boa_04 18 1988LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY AND MINUTES
APRIL 18, 1988
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being eight in attendance.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Approval of the minutes were granted two corrections.
III. Members Present: John McDaniel, Chairman
Cynthia Alderman
Earlene Douglas
Rex Crane
Ronald Pierce
Eduard Scharff
Jim Mitchell
Thomas McGowan
Member Absent: George Wells
City Attorney Present: Stephen Giles
April 18, 1988
Item No. A - Z-2371-A
Owner: The Crestwood Company /General Properties
Address: 617 South Broadway
Description: Lots 1-4 and Lots 9-12, Block 106,
Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas
Zoned: "GB" General Business
Variance From the parking requirement provisions
Requested: of Section 43-35 (1) of the Central
Little Rock Ordinance to permit leasing
of parking spaces to the public.
Justification: (1) The leasing of the parking spaces
promotes the most desirable use of
the property, in that this property
is already fashioned so as to be a
parking garage.
(2) The leasing of the parking spaces
provides off-street parking in
conjunction with the development of
a commercial area.
Present Use of
Property: Parking garage
Proposed Use
of Property: Parking garage available to the public
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analvsis
At issue before the Board of Adjustment is a request
from the Holiday Inn City Center to allow for the
present four -story garage to be contracted out in order
for some of the parking spaces to be used commercially.
This particular parcel of property is located west of
Broadway. The Central Little Rock Ordinance states
that the parking requirement is one space per guest
room. A block north of this location is the
Metrocentre area which requires zero parking, i.e.,
April 18, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
Capitol Towers Parking Garage. In the Central Little
Rock Ordinance, commercial lots are permitted but
exempt from enclosure which is intended for those lots
that are not confined by a roof and sides.
The applicant states that free parking will continue to
be offered to the hotel guests. On an average yearly
occupancy, there has been recently only a 42 percent
usage of the garage by the hotel guests. Therefore,
the applicants request is for more than half or 55
percent of the parking spaces to be leased out.
To the rear of the property between the garage and
hotel is a 20 -foot alley. A 15 -foot skyway is
constructed that connects the two structures. Since
the location of this property is in the Central Little
Rock area, the Zoning Ordinance requirements do not
apply. The Central Little Rock Ordinance would prevail
in the requirements and restrictions. Staff feels that
because of the fact the hotel use does not generate a
lot of traffic in that a lot of the occupancies are
either picked up or dropped off, the applicant's
request is a reasonable one. But, during those times
when more of the hotel rooms would possibly be in use,
some provision will need to be provided.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval subject to: (a) a maximum of
140 spaces be provided for guest parking only and be
designated for the first two lower level floors, and (b) the
remaining 176 spaces be used as leased parking spaces
located on the upper two level floors with some type of
marking to indicate that they are in fact leased spaces.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Victor Fleming represented the applicant, the Crestwood
Company /General Properties. There were no objectors
present. Mr. Fleming stated that he was in receipt of
staff's recommendation but felt that they over extended
their authority by suggesting that the parking areas be
designated as to the use service. The request is for the
contracting out of the parking deck for the leasing of
approximately 70 percent of the parking as commercial use.
Mr. Fleming stated he doesn't feel that the intent of the
ordinance which indicates one space per guest room was meant
to be totally for that use only. His client had no
April 18, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
intention of violating the covenants of the ordinance. He
pointed out that in staff's analysis where it states that
only 42 percent of the garage is used on a yearly basis
doesn't apply to the garage but to the hotel occupancy. In
their letter to staff, it was wasn't indicated how many
parking spaces are used on an average basis. He then
submitted a letter which addressed the parking garage
average occupancy. The letter indicated that an average of
less than 100 cars per day represent hotel clientele in the
garage. He then stated that in staff's analysis where it
indicated the hotel wants to lease out 55 percent of the
parking spaces was incorrect. What his client wanted was to
be able to lease out all of the parking spaces not occupied
by the hotel guests.
Also included in the letter submitted to the Board were
explanations of the type of hardships associated with the
marking of the spaces, which again he felt, the staff by
recommending striping of the spaces and designating their
use had intruded into the day -to -day operations of the
hotel. There is a lease that has not been executed with
National Garage which is so worded that in the event the
lease is enacted, parking will be provided for all hotel
guests, employees, restaurant patrons, and attendants of the
hotel will be given preferential treatment regarding the
available parking spaces. Because of the expertise of the
contracting agent, a sliding scale will be used to ensure
that not all the parking spaces are occupied at any given
time. A suggestion to the Board would be to grant
permission to open the garage to the public without any hard
and fast numbers but with the understanding from the
Crestwood Company and assurances from them that they will'
not allow the intent of the ordinance to be violated. The
applicant would like for the Board to allow a period of six
months to see if this suggestion would work after which time
if it's proven that it doesn't, then other measures can be
taken.
After a considerable amount of discussion regarding staff's
intent in the recommendation such as the 55 percent figure
coming from one of Mr. Fleming's staff and not just
arbitrarily decided upon by staff, the purpose of the
designated location for the guest parking versus the lease
parking, the Board concern regarding what exactly was the
hardship beside the financial aspect and what guarantees can
the applicant provide that during the peak hours of the
hotel enough spaces would be provided. Mr. Kenny Scott of
April 18, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
the Zoning Enforcement Office stated that he would like to
caution the Board about the possible precedent that may be
set by approving this request. It is the first received by
his office and if approved probably would encourage other
parking decks in the downtown area to seek the same request.
