item No. A - Z-4675
Owner: Alert Recovery, Inc.
Address: 931 Stagecoach Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the mobile home provisions of
Section 3-101 /C.1.0 to permit location
of a mobile home as a security office
Justification: Need for office in which to house
security personnel due to possible
vandalism of property stored
Present Use of
Property: Storage of Repossessed Equipment and
Vehicles
Proposed Use
of Property: Same
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to permit a mobile home on the property
for security purposes. The unit is in place on the
site and the issue is before the Board as a result of
an enforcement action by the City. The Zoning
Ordinance provides for the Board of Adjustment to
review and approve or deny applications for the
location of mobile homes or other structures in
existing home sites or on nonresidential sites. The
use of these structures shall be limited to 1 single
family dwelling unit for on -site security purposes.
The site is used for the storage of repossessed
vehicles and other items so it appears that additional
security is needed. There is a chain link fence around
the perimeter of the property so other steps have been
taken to provide security. Staff supports the variance
and feels that reasonable justification has been
provided. Support of the mobile home placement is
based on information that the use is a legitimate
nonconforming use because the property is zoned
July 21, 1986
Item No. A - Continued
"R-2" single family. If this is not the case, then
rezoning of site should be attempted prior to receiving
approval for the mobile home. Finally, the mobile home
is to be used for security only and not for additional
storage or anything else.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance provided that
the use has a nonconforming status and that the mobile
home unit be properly situated on the site.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (6-16-86)
Staff informed the Board that the required notification of
property owners had not been accomplished. A motion was
made to defer the request to the July 21, 1986, meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1
absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86)
The applicant was represented by Mr. W.H. Dillahunty,
Attorney, he offered a brief statement. He stated that the
mobile home presently on the site would be used for a
nighttime guard only and that the owner would comply with
the suggested requirements for utilities, foundation, etc.
There were several objectors present. These were Mr. Buddy
Raines, representing Robert Smith Estate. Mr. Raines states
objections to the use in an area primarily residential and
subsequent loss of property value. Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton
Davis stated objections to the setback from their property
line. They suggested a minimum 15' be provided and that
proper septic tank installation and drainage be required.
Mr. Wallace Cunningham, representing the Antioch Missionary
Baptist Church expressed concerns about possibly changing
the area to mobile home sites. A general discussion of the
proposal then followed. A motion was made to recommend
approval of the request subject to the mobile home being
located no closer than 15' to the south property line and
that proper septic system and drainage be provided so as to
avoid intrusion upon the property to the south and that the
mobile home comply with the siting requirements as to
foundation, underskirting, etc. The motion passed by a vote
of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
July 21, 1986
Item No. A - Continued
FOR THE RECORD:
The staff advised the applicant that this approval runs with
the use of the land and must be removed if the use is
discontinued. It will not run with the land and may not be
rented as a separate dwelling unit.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 1 - Z-3961-B
Owner: Riley's Health and Fitness Center, Inc.
Address: 4700 Sam Peck Road
Description: Lots 14, 15 and 16 and W 15 feet of
Lot 13, Woodlawn Farm Acres and Lot 1,
Tennis Club Addition
Zoned: "AF"
and "R -2"
Variance
Requested: 1. From the area coverage provisions of
Section 7- 105.1/F.4 to permit 36
percent lot coverage.
2. From the setback provisions of
Section 7- 105.1 /F.1 to permit a
15 -foot front yard.
3. From the parking provisions of
Section 8 -101 -D to permit 150
spaces.
Justification: 1. Area coverage not applicable to this
type of use.
2. Setback - buildings to be enclosed
already exist.
3. Parking - none otherwise established
by ordinance.
Present Use of
Property: Tennis Club
Proposed Use
of Property: Same with swimming pool
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 1 - Continued
B. Staff Analysis
The requested variances are for the West Side Tennis
Club located at the northwest corner of Sam Peck Road
and Peckerwood Road. Some of the property is currently
zoned "AF" Agriculture and Forestry, and a rezoning
request to "AF" has been filed for the western portion
of the site where most of the new construction is to
take place. In the "AF" District, lot coverage for the
main buildings and all accessory structures shall not
exceed 25 percent of the total area, and the front yard
setback is 50 feet. The Tennis Center is proposing the
lot coverage of approximately 36 percent with a 15-foot
setback for the new structure. The requested setback
maintains the building line established by the
construction immediately to the east, and it appears
that encroachment has not had any impacts on the
surrounding properties. The proposed lot coverage is
reasonable for this type of use and in keeping with a
previous variance approval for lot coverage. In
November 1984, the Board of Adjustment granted a
variance to the Tennis Center to permit a lot coverage
of 34 percent. The final variance is for the number of
parking spaces to be provided. After reviewing the
development plan and proposal, staff feels that the
proposed 150 spaces are adequate for the current use
and supports the request. When the previous variance
was granted, a condition was attached which specified
that the Tennis Center would make street improvements
to Peckerwood at the next stage of improvements or
development of the adjacent property. The street
improvements should be undertaken at this time, and
they should be a condition of this approval. In
addition, because of the multifamily use to the north,
staff suggests that a screening fence be provided along
the north side of the new parking area and the
necessary lighting be directional.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the three requested
variances subject to the comments outlined in the staff
analysis.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 1 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86)
There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Christopher
Barrier, Attorney for the applicant, was present and stated
that he had nothing to add to the staff comments, except
that the owner would erect the required fencing if necessary.
