boa_06 20 1988LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
JUNE 20, 1988
2:00 p.m.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being seven in number.
II Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting.
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members present: John McDaniel, Chairman
Cynthia Alderman
Jim Mitchell
Rex Crane
Ronald Pierce
Thomas McGowan
Eduard Scharff
Members Absent: Earlene Douglas
One open position
City Attorney Present: Pat Benton
June 20, 1988
Item No. A - Z-5021
Owner: Ritchie Feuers
Address: 14,301 Longtree Drive
Description: Lot 117, Longlea Manor
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the subdivision regulations to
permit construction to cross a
platted building line.
Justification: The applicant did not submit a letter
as requested by staff.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
No issues have been identified as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
The request involves an existing porch that crosses a
25-foot platted building line, and for the structure to
remain, the Board of Adjustment must approve a building
line waiver. The uncovered porch is approximately 5' x
6' and functions as the main entrance for the completed
residence. Having to remove the porch would create
some unique design problems because the residence is
constructed at the building line and does place a
hardship on the owner. The size of the porch only
produces a minor encroachment and does not impact the
visual appearance of the lot or the block face.
Should the Board approve the waiver, then two
additional steps must be completed to finalize the
process. The owner will have to file a one lot replat
with the Planning Department showing the new building
line and provide an amended Bill of Assurance.
June 2Q, 1988
Item No. A Z-5021
3. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the necessary building line be granted.
Board of Adjustment Action - 5/16/88
Due to the fact several steps of the application process not being
completed, this item was deferred until the June 20, 1988 meeting.
Note:
This item will not be coming before the Board of Adjustment because
of administrative relief given to the applicant by the City Manager's
Office of the City of Little Rock.
June 20, 1988
Item No. A -Z-5021
Board of Adjustment Action
No action was needed on this item by the board.
Administrative relief was given to the Applicant by the City
Manager's Office. The action consisted of the applicant not
coming before the board but the two additional steps for a
building line waiver will have to be met. These steps are
the filing of a replat and amended Bill of Assurance all in
the Office of Comprehensive Planning and at the County Court
House.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 1 - Z-5009-A
Owner: The Clary Company
Address: Market Street Plaza Shopping Center
Market at Merrill Streets
Description: Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, Charles Valley
Subdivision to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance
Requested: From the off - street parking provisions
of Section 8-101-4.G to permit expansion
with reduced parking.
Justification: 1. The expansion is needed to
accommodate additional space and
storage area for a new tenant.
2. In the past, the area for enclosure
has presented a security problem
for the shopping center.
Present Use of
Property: Commercial /Shopping Center
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial /Shopping Center
STAFF REPORT:
A. Enqineerinq Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analvsis
The request before the Board of Adjustment is for
reduced parking space for the expansion of space in a
shopping center. Under the provisions of the
ordinance, any increase in the gross floor area which
would result in a requirement for additional parking
facilities, such additional facilities shall be
provided accordingly as a condition for obtaining a
building permit.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 1 - Continued
The site in question is the Market Street Plaza
Shopping Center. Loehmann's Department which initially
occupied space is being replaced by Beall-Ladymon which
is requesting of the applicant an additional 4,790
square feet that has not previously been leased, plus
the enclosure of an existing 900 square foot area to be
used as storage space. Since this will increase the
total square footage of the center and on-site parking
at present does not meet the current one space per 225
square foot ratio, the request is to allow the building
addition of the 900 square feet area. This new
addition would bring the total square footage of the
shopping center to 139,180 which will be served by the
existing 525 on-site parking spaces. Therefore, the
parking variance is for four additional parking spaces
which are needed in order to adhere to the ordinance
requirement for the storage area.
Beall-Ladymon Stores typically utilize a service
mezzanine for storage. However, the height of the
existing structure is not sufficient to permit a
mezzanine. In the past, the area to be enclosed has
provided access only to the previous unleased space.
Since the public entrance to Beall-Ladymon will be
located elsewhere, this access is no longer necessary
and the space the applicant is requesting to be
enclosed would become a dead-end pocket with no
purpose. In the past, the applicant has stated that
this area has provided some security problems for the
shopping center by providing a secluded access to the
nearby storefronts from the service alley. When the
space is enclosed, this remote access to the service
alley will be eliminated.
Staff feels that the applicant's hardship is the fact
that the additional 900 square feet of floor space will
be used as storage purposes and not place any
additional parking needs on the shopping center. But
due to the fact that this applicant has on a previous
occasion been granted a parking variance, staff would
like to at this time inform the applicant that in the
future it will no longer support any additional parking
variances.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed with
the understanding by the applicant that staff will not
support any future parking variances.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 1 -Z-5009-A
Board of Adjustment Action
A representative of the applicant was in attendance. There
were no objectors present. A statement was added to the
staff's recommendation which specifies that the new
expansion area can only be used for storage purposes. The
representative, on behalf of the applicant, stated that
there were no problems with the added statement in the
recommendation. A motion was then made to approve the
requested parking variance with the added statement. The
motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 open
position.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 2 - Z-5027-A
Owner: City of Little Rock /Sam Strauss
Address: 1100 East Roosevelt Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
(Rezoning has been filed for "C-3"
General Commerial)
Variance
Requested: From the area regulations provisions of
Section 7-104.2-D.1 to permit a reduced
front yard setback.