The chairman then stated that it wasn't the intent of the
Board to scrutinize the parking in the downtown area because
the Board is very concerned about the availability of
parking especially in this area of the City. The Board was
under the impression that it was the hotel who would be
leasing the parking spaces out and not a contractual agent
like National Garage. Mr. Fleming stated that there is and
isn't a contractural agent in that the applicant in essence
wanted the most efficient operation possible. Therefore,
the lease is partially signed, but at the surprise of both
parties concerned, it was put on hold due to the City
stating that the process would be in violation of the Zoning
Ordinance. More discussion occurred between the Board,
staff, and applicant. Mr. Fleming was then asked what would
he state as the recommendation of his applicant. He then
stated that what his applicant would like is approval of the
request to open the parking spaces to the public with
adequate assurances and adequate review on a periodic basis
to ensure the spirit and intent of the one-to-one ratio of
the Zoning Ordinance is not violated.
The Board after discussion among themselves felt that a
legal interpretation was needed before they could make a
ruling on the request. Mr. Fleming was then asked if he
could agree to a 30 -day deferral at which time the City
Attorney's Office would do some research and offer an
opinion at the next meeting. Mr. Fleming agreed to the
30 -day deferral. A motion was then offered to defer this
item until the April 18, 1988, meeting. The motion passed
by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (4-18-88)
The applicant was represented by Victor Fleming. There were
no objectors in attendance. Mr. Fleming stated that if he
recalls correctly, this item was deferred to allow time for
the City Attorney's Office to render an opinion on whether
the Board could permit what the applicant is wanting, which
is to be able to lease the parking spaces without any hard
and fast numbers as to what percentage or area of the deck
could be leased to the public and without the necessity of
signage as to what was going to be leased to the public
versus what was going to be reservod for the hotel guests.
April 18, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
He had reviewed the City Attorney's opinion, and it really
doesn't address the request of the applicant but rather the
fact the Board can address any request it feels when an
undue hardship is demonstrated, which was addressed at the
last meeting. Mr. Fleming then stated two issues of which
he wanted to address, the signage of the parking spaces and
the hardship issue.
The concept of a hardship in the area of real estate law can
be analyzed a part from any economic consequences. In this
particular instance, he stated that his applicant urged upon
the Board that the hardship is that there exists a parking
deck with 316 spaces. There are 316 spaces because the
hotel has 280 rooms, but the day -to -day records of the hotel
and parking deck indicate during peak occupancy times, there
is only 30 percent of the spaces occupied by the hotel
guests. The real estate structure is setting there with a
purpose, and the purpose is not being used. Mr. Fleming
further stated relevant to that is in the neighboring
district, Metrocentre, similar types of structures exist
with no parking requirement whatsoever. His clients suggest
to the Board that in itself is the hardship for more
utilization of the real estate structure.
In regard to the signage, Mr. Fleming stated that in the
agenda session, he presented to the Board a report, titled
"Shared Parking for Real Estate Development," on parking
indicating that on an hour by hour basis, parking spaces at
hotels and restaurants, etc., the percentage of parking
spaces that are used at peak hours and other hours. The
important aspect of the document is hotel parking spaces
tend to be at 6 in the morning and 10 at night. In between
that time, the usage, tends to slide to 30 percent during
the day. At the same time, spaces for office and retail
uses are full from 10 to 12 noon, other times they
fluctuate. The report has been taken in account by the
company with whom the hotel is proposing to lease.
Mr. Kevin May, a representative of the company, Central
Parking Systems, was in attendance. This type of study
indicates that the applicant request is not unreasonable and
should be allowed to lease up the parking spaces to the
public without any specific number of spaces and without
putting the signs out. Mr. Fleming then commended Ms. Brown
on the excellent recitation of the last preceedings but
asked that staff change their recommendation and not insist
on signs being put up.
April 18, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
A Board member then addressed the question of whether there
had been any comments from the City Traffic Engineer
regarding traffic problems for the use the applicant has
requested. Staff stated that the items were sent to the
City Emgineering Department and no comments were received
back. It was then asked if there was any indication of how
the stacking would occur, traffic flow, or congestion.
Mr. Mays stated that the only traffic problem that has been
encountered is the alley between the parking deck and hotel
which is a two -way alley. It has not been designated as a
one -way to free the traffic flow so there is congestion at
times especially, when there is loading and unloading for
the hotel itself taking place. Mr. May was asked if that
would be a problem for the adjoining property between the
times 7 to 7:30 in the morning. Or, is there any
anticipation of a lot of backup that may occur at the
intersection of Broadway and 7th. Mr. May stated that he
wouldn't say that.
A concern of one member of the Board was, exactly what are
the Holiday Inn's arrangements with the YMCA? Does the YMCA
currently lease or trade spaces for the use of the YMCA from
the Holiday Inn? Mr. Fleming stated that it was his
understanding that the Holiday Inn has an arrangement with
the YMCA that members of the YMCA can park free by obtaining
a note from the Holiday Inn which is stamped. There is no
provision to pay for parking nor has there ever been. It
was then asked if that particular arrangement would
continue? Mr. Fleming stated that question raises an issue
regarding the request of the applicant, the ordinance would
be violated, then that being the case the arrangement with
the YMCA is in violation also. But nowhere in the ordinance
is it stated that the parking spaces have to be exclusively
for the hotel use.
Another question was asked regarding the Holiday Inn's
arrangement for conventions and meetings on a monthly basis.
If parking is provided to them on a monthly basis free,
would that continue? Mr. Fleming stated, yes, it would.
Those persons continue to use the facility, and it is known
in advance when the meetings take place and how many parking
spaces are used by the different groups. The garage
operator keeps a daily record on what the hotel traffic will
be and adjust the parking spaces accordingly. The City
Attorney has a copy of the lease, which has not been signed,
and if the variance is approved would take effect on the
first of May.