Along the existing tennis area and the north boundary of the
new parking area, he suggested that it might be appropriate
for Planning staff to meet with the owner before
construction of the subject fence to discuss the existing
screening fence along the apartment complex on the north.
The discussion would center around whether the existing
fence will provide the required separation and protect
against the intrusion of headlights. He suggested a meeting
between staff and the owner might occur at some point before
the required installation becomes necessary. The Planning
staff responded that they could accommodate this review with
the owner at the occasion of the review for final
certificate of occupancy. Mr. Barrier stated in response to
a staff question that he had the proof of notice list and
return cards that did not have the proof of mailing slips as
to the actual date they were mailed. The Board accepted
this circumstance. A brief discussion was held followed by
a motion for approval of the proposal subject to the
installation of appropriate street improvements to City
standard and the erecting of the screening requirements
along the north boundary of the new parking area and a
portion-of the existing parking conditioned upon staff
making a determination as to actual need. The motion passed
by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 2 - Z-4336 -B
Owner: Arkansas Children's Hospital
Address: 8th Street between Wolfe and Marshall
Description: Block 2, Faust's Addition and Block 2,
Marshall and Wolfe's Addition
Zoned: "O-2"
variance
Requested: From the setback provisions of Section
7-102.2/E.1 to permit an addition with a
six -foot setback.
Justification: 1. Proximity to the existing Physical
Therapy Department. This
therapeutic pool will function
mainly as an integral part of the
Physical Therapy Department which is
directly located inside the existing
hospital south of the proposed
addition. It is impossible to
locate this pool within the existing
structure since there is a basement
housing the building's mechanical
equipment below, and also there is
no available space within the
existing building. Simply stated,
there is no other place to put the
pool and have it function as a
useful addition to the Physical
Therapy Department.
2. The proposed location has a neglible
effect on existing parking and
drives, building services and
landscape areas.
3. The proposed location falls within
an orderly expansion and master plan
in which expansion and growth has
been considered years into the
future.
4. The addition will face and be
primarily visible from the access
road and to the interstate highway
itself ( it is not as if the site
faced a residential area or
boulevard that has spacious and
landscaped setbacks opposite and
adjacent to the building site) .
July 21, 1986
Item No. 2 - Continued
5. Perceived setbacks and site lines
will not be effected by this
addition. Directly west of the site
is a cooling tower enclosure that is
surrounded by a high wood fence that
is on the property line and west of
that is a metal building that is
close to the property line.
6. On adjacent blocks, various
residences and apartment buildings
are on or very close to property
lines.
Present Use of
Property: Hospital
Proposed Use of
Property: Hospital
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
No issues have been reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal before the Board is to permit an addition,
a therapeutic pool to the main building on the
Children's Hospital campus with a six -foot setback. In
the "O-2" District, the required setback for all yards
is 25 feet, so the encroachment will be approximately
19 feet. Because of the site and the type of addition
which is basically an extension of the hospital's
Physical Therapy Department, the proposed location
appears to be the only one available to meet the
hospital needs. Adequate justification for the
variance has been provided and staff supports the
request. The reduced setback will not impact any
adjacent properties because the addition is situated
next to an access road for I-630. Also, there are
other existing structures on the north side of the
hospital that extend beyond the 25-foot setback that
have not created any problems.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 2 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86)
There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was
present. After a brief discussion of the proposal, 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
abstention (Joe Norcross).
July 21, 1986
Item No. 3 - Z-4439-A
Owner: Arkansas School Board Association
Address: 808 High Street
Description: S 1/2 of Lots 1, 2, 3 and E 10 feet of
the S 50 feet of Lot 4, Block 412,
Compton Subdivision of Lincoln Addition
Zoned: "O-3"
Variance
Requested: From the front yard provisions of
Section 7-102.3/D.1 to permit a new
building a zero-foot setback.
Justification: Unusual lot configuration resulting from
realignment of High Street
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of
Property: Office
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The requested variance is to permit a zero -foot front
yard for a new office building. In the "O-3" District
the required setback for a front yard is 25 feet. This
particular piece of property is located on High Street
just south of I-630 and the Capitol area. In this
immediate vicinity, High Street was relocated to the
east because of the construction of I-630. (The
accompanying sketch reflects the location change made
to High Street). With the zero -foot setback as is
being proposed, the new building will be located
approximately 90 feet from the new High Street at the
nearest point. Staff believes that the realignment of
High Street has created a unique circumstance and
supports the request. The immediate area is not over
developed, so the reduced setback will not have an
impact. To the north, there is a single family
residence, and on the south side, the property has some
July 21, 1986
Item No. 3 - Continued
storage taking place on it with a rock wall and fence
constructed along the east property line.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86)
There were no objectors present. The applicant was present.