Justification: The expansion is needed at the request
of a tenant.
Present Use of
Property: Commercial /Shopping Center
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial /Shopping Center
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
The issues presented by this proposal are the danger
and maintenance problems that possibly could occur when
a concrete culvert of this size is obstructed and
rendered nonaccessible.
B. Staff Analysis
The applicant is bringing before the Board of
Adjustment a request for a reduced front yard setback
in order to expand an existing building on the
southeast corner. The expansion is needed to
accommodate the request of the present tenant and will
be approximately 25 square feet. In order to keep the
expansion addition in line with the existing building,
the front yard setback will have to be three feet which
is that of the existing building. The ordinance states
that for an "I -2" zoning the frontage should be 50
feet.
The proposed expansion will be built over an existing
concrete box culvert. A statement included in the
applicant's letter to staff indicates that any damage
incurred from the building will be the responsibility
of the shopping center.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 2 - Continued
This request is located in one of the more established
areas of the City. To the east of the site is the
National Cemetery, to the south is the Little Rock Fire
Department Substation and commercial uses, to the west
commercial and industrial uses, to the north vacant
property.
Also associated with the variance request is a rezoning
issue that will come before the Planning Commission in
an attempt to rezone the property to "C-3" General
Commercial which would bring the present use into
conformity with the Zoning Ordinance. Due to the fact
that there is substantial parking available, there is
not an issue of additional on-site parking for the
expansion.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending denial of the requested variance per
engineering issues concerning the danger and possible
maintenance problems associated with the addition being
built over the large concrete culvert.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 2 -Z-5027-A
Board of Adiustment Action
Mr. Elvin Shuffield represented the applicant. There were
no objectors present. Mr. Shuffield stated that he
disagreed with the staff's recommendation of denial. He
felt that the applicant's request was reasonable and
building over the concrete culvert presented no danger or
problems for maintenance. He did submit to the Board a
letter of agreement from the contractor stating how the
construction would occur. The present rear or front yard is
three feet and the new addition will keep to those same
dimensions. Also, submitted to the Board was a legal
agreement from the lessee of the space which stated that
the sole responsibility for any damage will be with the
lessee. From the design the contractor provided, the
actual load over the culvert would be less than what is
presently over the culvert with the cars on the parking lot.
The expansion is at the request of the tenant and the
addition will be only thirty -one feet in width. Staff
stated that the reason why reference is made that the
variance is a front yard was because the property fronts a
street.
Jerry Gardner, from the City Engineering staff spoke to
explain the issues stated in the staff's recommendation. No
details of the expansion had been seen by engineering but
the assumption was made that if the addition was allowed to
be built, it would be constructed with steel beams. The
recommendation was based mostly on principal. It simply
isn't a good practice to build across any type of concrete
culvert, especially one of this size. It would render the
culvert inaccessible for maintenance purposes, excavation
from above would have to be done from this point on at the
City's expense in a tunneling fashion. At present, the
structural condition of the culvert is not known. It was
then asked by the Board with the agreement by the applicant
to allow entry at anytime, would the engineering position be
the same. Mr. Gardner stated yes, because construction then
makes the culvert a tunnel. There may be a time in the
future, whether this applicant or another is leasing the
space, that if there was a collapse, the repair would be at
the City's expense. If the culvert remains as it presently
exists, the repair work would not be that expensive.
Another option would be to re-route the culvert but the
expense would be large.
Mr. Shuffield reiterated that the applicant was willing to
take sole responsibility of any damage. It was then asked
if the applicant would consider re- routing the culvert. As
Item No. 2 - Z-5026-A Continued
stated by Mr. Gardner, that would be very expensive versus
just having it repaired when and if it was damaged.
The City Attorney's Office stated that if the Board approves
the variance, any agreement regarding liability must first
be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office to ensure that the
City isn't liability for any damages or injuries if the
addition is built. It was then stated that the applicant
would be willing to meet with the City Attorney's Office to
draft in writing whatever type of document that was needed.
Mr. Shuffield was asked if the applicant had considered
building the addition to the front of the present structure
rather than the side. He stated no, that option had not
been explored because the applicant felt this was the best
location. Also, there was concern regarding the loss of
parking spaces.
The City Attorney then stated that another legal point was
the fact that in the future the lease agreement on the
property may change and that person may not go along with
what this applicant is proposing. Mr. Shuffield stated that
the City owns the property and the applicant has a long term
lease.