April 18, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
Staff stated that one reason for the recommendation is to
provide some means for the Zoning Enforcement Office to
monitor the uses rather than just allowing it to be
open- ended. The point behind the two earlier questions was
to see if there really is an underutilization of the use,
which is part of the argument the applicant is making. Can
the applicant show some other proof other than the number of
person entering or cars parked in the deck. Mr. Fleming
stated the management of the Central Parking System as well
as the hotel are satisfied that the reasonable projections
regarding the ability to lease the spaces coupled with the
existing use does not result in overutilization. It was
asked again whether or not Engineering had commented on the
possible traffic congestion. Staff stated that no
communication had been received.
The Chairman then stated that it was the intention of the
Board to work out some agreement with the applicant but in
his opinion feels that the Board is reluctant to allow for
an open -ended approval and not provide some means of
monitoring the spaces as staff has pointed out. Mr. Fleming
stated he felt that staff's recommendation was based on some
information given to Ms. Brown by an assistant in his
office, which was incorrect, because what the applicant
would like is that at least 70 percent be used as leased
parking spaces. He would hate for the request to be granted
on that basis from information given by a person in his
office who was not authorized to do so. A Board member
asked how would the monitoring occur. Staff stated that it
would be up to the Zoning Enforcement Office on how often
and what means to use. Dana Carney of the Zoning
Enforcement Office stated that staff was correct in trying
to provide a means of monitoring the situation because
having it open -ended would put them in an impossible
situation. But with the striping, they would have some
indication on the numbers to be used for lease versus hotel
guests. It was asked of Mr. Carney and staff how could it
ensure that the cars in the different spaces were in fact
for that use. Mr. Carney stated that actual proof would
have to be done on a good faith effort.
Mr. Fleming stated that it has always been the intent of the
applicant to be open and honest about the proposal. A
recommendation would be offered that the Zoning Enforcement
Office come by on a periodic basis and check the records
from Central Parking Systems to ensure that the intent is
being kept.
April 18, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
The question of what problems does the applicant have with
providing the 140 designated spaces for the hotel guests was
asked. Mr. Fleming stated the hard and fast numbers if 30
percent presented, there is the expense of the signs. If
the applicant puts them up when additional spaces are
needed, the applicant would have to be out that expense
again.
A motion was then made to approve the parking variance for
140 spaces for hotel guests and 176 for lease parking
spaces. Monitoring of the parking should be by the Zoning
Enforcement Office and accomplished by periodically checking
the records. There should be no signs provided indicating
the different types of uses. The motion passed by a vote of
7 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent.
April 18, 1988
Item No. B - Z-4982
Owner: Dorothy Lynn
Address: 2224 North Beechwood
Description: Lot 1, Block 7
Elmhurst Addition to the City of
Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the Area Regulations Provision
of Section 5-102.0 to permit
construction of an accessory building
to be less than 60 feet from a front
property line.
Justification: The storage building is needed to
store yard tools and garden materials
in order to protect them from
vandalism and theft.
Present Use of
Property: Residential
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The applicant is seeking approval from the ordinance
requirements for the construction of an 8' x 12'
storage building. At issue before the Board is the
Ordinance requirement of an accessory structure in an
"R-2" zoning being 60 feet from the frontage on a
street. The lot in question is 50 feet in width. To
the south, there is an open alley. In the past, there
was a 20' x 24' garage in the location in question.
The property is located in one of the older established
areas. The present structure on the site is a wood
frame house, and there is mature landscaping on the
property. The lot is on a corner lot and both "B"
April 18, 1988
Item No. B - Continued
and Beechwood Streets are narrow in size with no
immediate plans for future improvements. The street
most affected would be "B" Street. The applicant
proposes for the frontage to be 39 feet. There is a
wire fence surrounding the property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Neither the applicant or a representative was present. A
motion was made to defer this request for 30 days. The
motion passed a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. This item
will appear again on the April 18, 1988, meeting agenda.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 1 - Z-5001
Owner: Larry S. Kirchner
Address: 1118 North Polk
Description: Lot 2, Block 6, Hollenberg Addition
to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance From the area regulations provisions of
Requested: Section 7-101.2-D.2 to permit an
addition with a reduced side yard
setback.
Justification: (a) The lot is not very wide.
Present Use of
Property: Residential
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential
STAFF REPORT:
(b) The location selected for the
new addition maintains the
existing tree and existing bedroom
window.
A. Enaineerina Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The request before the Board of Adjustment at this time
is for a reduced side yard variance. The Zoning
Ordinance requires for the side yard to be five feet,
and the applicant is proposing a side yard of 3.9 feet.
If the new addition was aligned with the 3.7 feet, the
window and large tree would need to be removed. The
addition will be located on the northwest side of the
structure in the rear.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 1 - Continued
Presently, on -site there is a one -story stucco and
frame house. An established drive exists that is
shared with the neighbors on the south. The site has a
substantial size rear yard with several large trees
existing. The rear of the property abuts an alley.
Also located on the rear is a wooden patio.
Staff feels that the applicant has displaced a hardship
in that the best possible location for the addition has
been proposed. The slope of the property is such that
having the north side yard as proposed would not be
extreme to the alignment of the existing house.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was in attendance. There were no objectors
present. A Board member brought to the attention of the
staff, Board, and applicant a correction in the staff
analysis regarding the 3.9 feet requested and the fact that
it would not align with the existing 3.7 feet; therefore,
the statement was incorrect, and the new addition would be,
in fact, more of an extension. The applicant stated that he
had made note of that also and felt it was a typographical
error. Staff stated that the applicant was correct and a
correction would be made to the staff analysis. The
applicant then stated that there were no problems with
staff's recommendation. A motion was then made to approve
the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7
ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Scharff).