After a brief discussion of the proposal, a motion was made
to approve the request as filed. The motion passed by a
vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 4 - Z-4683
Owner: Max R. Davis
Address: 6700 Allied Way
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "I-2"
Variance
Requested: From the side yard provisions of Section
7-104.2/E.2 to permit an addition with a
five-foot setback.
Justification: The current building is set back five
feet from side property line and the
structural configuration of the proposed
extension would be best served by
continuing the structure along existing
lines. Also, the appearance of the
entire area would be enhanced.
Present Use of
Property: Warehousing
Proposed Use of
Property: Warehousing
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to permit a five -foot setback for a
9,000 square foot addition. The side yard requirement
for the "I-2" District is 15 feet, so the proposed
encroachment will be 10 feet. The proposal is to
extend the current building lines both on the north and
south sides to the rear for the new addition. The
existing structure has only a five-foot setback from
the north property line, and the structural
configuration of the addition necessitates maintaining
this type of setback relationship. The building that
is in place was constructed either prior to annexation
or under the old Zoning Ordinance which did not require
any setbacks in the industrial districts. The tract to
the north is vacant, so the encroachment will not have
July 21, 1986
Item No. 4 - Continued
impact on it. Should that site ever be developed, it
is large enough that meeting the necessary setbacks
will not pose any hardships.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the side yard variance as
requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86)
There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was
present and stated that he did not have the required proof
of notice materials. After a brief discussion of the notice
requirement, a motion was made to defer the request to the
August meeting of the Board of Adjustment. The motion
passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 5 - Z-4684
Owner: Dan Turnbow
Address: #6 Pilot Point
Description: Lot 28, Plaza Heights Addition
Zoned: "R-2"
Variance
Requested: From the front yard provisions of
Section 7-101.2 /D.1 to permit an
addition with a 21-foot setback.
Justification: Being located on a cul-de-sac and
structural configuration.
Present Use of
Property: Single family
Proposed Use of
Property: Same with addition
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
No issues have been identified.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal is to construct a small addition on the
front of the residence with a reduced setback of 21
feet. The required front yard setback in the "R-2"
District is 25 feet. The lot in question is unique
because of being located on a cul-de-sac which reduces
the amount of yard area at the southwest corner. If
the street right-of-way was at 90° to the west property
line, the proposed addition would have a setback of
approximately 35 feet and no variance would be
necessary. It is the staff's opinion that the
cul-de-sac alignment does create a hardship, and the
requested variance is justified. In addition, the lot
drops off dramatically from south to north which
restricts the location of any addition.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 5 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86)
There were no objectors in attendance. The owner was
represented by Mr. Chuck Helgenson. Mr. Helgenson made a
brief statement. The staff then noted that the notice to
adjacent property owners was deficient in that it contained
only the two abutting owners with a potential of six or more
adjacent owners. Mr. Helgenson stated that the owner
apparently did not know he had to notify all of the owners
within the 200' including across the street. After a brief
discussion, the Board voted to approve a motion to defer
this matter until the August meeting of the Board. The vote
6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 6 - Z-4688
Owner: MacMillian Blodel Containers
Address: 1901 East 22nd Street
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "I-2"
Variance
Requested: From the yard provisions of Section
7-104.2/E to permit an addition with a
zero-foot setback.
Justification: Only suitable location for expansion.
Present Use of
Property: Manufacturing
Proposed Use of
Property: Same
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to permit a new addition with a reduced
setback for the rear yard. The "I-2" District requires
25 feet for the rear yard setback. Because of the
angle of the street, the southern end of the addition
will be situated approximately 100 feet from the east
property line and only a small portion of new
construction will be involved with encroachment. As
the addition is proposed, the northeast corner of it
will have a zero -foot setback and that will gradually
increase from north to south. The applicant has stated
that there are no other suitable locations for the
expansion, and that appears to be the case. The
existing structure was constructed when setbacks were
not required in the industrial districts, so there are
very few options available for a new addition. Most of
the industrial buildings in the general area have
setbacks that do not meet current ordinance
requirements, so the proposal is not in conflict with
the existing development pattern. The reduced setback
will not have an impact on any surrounding properties.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 6 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86)
There were no objectors in attendance. The request was
represented by Mr. Ed Turner. The Planning staff reported
that the Engineering Department had unresolved questions
about the required parking spaces. Mr. Turner stated that
he would be willing to work with Mr. Scott in the Public
Works Department to resolve this issue. After a brief
discussion, a motion was made to approve the request as
filed subject to resolution of the off-street parking
requirement issue. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0
noes and 3 absent.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 7 - Z-4690
Owner: Nadine Robinson
Address: 3807 Snow Circle
Description: Lot 5, Granite Heights Subd. No. 3
Zoned: "R-2"
Variance
Requested: From the height and area provisions of
Section 5-101 /F.2.c to permit a
satellite dish less than 60 feet from
the front property line.
Justification: Lot configuration
Present Use of
Property: Single family
Proposed Use of
Property: Same
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analvsis
The issue is to allow a satellite dish to be located
less than 60 feet from the front property line. (The
dish is in place, and the request is a result of an
enforcement action.) The City considers satellite
dishes accessory structure, and the Zoning Ordinance
requires them to be situated at least 60 feet from the
front property line. Because of this lot's shape,
meeting the 60-foot requirement and still having a
functional dish would be somewhat difficult. With the
lot being triangular only the rear of the residence
conforms to the Ordinance requirements, and that area
has some trees and other intrusions that preclude the
placement of the dish. Also, a satellite dish has to
be directed to the southwest so that places additional
restrictions on available sites. Under the
circumstances, the existing location of the dish
appears to be the most reasonable.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 7 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86)
There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was
present and had no additional comments. A motion was made
for approval as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6
ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 8 - Z-4693
Owner: Frank Fletcher, Jr.
Address: 2000 East 17th Street
Description: Blocks 16 and 17, Manufacturer's
Addition
Zoned: "I-2" and "I-3"
Variance
Requested: From the side yard provisions of Section
7-104.3/D.2
Justification: New building having to set 40 feet from
existing structure to provide fire
service alley.
Present Use of
Property: Parking lot
Proposed Use of
Property: Warehouse
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
No issues have been reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to permit a new building with a 25-foot
setback for the north side yard. The side yard
requirement in the "I-3" District is 30 feet. A
portion of the new construction will be located on land
zoned "I-2" which requires a 15-foot side yard, so
there is no variance required there. The primary
justification for the variance is the requirement of
providing a 40-foot fire lane between the existing
building and the proposed structure. This is being
requested by the City's Public Works Department to
maintain adequate access for fire protection. The
encroachment of five feet will not have an impact on
the property to the north because that is being used
primarily for pipe storage. Reduced setbacks or yard
areas not meeting the Zoning Ordinance requirements in
this section of Little Rock are quite common.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 8 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
(7-21-86)
There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was
represented by a Mr. Jones who stated that he had met with
Mr. Scott of the Public Works Staff and had satisfied the
parking need. He also stated that he was aware of the
utility requirements for movement of existing facilities and
had made provision for such. A motion was then made to
approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote
of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 9 - Z-4696
Owner: J.L. + Evelyn Thomas
Address: Thomas Park Road
Description: Lots 7A and 7B, Thomas Park Addition,
Phase II
Zoned: "R-2"
Variance
Requested: From the floodplain restrictions of
Paragraph A, Paragraph 4 of Section B of
Article 5 of Ordinance No. 14,534 to
permit a waiver of the 25-foot setback
from the floodway line.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of
Property: Single family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
To be presented at the hearing.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is to waive
the required 25-foot setback from a floodway line for
two lots. Ordinance No. 14,534 requires a 25-foot
setback from any established floodway line. Thomas
Park Addition was platted prior to the Corps of
Engineers mapping the floodway in this area, so that
does create some justification for requesting a
variance. After reviewing the request, staff feels
that only Lot 7B is truly impacted by the floodway
setback line and that it should be granted some relief
from the 25-foot setback. Staff feels that some type
of setback should remain to provide an area for access
if it is needed. Lot 7A has less of a floodway
involvement, and even with the 25-foot requirement,
there is still an adequate buildable area so no
hardship exists.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 9 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that an encroachment of 15 feet be
granted for only Lot 7B, thus reducing the floodway
setback to 10 feet, and no variance will be approved
for Lot 7A.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86)
There were no objectors present. The application was
represented by Mr. Robert Richardson. Mr. Richardson stated
that he concurred with the staff recommendation. Mr. Larry
McKellups, a neighbor, had questions concerning the drainage
problem in the area. A brief discussion of the drainage
issue resulted in the Board determining that no action of
the Board would affect the current drainage circumstances.
The Board directed Mr. McKellups to Mike Batie of the Public
Works Department to discuss resolution of the problem. A
motion was then made to approve the application as
recommended by the staff. The motion passed by a vote of 7
ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 10 - Z-4697
Owner: Sheldon L. Rand
Address: 1305 North Mellon
Description: Lot 35, Hall Cove Addition
Zoned: "R-2"
Variance
Requested: From the side yard provisions of
Section 7- 101.2 /G.1 to permit a new
carport with a zero -foot setback.
Justification:
1. No other access from rear or side of property for a
vehicle is available.
2. Carport can't be located on south side of house because
the slope north to south is 14 inches to the centerline
of the driveway and east to west is 25 inches from the
west side of the carport to the east side of a circular
drive. Both slopes are very steep.