April 18, 1988
Item No. 2 - Z-5006
Owner: Frank S. Hiegal
Address: 4820 Stonewall Street
Description: Lots 10 and 11, Block 6, Country Club
Heights Addition to the City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance From the area regulations provisions
Requested: of Section 7-101.2-D. 2 and 3 to
permit a reduced rear and side yard.
Justification: (a) The carport is needed to protect
the 1969 model Oldsmobile
convertible which I have restored.
(b) For the protection of myself and
family from the inclement weather.
Present Use of
Property: Residential
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analvsis
This issue is before the Board of Adjustment as a
result of an enforcement action. What the applicant
has done is constructed a two -car carport that
encroaches within the rear and side yard setbacks for
property zoned residential. The ordinance states that
the rear yard should be 25 feet and the existing
carport is two feet. The side yard should be ten feet
and the applicant's new addition or carport is six
feet. There was already in existence the concrete slab
of which the applicant covered with a roof and poles.
A 15-foot covered walked extends from the carport to
the house.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 2 - Continued
The site consists of two lots with a brick house,
patio area, covered walkway, and carport all attached.
The lots are elevated higher than the street with the
house located more to the north which leaves a large
front yard area. To the side is an open ten-foot alley
which serves as the drive to and from the two-car
carport. Along the north property line is a six-foot
wooden privacy fence.
Not only has the applicant by constructing the two-car
carport encroached within the rear and side yard
setbacks but all the construction took place without a
building permit. Although the two-car carport is
constructed, staff feels that the applicant would have
had to appear before the Board anyway because this is
the most suitable location for the carport.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval subject to the two-car
carport and covered walkway never being enclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was in attendance. There were no objectors
present. Staff made the Board aware of a problem with the
notice requirement. There were two names on the notice form
obtained less than the required ten days. The applicant
explained the reason for the delay was the fact the people
had been out of town but assured the Board that there would
not be any objection from them regarding the request. Staff
informed the Board that a motion was needed before the item
could be heard. A motion was then made to hear the item.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
The applicant was then asked if he had a problem with the
conditions of staff's recommendation. The applicant stated,
no, because he never intends to enclose the carport or
covered walkway. A motion was then made to approve the
request conditioned upon the carport and covered walkway
never being enclosed. The motion passed by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 3 - Z-5007
Owner: Delbert Dawson
Address: 3221 Holt Street
Description: Lot 12, Block 213, John Barrow
Addition to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R-3" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the area regulations provisions
of Section 7-101.3-D.1 to permit
construction of a house with a
reduced front yard setback.
Justification: We feel that West 33rd Street will
never be open and improved as all
the lots face Holt Street on the
west and Elam on the east.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The request before the Board of Adjustment is for the
construction of a new house with a reduced front yard
setback. The lot is located on a corner and while the
applicant will meet the requirement of the ordinance on
the street frontage on Holt Street, the front on
West 33rd Street will not be met. The frontage will be
17 feet, and the requirement for both frontages are
25 feet.
West 33rd is not an open street in this block.
Although the street is closed physically, it is not
officially on the City books; therefore, the variance
April 18, 1988
Item No. 3 - Continued
is needed. There is presently a lot of construction
occurring in the area. The lot in question is cleared
to some degree with some trees sparsely left on the
site. Due to the fact this is a corner lot, staff
feels the applicant has a hardship because of the
requirement of providing two front yard setbacks.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval to the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Neither the applicant nor a representative was in attendance
when the item was addressed. A motion for a deferral was
then stated. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes,
and 1 absent.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 4 - Z-5008
Owner: University Tower Partnership
Address: 5900 West 12th Street
Description: Lot 5, University Commercial
Subdivision, Phase III to the City of
Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance From the commercial district
Requested: restrictions provisions of Section
7-103-C.4 to disallow for the
construction of a six -foot opaque
screening fence.
Justification: The screening would provide a
significant barrier for customers who
are approaching our restaurant.
Present Use of
Property: Parking Lot
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial /Restaurant
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is to disallow
for the construction of a six-foot opaque fence along
the property line that abuts a residentially zoned lot.
What the applicant feels is that the residential lot
adjacent to the proposed site of his commercial use,
which would be a Dairy Queen restaurant should not fall
under the guidelines of the ordinance because it is a
nonconforming residential use of which is a cemetery.
The ordinance states that commercial uses that abut
residential zoned property should be screened by a
six-foot opaque fence with no exception given to
nonconforming residential uses.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 4 - Continued
The site of this new commercial business is at the
northeast corner of University and 12th Street on part
of the parking lot of the Tower Building. The cemetery
is on the lot adjacent to this site and "L" shaped
around the north and east sides. Presently, staff
feels that the cemetery is almost filled to capacity
which is operated by a funeral home which is located
adjacent to the cemetery.
The applicant feels that by being required to meet the
ordinance standards it will provide a significant
barrier for the customers who approach the restaurant
from the east going west on 12th Street. Inasmuch as
the applicant is proposing landscaping along the north
and east sides, staff feels that the placing of a
six -foot wooden fence possibly could be a deterent to
both the commercial and residential uses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval conditioned upon the
applicant doubling the amount of shrubbery proposed by
placing them five-feet from the center instead of the
indicated ten feet and maintaining the upkeep of the
landscaping (shrubbery) on the north and east property
lines.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was in attendance at the meeting. There were
no objectors present. There was some concern among the
Board regarding the added condition of the abandonment of
the 12-inch sewer line. Staff stated that the
recommendation from Wastewater was received just that
morning, and there wasn't time to add that to their copies
of the recommendation. A Board member then asked how would
the applicant accomplish the abandonment, and staff stated
by applying directly to Wastewater. The applicant then
stated that he was aware of the requirement of Wastewater
and had no problems with it or the conditions and staff's
recommendation. A motion was then made to approve the
variance per staff's conditions and as well as to include
the requirement of Wastewater. The motion passed by a vote
of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Mitchell).