Present Use of
Property: Single family
Proposed Use of
Property: Same
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analvsis
The request is to grant a side yard variance for a
carport to be located on the south property line. In
the "R -2" District, a maximum of 8 feet is required for
a side yard. The proposed carport will be 12' x 38'
and attached to the existing carport. The exact
nature of its construction is unknown at this time, but
it will be used for a motor home vehicle. Staff is
concerned with the size of the construction and the
issue of over building the lot. In addition to the
structural involvement, a high percentage of the front
yard is paved and the carport as is being proposed
July 21, 1986
Item No. 10 - Continued
could create an undesirable situation. One potential
problem is runoff, and its impact on the property in
question and the lot to the south. With a carport of
this size being situated directly on the property line,
its impact on other properties should be carefully
considered. After reviewing the proposal, staff feels
that a true hardship does not exist and cannot support
the zero-foot setback. It appears that the carport
could adversely affect the neighborhood and be an
unsightly addition to the lot because of its size.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance as requested.
The staff provided comments to the Board that had been
received from the Wastewater Utility concerning the
placement of a sewer line adjacent to the south
property line which would lie directly beneath the
proposed construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86)
There were no objectors in attendance. The owner was
present and addressed the staffs recommendation offering
arguments counter to those points offered in the staff
analysis. He stated that he was aware of the sewer line,
but that it was under the existing retaining wall
approximately 5 1/2' and would not be harmed by this
construction. When questioned by the Staff and the Board,
Mr. Rand stated that he accepted the fact that he would bear
the cost of replacing any property or structures which the
utility might be required to remove for access to their
line. Mr. Rand described his building as a carport for a
motor home which will have 8 metal posts supporting a roof
structure. Mr. Rand then offered a lengthy presentation of
circumstances in the immediate neighborhood which he
indicated are of a like kind to his proposal and supported
his variance request. After a lengthy discussion of the
proposal, the Board voted on a motion to approve the
variance subject to the requirement of a l' setback from the
south property line and assurance of protection and location
of the existing sewer line. This motion failed for lack of
an affirmative vote. The vote on the motion was 2 ayes, 4
nays and 3 absent.
Additional discussion was held concerning whether the Board
should or could proceed with further dicussion and offer
relief in the form of a different proposal. The Board
determined that it was appropriate to act on a second
proposal which suggested the carport be placed in direct
July 21, 1986
Item No. 10 - Continued
line with the existing carport with the same side yard on
the south. This proposal would require a side yard variance
inasmuch as the current carport structure intrudes in the
yard area. A second motion was then made to approve the
location of the carport as follows: the location of the
structure is to be immediately in front and west of the
current carport sharing the same and an extension of the
south carport line and over the existing driveway. The
structure is also required to be attached to the carport and
the house. This motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 nays
and 2 absent.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 11 - Z-4698
Owner: Industrial Plaza Partners, Ltd.
Address: West 65th and Geyer Springs
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C-3"
Variance
Requested: From the outdoor display provisions of
Section 7-103.3 a and b to permit
outside display within a fenced area.
Justification: Code provisions allow outdoor display
under certain unspecified conditions.
Applicant's use would not be an offense
to the area or conflict with code
provisions. Proposed use needed to be
competitive to similar businesses
using outside display. Additional
outside areas needed to service the
needs of retail customers.
Present Use of
Property: Shopping center
Proposed Use of
Property: Same
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to permit permanent open display for a
retail outlet zoned "C-3," and a variance is required
to allow this type of activity. The development
criteria for the "C-3" District states that:
All commercial uses shall be restricted to closed
buildings except parking lots, plant nurseries
promotional events and normal pump island services
of service station operations. In addition,
outdoor display of merchandise is allowed in an
area equal to one-half of the facade area of the
front of the building. Certain seasonal or
special event sales may be allowed when the owner
has requested a permit for such activity in
conjunction with the privilege license
July 21, 1986
Item No. 11 - Continued
application. The permitting authority shall
review the owner's plan or placement of
merchandise in order to assure that obstruction of
driveways, walks, required parking and fire lanes
does not occur. In no case shall full-time static
open display be permitted.
In addition, the purpose and intent section says that
outdoor display of merchandise is allowed under
carefully controlled conditions. The proposal is to
construct a chain link fence around an area 16' x 170',
adjacent to West 65th, and display such items as garden
supplies, building materials and seasonal merchandise.
The applicant has stated that this type of display area
is needed to allow the store in question to be
competitive with other similar establishments. He has
pointed out that other stores have outdoor display
areas and the staff recognizes that, but a majority of
those locations have the area in very close proximity
to the principal building and not located adjacent to
the street. Also, with most retail establishments that
have fenced areas, they are placed directly adjacent to
a building. In those situations where seasonal display
is occurring, it is always in front of the building and
does not have the appearance of being permanent so the
items can be readily changed. What is being proposed
with this variance could create a very undesirable
situation and staff does not support the request.
Because of the proposed location, it could have an
adverse impact on the area by becoming an unsightly
storage facility and a trash receptacle. If outdoor
display is needed, it should be located closer to the
building and not within a permanent fenced area.
Adequate justification has not been provided for the
variance, and the proposal goes far beyond the intent
of the "C-3" District and the provisions for outdoor
display under carefully controlled conditions.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86)
There were no objectors in attendance. There was one letter
of objection from an adjacent property owner. The applicant
was represented by Mr. Tom Thrash. Mr. Thrash offered
comments on the proposal identifying the type of usage and
similar uses on other retail projects about the City
indicating that this proposal would be no more of an impact
on the adjacent property than K -Mart and other similar types
of uses in their neighborhoods. He stated that the parking
July 21, 1986
Item No. 11 - Continued
lot should not be impacted as to the number of spaces
inasmuch as there are approximtely 20 stalls currently in
excess of the Ordinance requirement. A lengthy discussion
of the proposal was then held whereby several options were
offered for placement of the open air display. These
suggestions involved the staff and other City departments
working with the owner on the design and placement. A
motion followed as follows: that the the variance be
approved so long as the display is adjacent and contiguous
to the building and the owner is to locate and advise the
City staff of the specifications. Additional comments were
then offered by the staff as to gaining direction on
placement and dimensions. The staff felt this was required
prior to a vote on the motion so as to give some direction.
The motion was characterized by a member of the Board as
permitting an open display on the property with the staff
and other City personnel reviewing the plan. This would
involve such departments as Fire and Building Codes. After
further discussion, it was determined that a second to the
motion would not be forthcoming. Further discussion of the
matter disclosed that the Board had sufficient concerns
about the proposal to warrant a deferral. A motion was then
made to defer the request until the August meeting in order
to allow the applicant time to rethink the proposal and
offer solutions to the concerns raised. The motion passed
by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 12 - Z-4699
Owner: Ralph Hyman
Address: 1717 Kavanaugh
Description: Lots 7 and 8, Block 11, East Pulaski
Heights Addition
Zoned: "R-3"
Variance
Requested: From the yard provisions of Section
7-103 /D B to permit encroachment by a
pool into a setback.
Justification: Lot size
Present Use of
Property: Single family
Proposed Use of
Property: Same
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue is to allow a swimming pool, an accessory
structure to be located less than 60 feet from the
front property line. In the "R -3" District, accessory
structures shall be not located closer than 60 feet to
the front property line. Because of being located on a
corner, the lot dimension and the placement of the
residence on the lot, there is no area available for a
pool that does not require a variance. This would be
the situation regardless of what street side is called
the front yard. Staff believes that a hardship exists
and supports the variance. The pool should not have a
visible impact on the neighborhood because the area is
below the street grade of both Kavanaugh and North
Valentine.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 12 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7- 21 -86)
There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was
represented by Cindy Bauer. There was a brief discussion of
the siting of the pool and discussion of possible placement
of a screening fence. The fence issue was referred to the
Public Works Department for resolution as to blind corner
Ordinance and permitted height. After a brief discussion, a
motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The
motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 13 - Z-3858-A
Owner: Mabelvale United Methodist Church
Address: 2nd and Walnut
Description: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12,
Block 29, Town of Mabelvale
Zoned: "R -2" with conditional use permit
Request: To review previously approved
conditional use permit under the
provisions of Section 4-102/H.3
Present Use of
Property: Church
Proposed Use of
Property: Same
STAFF REPORT:
The request is to determine whether a proposed after school
care program meets the conditions set out in a previously
approved conditional use permit. The Zoning Ordinance
allows for expansions or additions under the following
conditions:
1. Said proposed expansion is limited to a structural
addition to an existing building not to exceed 10
percent of the gross floor area within the
existing structure to be expanded.
2. Said expansion is limited to one time subsequent
to the original conditional use authorization.
3. Said proposed expansion is reviewed and approved
by the Little Rock Board of Adjustment with a
determination that such expansion does not violate
any of the conditions set forth in the original
conditional use authorization does not require
further imposition of new conditions and does not
adversely impact surrounding properties.
A conditional use permit was approved for the church,
nonconforming at the time, in September 1982, for a
multi - purpose building. The structure is being utilized for
many activities including a gym. The proposed program will
use the gym and the basement of the sanctuary building. The
only additional structural involvement will be the addition
of some playground equipment, and this area will have a
restricted time period for use.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 13 - Continued
Staff's position is that the proposed expansion meets the
provisions set out in the Zoning Ordinance and is not in
conflict with the approved conditional use permit.
(Attached is the letter of request from the church.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86)
There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was
present. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to
approve the variance as filed and declare the proposal in
keeping with the Conditional Use Permit as approved. The
motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1
abstention (John McDaniel).