April 18, 1988
Item No. 5 - Z-5009
Owner: Market Street Joint Venture
Address: Market Shopping Center /Market and
Merrill Streets
Description: Long legal
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance 1. From the height regulations
Requested: provisions of Section 7-103.3-D
to permit construction of an
addition 42 feet in height.
2. From the parking requirement
provisions of Section 8-101-3.8
to permit less parking spaces
than required.
Justification: The owners want to expand into
currently unleased space.
Present Use of
Property: Commercial /shopping center
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial /shopping center
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analvsis
The request before the Board of Adjustment is for two
variances from the requirements stated in the Zoning
Ordinance. First, the applicant is seeking a height
variance of 42 feet from the requirement of 35 feet.
Second, the applicant is requesting a waiver from the
parking requirements to allow for less parking spaces.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 5 - Continued
The ordinance states that for a shopping center the
parking spaces should be one space per each 225 square
feet of gross leasable area and new shopping centers or
additions to existing shopping centers. The applicant
is proposing 525 off-street parking spaces for gross
square footage of 138,280 leasable area. Using the
requirement of the ordinance, the applicant should
provide 615 spaces in accordance with the 138,280 gross
square footage of leasable space. The applicant states
that 47 additional spaces can be provided off-site on
the side of the two bordering streets, but the
ordinance disallows for counting of parking spaces on
streets. Therefore, the parking variance request is
for a total of 90 parking spaces.
The height variance is requested because to accommodate
the expansion the roof over part of Building D would be
raised approximately eight feet to a height of 42 feet.
The applicant states that portions of the roof which
would be raised more than 120 feet from the property at
its nearest point and lies roughly in the center of the
site. No views or sight lines would be disrupted by
the additional and when the taller building is viewed
in the context of the overall massing of the center as
a whole, it would not distract from the character of
the neighborhood. All construction will be the same as
it is currently so that the aesthetics of the shopping
center will remain intact.
Originally the site plan approval included plans for a
five - screen cinema with seating for 1,051 persons;
however, the actual seating totals 970. The owner of
the theater has recently asked that the shopping center
owners expand the theater facilities into currently
unleased space and establish four additional screens
with additional seating capacities for approximately
1,000 persons. Some reasons stated by the applicants
why the additional screening would not increase the
need for additional parking spaces are: (a) the peak
usage of the theater is in the evening after 6 p.m.
when most of the businesses in the center are closed;
(b) the new expansion would provide an additional
entrance to the theater from the east parking lot which
is currently underutilized; (c) Gold's Gym, which is
now located adjacent to the theater will be moved to
the southern end of Building D where their patrons
would utilize the parking across the southern end of
the site which is also underutilized at this time; (d)
the original site plan included plans for three
April 18, 1988
Item No. 5 - Continued
restaurants totaling approximately 9,000 square feet in
the immediate vicinity of the theater, two of which
were subsequently leased to a retail tenant who
generates much less traffic. The third was to occupy
space that will be included in the theater; and (e) the
existing tenants of the center are supportive of the
proposed theater expansion because of exposure they
received to theater patrons.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of both variances with the
condition the applicant post permanent signs indicating
where additional parking is available on the site other than
the immediate vicinity of the theater.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Market Street Joint Venture, was in
attendance represented by one of the partners. There were
no objectors present. The applicant stated that there were
no problems with staff's recommendation. A motion was then
made to approve the variance requested per staff's
recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes, 1 absent.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 6 - Z-5010
Owner: Warren Sanders
Address: 712 Wright Avenue
Description: Lot 6, Block 218, Original City of
Little Rock
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance 1. From the area regulations
Requested: provisions of Section 7-101.2.d.1
to permit an addition with a
reduced front yard setback.
2. From the height and area
exceptions provisions of Section
5-102-B to permit an accessory
structure to be less than 6 feet
from the principal structure.
Justification: This addition is needed to provide
protection from the weather for
myself and car as well as some
place to store things.
Present Use of
Property: Residential
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
This issue is before the Board of Adjustment as a
result of a zoning enforcement action. The applicant
has already constructed a wood frame carport which
encroaches into the required front yard setback of
25 feet. The structure if allowed to remain will have
a front yard setback of 4.3 feet. Also at issue is the
separation of the accessory structure from the
principal structure not being the required six feet.
The structure, carport, is four feet from the existing
house.
The carport is a wood frame structure with an asphalt
rolled roof. The carport is open on all sides except
for rolled plastic screening and lattice. Presently,
April 18, 1988
Item No. 6 - Continued
on-site is a one-story frame house with a wooden shed
to the rear. On the west property line is a six-foot
wooden fence. There was already in place a driveway.
This property is located in one of the older areas of
the City, the central part. Surrounding the property
are residential uses. Most of the houses have or are
presently having some type of renovation done to them.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of both variances subject to
the carport never being enclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was in attendance. There were no objectors
present. The applicant stated that there were no problems
with staff's recommendation. A motion then was made to
approve the variance conditioned upon the carport never
being enclosed. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0
noes, 1 absent.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 7 - Z-5011
Owner: J and E Interests, Inc. /White-Daters
Associates
Address: 500 Napa Valley Drive
Description: Lot 1, Calais Subdivision to the
City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas
Zoned: "MF-12," "MF-18," and "OS" Multifamily
and Open Space
Variance From the subdivision regulations
Requested: provisions of Section 37.10-C to
change a 25-foot building line.
Justification: The variance is needed to clear the
pool as constructed.