MABELVALE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
SECOND AND WALNUT STREETS
BOX 165
MABELVALE, ARKANSAS 72103
June 19, 1986
Mr. Tony Bozynski
Office of Comprehensive Planning
City Hall
Markham at Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Mr. Bozynski:
I am filing this request for approval of an after-school
care program for children 6 to 12 years of age and those
who are five and in kindergarten. We will use mainly our
existing educational facility located in the basement hall
of the sanctuary building. We will also use the gym.
On the rear parking lot a four-square, hopscotch and
ball circle will be painted and two or three pieces of
play equipment, such as a balance rail, a sandbox, and
a tunnel constructed from a barrel, will be placed on
the grass between the building and the parking lot.
Use of the playground will be restricted to between 4:45
and 6 p.m.
We plan to enroll up to 29 children with two full-time
directors and numerous volunteers. This program is a
needed service in the community and is regarded by our
church as a mission /ministry outreach we can do. We have
passed all other inspections and await this consideration
by the Board of Adjustment before receiving our license.
Please grant us approval for this use of our building
and grounds, which are admirably suited for this purpose.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jenni Douglas
Coordinator of Educational Ministries
July 21, 1986
Item No. 14 - Other Matters
Request: To review parking provisions in the
Zoning Ordinance because of the City
denying several privilege licenses.
STAFF REPORT:
Jim Moses has submitted a written request to the Planning
Office asking the staff and the Board of Adjustment to
review the parking requirements because of a problem he has
encountered trying to lease a building at 2611 Kavanaugh
zoned "C -3," in the Hillcrest area that he and several
partners own. In this structure, there are two areas
available for lease, and over the past couple months,
several parties have approached Mr. Moses about leasing
space for a food service establishment. When the person
applied for a privilege license, each request was denied
because of not meeting the parking requirements, which is
one space per 100 square feet for an eating place.
The location in question is part of a long established
neighborhood commercial district where parking requirements
are a problem as is the case with most older commercial
areas. Mr. Moses is concerned with this situation because
of the possible effect on the viability of these areas and
is suggesting that special consideration be given to central
city neighborhoods when reviewing zoning and privilege
licenses. He feels that there is a difference between areas
such as the Hillcrest Neighborhood Center and suburban
commercial locations that needs to be recognized when
various reviews are being made by the City.
The Zoning Ordinance is very specific in setting out
the parking standards and makes no allowances for old areas
versus newly developed locations. Also, the City Board of
Directors has instructed the staff to follow the ordinance
in all situations when reviewing developments and parking
requirements. (Attached is a copy of Mr. Moses' letter that
goes into great detail about his concerns.)
July 21, 1986
Item No. 14 - Other Matters
Request: To review parking provisions in the
Zoning Ordinance because of the City
denying several privilege licenses.
STAFF REPORT:
Jim Moses has submitted a written request to the Planning
Office asking the staff and the Board of Adjustment to
review the parking requirements because of a problem he has
encountered trying to lease a building at 2611 Kavanaugh
zoned "C -3," in the Hillcrest area that he and several
partners own. In this structure, there are two areas
available for lease, and over the past couple months,
several parties have approached Mr. Moses about leasing
space for a food service establishment. When the person
applied for a privilege license, each request was denied
because of not meeting the parking requirements, which is
one space per 100 square feet for an eating place.
The location in question is part of a long established
neighborhood commercial district where parking requirements
are a problem as is the case with most older commercial
areas. Mr. Moses is concerned with this situation because
of the possible effect on the viability of these areas and
is suggesting that special consideration be given to central
city neighborhoods when reviewing zoning and privilege
licenses. He feels that there is a difference between areas
such as the Hillcrest Neighborhood Center and suburban
commercial locations that needs to be recognized when
various reviews are being made by the City.
The Zoning Ordinance is very specific in setting out
the parking standards and makes no allowances for old areas
versus newly developed locations. Also, the City Board of
Directors has instructed the staff to follow the ordinance
in all situations when reviewing developments and parking
requirements. (Attached is a copy of Mr. Moses' letter that
goes into great detail about his concerns.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86)
Mr. Jim Moses offered comments on the circumstance of his
proposal and the building involved. He further identified
his search for parking within the area to satisfy the City's
requirement. He stated that there was little or no parking
resource in the immediate area and that most properties were
fully developed and that situation had existed for 60 years
or more. The staff outlined the Board of Director directive
on controlling occupancy changes which increase parking
requirements. It was pointed out becuase the use is
nonconforming as to parking, that a like kind of use could
July 21, 1986
Item No. 14 - Continued
occupy the space, but that a use requiring a greater parking
requirement could not. Mr. Moses addressed use of the
Masonic Lodge property parking and stated that a long-term
commitment could not be obtained. He stated that he had
attempted everything to relieve the situation without
success and felt that some relief was in order. A lenghty
discussion followed wherein it was determined that a
specific request would be entertained by the Board. A
consideration of the hardships would be reviewed for
possible variance. Further that the Staff policy direction
is affirmed. This position of the Board was unanimous and
no formal motion was offered nor deemed necessary.
Mr. Tony Bozynski
Office of Comprehensive Planning
City Hall
Little Rock, AR 72201
T-T7-M 140. 14
July 3, 1986
Re: Privilege License Denial - 2611 Kavanaugh Building
Dear Tony:
The purpose of this letter is to describe a serious problem we have
encountered regarding the leasing of the above referenced building,
due to prospective tenants' inability to obtain a privilege license.
I would like to ask the Planning Staff and the Board of Adjustment to
consider our situation and help us remedy this problem, if possible.
Last August (1985), my partners and I purchased a 3,500 square foot,
one story building located at 2611 Kavanaugh, in the Hillcrest
neighborhood. In recent years, the building has housed several
retail users, including a bicycle shop, a camping supply store and a
record store. At the time we purchased the building, approximately
1,200 square feet were leased to a car stereo shop and the balance of
the space was vacant. Prior to the closing of the sale, I checked
and confirmed that this property was zoned C-3.
The sale included the building and the land on which the building is
located. I would estimate that this building is approximately 40
years old. To the east and sharing a common wall is the Cabaret
Restaurant and Bar. To the west is an alley that, because of the
steep terrain between Woodlawn and Kavanaugh, does not permit through
traffic. On the west side of the alley is the Hillcrest Laundry.
In the past two (2) months, three different prospective tenants have
seriously considered leasing the remaining 2,300 square feet in the
building with the idea of opening some type of food service facility
(ranging from a tea room /catering business serving one meal a day to
a hamburger restaurant serving lunch and dinner). In each instance,
the prospective tenant's use is allowed under "C-3" zoning, but when
they inquired about obtaining a privilege license, they were refused.
225 EAST MARKHAM RM
SUITE 400 HERITAGE EAST
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
TELEPHONE (501) 375-0378
•Architecture • Planning
•Development•
Mr. Tony Bozynski
July 3, 1986
Page Two
Jim Hatcock at the licensing office has now explained to me that
although a restaurant is permitted under "C-3" zoning and that in
fact the building is in a "C-3 zone, the license could not be granted
because we do not have adequate parking. We were told that a
restaurant there would further increase the level of non-compliance
regarding parking and that we would need parking in a ratio of 1 to
100 square feet or the license would not be issued. Such action on
the City's part has left us without a tenant in our building.
We are troubled by the concept of restricting use in an existing
urban neighborhood, through the privilege license process, rather
than the zoning process. Although we can apprecate this joint
scrutiny (privelege license and zoning use review) for new
construction, where the developer must provide parking regardless of
the use, the current position of the City works a hardship on the
older, more urban commercial districts, where suburban style
development cannot occur. In fact, we own no other land on which the
required parking could be located. Obviously, we cannot manufacture
additional land. The City's approach, in essence, restricts the use
of the building, even though the zoning allows for it. We are left
to suffer the consequences.
We have asked the Masonic Lodge at 2700 Kavanaugh (less than 150 feet
to the west of our property) for permission to use their lot, which
is normally occupied by them one time a month, in the evenings. They
have consented to our request, but are unwilling to reduce the verbal
commitment to writing. In addition, Kavanaugh is a primary bus
route, providing public vehicular access to our property and
requiring no parking for visitors once they arrive. We believe the
Masonic parking and the bus access will adequately handle parking for
the building.
It is our opinion that the several central city neighborhoods (e.g.,
HIllcrest, Heights) deserve special consideration when the zoning and
privilege licensing process is applied. Quality commercial
development and redevelopment along Kavanaugh will in the long term
help keep these neighborhoods healthy and vibrant. Neighborhood
restaurants, take out services and catering businesses are
commonplace in many cities and assist in making neighborhoods more
desirable, not less. Random clearing of property along Kavanaugh to
conform to city parking requirements could well become the norm for
future development. And, in our opinion, that is neither practical
nor desirable.
Mr. Tony Bozynski
July 3, 1986
Page Three
We ask that you reconsider the application of the privilege licensing
process as a means to further restrict allowed uses within zones in
the older parts of our city. And specifically, we ask that a
restaurant be allowed to occupy space in our building, provided it
meets all other city and health requirements.
Sincerely,
Jam s A. Moses
JAM /mlb
July 21, 1986
Item No. 15 - Other Matters
Request: To review a prior denial of signal
media broadcast tower submitted by
letter of the applicants attorney.
The specific request is that the Board
of Adjustment reopen this issue for a
height variance due to the appointment
problems existant at the time of the
last review when this proposal was
denied. The applicant's attorney
stated that he felt his client was
impacted by that circumstance and
that some review was appropriate.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86)
The request was not represented. The Planning staff offered
a brief overview of the issue with some history of the
action and subsequent polling of the Board for
reconsideration. The Board briefly discussed the request
and determined that it would not hear the issue.
July 21, 1986
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at at 3:30 p.m.
Secretary Chairman
Date