Present Use of
Property: Residential /Apartments
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential /Apartments
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is for a
variance to correct the fact of an already constructed
pool encroaching into an existing 25-foot exterior side
yard. The pool encroaches some 18 feet. The site in
question is located in the western portion of the City
where in the last few years a lot of major development
has occurred. The site is that of Calais Apartments
complex. The initial preliminary approval by the
Planning Commission was in June 1984, and a final plat
for Lot 1 was signed in February 1986.
Compatibility of the site to the development trends of
the area is agreeable. When the initial approval by
the Commission was granted, the agent at that time,
April 18, 1988
Item No. 7 - Continued
Joe White, prepared the option of connecting the
entrance street through the open space zoned to Mara
Lynn if the owner of that parcel would agree to it, or
improve the street adjacent to the property. Staff
found no indication that this agreement has been
accomplished; therefore, the applicant needs to address
this issue before any building line waiver can be
approved.
If the Board so sees fit to approve the request of the
applicant, there are two additional steps associated
with any building line waiver. These two steps
include: (a) the filing in the Planning Department and
County Courthouse of a one lot replat as well as, (b)
the filing of an amended Bill of Assurance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval subject to the applicant
closing the right-of-way if he has no record to indicate
that it has been done. Also, the applicant would need to
file a replat showing the new building line along with an
amended Bill of Assurance. The applicant has requested in
writing a 30-day deferral because of the notice requirement
not being met.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
A written request was received asking for a 30-day deferral
because the notice requirement had not been met. A motion
for a 30-day deferral was stated and passed by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. This item will appear again on
the May 16, 1988, agenda.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 8 - Z-5012
Owner: Leon Adams /Summerlin Associates, Inc.
Address: 904 Arch Street
Description: Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 131,
Original City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
Variance
Requested: From the area regulations provisions
of Section 7-104.2-D.1, 2 and 3 to
permit construction of a building with
reduced front, side, and rear yard
setbacks.
Justification: This proposal will allow development
in an area where the original
platting of lots is too small for the
present "I-2" zoning. The existing
conditions of the corner lot setback
line requirement would not allow for
buildable square footage.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use
of Property: Industrial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal before the Board of Adjustment is for the
construction of a building with a reduced front, side,
and rear yard setbacks. The property is zoned "I-2"
Light Industrial and the requirements are for a front
yard of 50 feet, a side yard of 15 feet, and rear yard
of 25 feet. The new building would have a front yard
setback of 25 feet along West 9th Street, a 0 side yard
setback on the Interstate 630 frontage and a rear yard
setback of 8 feet on the west side of the site. Also
associated with this variance is a
April 18, 1988
Item No. 8 - Continued
proposed alley closure application that is yet to be
filed.
The property in question is located on three lots.
Most of the three lots are vacant with mature
vegetation. Presently, part of the lots are used for
parking. Surrounding the property is a mixture of
different uses being commercial and residential. The
new constructed building will be a one-story warehouse
and office. This area is one in which a lot of
deterioration of buildings and property has occurred.
Staff feels that the applicant has developed a good
proposal for the three lots and feels that this
proposal will help the area in question, plus the
requirement of the ordinances are restricted for "I-2"
zoning in this area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval subject to the alley being
closed and proper drainage being provided.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was in attendance and represented by Mr. Jim
Summerlin. There were no objectors present. Included in
the recommendation is the abandonment of a 12" sewer line.
Staff explained to the Board that because the Wastewater
comments on the items were received late, the added
condition was not in staff's recommendation. The applicant
stated that there were no problems with any of the
conditions including Wastewater. A motion was then made to
approve the requested variance per staff's condition as well
as the abandonment of the 12-inch sewer line by Wastewater.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1
abstention (Mitchell).
April 18, 1988
Item No. 9 - Other Matters - Z-5013
Owner: Paul Crittenden
Address: 92 Aliza Drive
Variance
Requested: From the home occupation provisions of
Section 7-101.6-1.E to permit an
accessory building to be used for a
home occupation.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This issue is before the Board of Adjustment because of a
denial by the Home Occupation Review Board for a home
occupation to operate out of an accessory structure on the
site.
The property in question is located in a mobile home park.
The applicant has a hobby of repairing golf clubs, but
because he saw where he could supplment his income and
others needed and asked for the service, he decided to
obtain a privilege license and make what is a hobby a legal
business for tax purposes. At which time he was cited by
the Zoning Enforcement Office. The ordinance states that no
home occupation can take place in an accessory structure.
The applicant states that the building in which he works is
similar to storage buildings located throughout the mobile
home park and was approved by the owner. There is no
problem with traffic since the clubs are usually picked up
and returned to the individual at the golf course. No signs
to advertise are displayed, no nuisance to other homes in
the neighborhood will occur, and there will be no noise from
any of the equipment used.
On-site presently are three storage buildings, one small and
two medium sizes. The mobile home is a single wide with a
covered carport. There is landscaping in the front of the
site. Located on all sides are other single wide mobile
homes. The streets in the park are built up to standards
but narrow in size. Also stored or kept on site is a
camping trailer.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval subject to the hobby being
limited to only one of the storage buildings on-site. At
which time the occupation increases to one of the other
storage buildings, the applicant will have to come back
before the Board of Adjustment.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 9 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. The applicant stated that there were no
problems with the conditions in staff's recommendation. A
motion was then made to approve the variance per staff's
recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes, 1 absent.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 10 - Other Matters - Z-4001-B
Address: 8124 Flint Ridge Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C-4" Open Display
Variance
Requested: From the commercial district
restrictions provisions of
Section 7-103-C.4 to permit an
extension for a previous approved
nine -month delay in screening and
paving requirements.
Justification: Due to the economic hardships my
business is experiencing, I am
unable to have the work completed.
Present Use
of Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The request before the Board of Adjustment at this time
is for a six -month extension to a previous approved
variance of nine months for a delay in the screening
and paving requirements for a commercial building. The
previous approval occurred on December 15, 1986. The
Zoning Ordinance requires an opaque screening fence to
be constructed along any side or rear property line
that abuts land zoned for residential purposes. The
pavement requirements in the "C-4" zoning as per the
Zoning Ordinance requirements were delayed because of a
drainage problem that existed on the site.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 10 - Continued
The applicant states in his letter to the Board that in
the past six months the economy has hit his business
drastically, but feels optimistic that the business
will survive with some patience and time. During the
time from the last approval to the present screening is
30 percent completed but 6/87 to 10/87, the sales from
the business has dropped off 50 percent from projected
sales.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the six-month extension
for the screening and paving requirements. If at that time,
the applicant still cannot meet the requirements, then he
will have to return back to the Board of Adjustment.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. The applicant was asked if he agreed with
staff's recommendation and he stated, yes. A motion was
then made to approve the extension request per staff's
condition. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 11 - Other Matters - Z-5000
Address: 2100 North Beechwood
Description: Lot 1, Block 4, County Club Heights
Addition to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Request: From the bylaws governing the Board
of Adjustment, Article 5, Sections 1-4
to permit a rehearing.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The issue before the Board at this time is for
reconsideration to the approval grant for case no. Z-5000
which occurred at the March 21, 1988, meeting. The variance
requested at that time was for a front yard setback on
Stonewall Street which was for 7.5 feet.
At the meeting on March 21, 1988, there were several persons
present in objection. After a considerable amount of
discussion between the Board, staff, applicant, and those in
opposition, the item was deferred until the end of the
agenda to allow time for the applicant and objectors to meet
and to come some agreement. The agreement reached by the
applicant and objectors and voted on by the Board consisted
of three conditions: (a) the newly constructed house would
be one and one-half stories, (b) the width of the house
would be 31 feet, and (c) the frontage to Stonewall Street
would be 9 feet.
In order for a reconsideration to approval by the Board to
occur, the applicant has to (a) make a written request
within ten days of the approval date, indicating any new
evidence showing just cause for the request, (b) approval by
at least five members of the Board agreeing to the
rehearing, (c) renotice of the property owners within 200
feet of the site, and (d) the understanding of the applicant
that the Board can at the time of the rehearing vote to
address the new evidence or vote to defer the item for
another month in order to allow time for the evidence to be
reviewed.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 11 - Continued
The applicant stated in the written request that the
reconsideration is only for that part of the approval that
stated the house should be one and one-half stories instead
of the two of which was part of the original plan for the
site. Plans for the new house, as the original approval
stands, has been considerably compromised by trying to
convert the house to one and one-half stories, resulting in
the upstairs rooms being disproportionately smaller and not
in keeping with the dimensions of the downstairs area.
The applicant further states that she was not adequately
prepared to meet the numerous and sometimes misinformed
objections of those opposed to the construction and would
like a chance to properly refute their allocations and show
that she is only asking for the right to build a house which
conforms to the numerous other houses in that immediate
area.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was in attendance and was represented by David
Henry, her attorney. There were approximately 12 people in
attendance opposed to the request. The Board first had to
make a motion in order for the new evidence to be presented
and open for public discussion. A motion was made and
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent.
Mr. Henry stated the conditions under which the variance was
approved from the last month. Those conditions included:
(a) the house being one and one-half stories, (b) the
frontage to Stonewall Street being 9 feet, and (c) the width
of the house being 31 feet. Since that time, the purpose of
the limitation can still be achieved by constructing two
stories. It was his understanding that the purpose was to
prevent the house from overshadowing the house next-door.
With a little redesign, it has been proven that the house
could have two stories. The presentation then is for the
redesign with modifications for two-stories with the height
remaining the same. The purpose would be to allow for the
second floor to be more usable, improve the value of the
property, and would be in the best interest of all parties.
Mr. Henry stated that it is his understanding that there has
been some collaborative effort and other issues that have
clouded the variance request. But the fact of the matter of
hardship is that the lot was platted in the 1940's, a corner
lot, and based on a 1986 administrative decision, the
interpretation is that a corner lot has two front yards.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 11 - Continued
It is believed that the ordinance does not state that fact.
Again, the applicant does want to stick to the agreement
except for the fact of needing to build two stories instead
of the one and one-half stories.
The Chairman then addressed the opposition, and Mr. George
Holitick spoke first. He stated he had spoken to the
neighbors and all were disappointed that the agreement voted
on last month was not abided by. He appreciates the fact
that the lot is still only 45 feet in width and still would
be overbuilt. The applicant did send letters out showing
the plan, but the house will be some 85 to 90 feet long
extending along the street. The major concern still is the
fact that the lot will be overbuilt. The attitude of the
Board should be to maintain the quality of the neighborhood
and not be concerned about the financial hardship of the
builder. There also is the concern about the acquisition of
the drainage problem and what will happen to the trees and
drainage if this is approved.
Mr. Cliff Asknew who lives at 4617 Stonewall Street said the
property owners he is representing live on the south side on
Stonewall and between Beechwood and Spring Streets, which is
the first street to the west. The concern that they have is
one of drainage. He understands that the Board does not
address drainage, but this is the only opportunity that he
will have to address someone in authority about the concern.
He stated a letter had been submitted to Mr. Dalton's
office, City Manager, to ask the City Engineer to
investigate this concern and offer some recommendations. It
is his understanding that the City Engineering Office is a
part of the Board and wonders if any comments have been
received regarding the drainage problem. Most of the
residents have lived in the area for 23 to 25 years and have
been fighting the drainage problem during that time and feel
that the construction of this house will only increase the
problem. There is no underground drainage, no curbs, and no
gutters in order to catch the water. This is an opportunity
in order to get the problem corrected.
A Board member then asked if drainage was an issue which the
Board could address. Staff stated that the Board has the
right to place any conditions, restrictions, and
recommendations it likes, but as stated last month, the
Board has not in the past placed conditions of curb and
guttering on residential variances. A legal opinion was
then requested and the City Attorney stated that as long
April 18, 1988
Item No. 11 - Continued
as the conditions were reasonable, then legally it would
stand. It was then asked by a Board member how would
construction of the new house increase the drainage problem?
Mr. Asknew stated that the only analysis was the history of
the drainage problem over the previous years. The concern
is this standard area which is north of Stonewall would not
be improved and will be allowed to continue as is without
improvements. After further discussion, one member of the
Board stated that in his opinion, curb and gutterinq would
not help the problem without a storm drainage system.
A Mr. Porter then addressed the Board. He spoke regarding
the alley and street being too narrow and the fact that two
cars could not pass on the street if cars are allowed to
park on Stonewall.
Mrs. Connie Holitick stated that her main objection still is
the height and by redesigning the two stories for additional
rooms does not change that fact. She then presented
pictures showing the drainage problem at the house on the
corner of Stonewall and Beechwood. She then asked what
possibly could be done since the water just stands and has
no way to run off. If the normal street width was built,
what would the 9 feet on Stonewall be for, the present
street, or the width of the street if widened. The Chairman
stated that the street width isn't 37 feet but possibly it
widened would be 8 feet on each side. It was asked what was
the setback of the houses on Stonewall, was the 9 feet in
keeping with those houses. Mrs. Holitick stated that the
houses set back a considerable more distance than 9 feet.
Mr. Henry addressed the Board concerning the points that the
opposition presented. He stated that the footprint plan
isn't what is at issue but the height of it and doesn't see
that much difference between a one and one -half story and
two stories as long as it does not rise above the house
behind it as the intent of the original agreement. It
doesn't affect the drainage of the streets. The way the
footprint on the drawing has already been approved. The
intent is only to make the house more livable and
attractive. Nobody is trying to damage the adjacent
property or create an hardship for the property owners. But
on the other hand, the applicant does not want to build a
13 -foot house which wouldn't help the drainage. What is
proposed is in the best interest of all parties concerned.
A Board member then made the point that he disagreed with
April 18, 1988
Item No. 11 - Continued
the fact the footprint was not at issue. What was voted on
last month was what was agreed upon by the parties
concerned. He then stated that he was unsure why the
compromise did not work out and the applicant was back
before the Board. Mr. Henry stated that the agreement was
that the house wouldn't be any higher than the one behind
it, and at that time it was thought that the house would
have to be one and one -half stories instead of two stories,
but after careful redesign, the applicant saw where the two
stories could be accomplished and maintain the height.
A Board member then stated that in the opinion of the Board
the case was being heard anew and that the original approval
was no longer in existence. Mr. Henry stated that the Board
could read into it whatever, but the applicant wanted only
reconsideration to the one and one -half stories. Another
Board member stated that due to that fact he wishes to
rescind his original vote for the rehearing. Mr. Henry was
then informed that it wasn't fair for the Board to just
address the concern of the applicant and not that of the
people in opposition, which is also the drainage problem.
Mr. Henry then asked for time to confer with his client.
Mr. Henry returned and asked if the Board would be willing
to withdraw the application totally. The Chairman stated
that in his opinion he felt that the Board would be willing
to do that. The Board then asked for a clarification on
whether the applicant was withdrawing the application for
rehearing or the previous application from last month.
Mr. Henry stated the whole application which includes last
month's approval. The Chairman requested legal opinion and
the City Attorney stated that it was the applicant's right
to withdraw and the Board could take a vote on that request.
The Chairman then asked the City Attorney if he should
address the opposition's response, and the City Attorney
stated that since they were in attendance, then yes, the
Board should hear them.
Dr. Holitick stated that Mr. George Cook had sent out a
letter dated the 15th of April and he read a portion of it
as well as submitted a copy to be placed in the file. A
letter addressed to Ms. Brown from Rhonda and Matt Morrison
was then asked to be read into the records. Staff informed
Rhonda Morrison that the letter had been circulated among
the Board members and would be placed into the file which is
the record, but if she felt it needed to be read, then it
would be. Rhonda Morrison stated that placing it into the
file record would be fine.
April 18, 1988
Item No. 11 - Continued
Mr. Henry then requested action on his requestfor
withdrawal. The Chairman stated he was following directions
from counsel and the Board was not allowing the opposition
to speak in opposition to the withdrawal. The Board
requested reading of the section of the ordinance that
addressed the corner lot. The Chairman then stated that it
was the intention of the Board to negotiate the proceedings
so all parties are happy, and it appears that intention was
not achieved. Mr. Henry restated the request to withdraw
the application totally. A motion was then made to withdraw
the rehearing application Z- 5006 -A and expunge the previous
approval on Case No. Z -5000 from last month's agenda. The
motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 1
abstention (McDaniel).
DATE l �U
B O A R D OF A D J U S T M E N T
V 0 T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
H-
AYE 0 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN
H " ' w
Thomas MCGowan
George Wells
John McDaniel
°smiiii�iii
Earline Douglas
�o�■°�
C)rnthia Alderman
N
Eduard Scharff,JR.'
�='H
NNIMMEOMMMONMEMEN
Jim Mitchell I
Ronald Pierce
i-R-ex D. Crane
H-
AYE 0 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN
H " ' w
Board of Adjustment
April 18, 1988
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Secretary Chairman
Date