A motion was then made to deny the variance per staff's
recommendation concerning the engineering issues. The
motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open
position, 1 abstention (Eduard Scharff, Jr.)
June 20, 1988
Item No. 3 - Z-5024
Owner: Robert Thompson
Address: #10 Bent Tree Drive
Description: Lot 32, Longlea Estates to the City of
Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the subdivision regulation
provisions of Section 37-10.C to permit
construction to cross a platted building
line.
Justification: The pool was constructed prior to the
applicant's knowledge of a building line
existing.
Present Use of
Property: Residential /Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential /Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
This application is before the Board of Adjustment as
the result of an enforcement action by the Zoning
Enforcement Office. The applicant has in place a
swimming pool which was built across a 40-foot building
line. The Subdivision Ordinance states that any
construction that is built on or over a platted
building line must first be approved by the Board of
Adjustment. In conjunction with any approval for a
building line waiver are two additional steps those
being: (a) the filing of a one lot replat showing a
new building and (b) the filing of an amended Bill of
Assurance, all in the Office of Comprehensive Planning
and at the County Courthouse.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 3 - Continued
The property in question is located in the western
portion of the City. There is constructed a one-story
brick and frame house. Along the rear or front (Hinson
Road is to the rear of the structure) and sides is a
constructed six-foot wooden fence. The neighborhood is
all residential uses with this site being the third in
the block from the corner. In the applicant's letter,
four conditions are stated which the applicant feels
are of major interest to the case. They are as
follows: (1) All existing houses on the right side of
Bent Tree Drive face Bent Tree Drive and all have
backyards adjacent to Hinson Road. (2) Hinson Road is
80 feet wide. (3) There is a 15-foot section of land
from curb to six-foot privacy fence which was there
when the property was bought, and all houses on the
block have fences. (4) The swimming pool was
constructed 12 feet inside the fence, or 27 feet from
Hinson Road and is not visible from the street or
neighbors.
The pool is an in-ground type with concrete surrounding
it. Located on the northwest side is a storage
building which is not of issue because it is allowed to
be within three feet of the side property line.
Staff is in support of the variance inasmuch as the
applicant's request is reasonable, the structure is
compatible with the area, and the fact the pool is
already constructed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval conditioned upon the
applicant completing the process which includes the filing
of a one lot replat and an amended Bill of Assurance all in
the Planning Department and at the County Courthouse.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 3 - Z-5024
Board of Adjustment Action
Mr. Johnny Barnett represented the applicant and also was
the contractor who built the pool. There were no objectors
present at the meeting. Mr. Barnett was asked by a Board
member if he was aware of the forty foot building line at
the time of construction. Mr. Barnett stated that it was
something that just slipped by them. He was then asked if
he was in the pool business and whether he was contracted by
the applicant to build the pool; to both questions the
answer was yes. A member of the Board then informed Mr.
Barnett that the practice of pool contractors going out and
building pools before a needed variance is obtained has
become a routine practice which the Board has at least one
or more per month. It was then asked if there was an
association for pool contractors to which the City could
send notice stating the Board of Adjustment will no longer
tolerate this practice in the future. The practice places
the Board in the position of having to look at the owner,
who is without fault. Mr. Barnett stated that he understood
and the practice for his company is to ask the home owner if
there are any variances or building lines of which they are
aware. In this particular case, the company was in a hurry
to get the pool in and a building permit just wasn't
obtained. The owner was aware but it just isn't natural to
have a building line in the area where the pool is located.
To the question of whether he was permitted or licensed by
the City, Mr. Barnett stated yes, he was licensed by the
City of Sherwood but in order to do work within Little Rock
a permit would have to be obtained.
The Chairman then stated that the route in which the Board
was trying to go was to find out if there is an association
to which pool contractors belong. Mr. Barnett stated yes,
there are two, the National Association of Pool and Spa
Industry and the local Arkansas Association of Pool and Spa
Contractors. One particular reason why the Board is
interested is because at some point in time the Board is
going to impose some tough penalties or start to simply deny
these types of variances which then is going to place the
burden on the property owner and not the contractor. In all
honesty, this is not something the Board wishes to do, but
the practice has to somehow be stopped. By sending a notice
stating this fact, maybe the problem can be averted.
Mr. Kenny Scott of the Zoning Enforcement Office stated that
when this particular request came in for a building permit,
one was granted for a location on the site behind the
building line which would have been in compliance with the
Zoning Code. For some reason, the contractor did not obtain
Item No. 3 - Z-5024 Continued
the permit for that location. When the inspector in that
area did a field review, it was found that the pool was
constructed. Mr. Scott was asked if a separate pool permit
was needed or could a pool for construction just piggyback
on a building permit. Mr. Scott stated that it is his
understanding a pool not attached to a principal structure
is considered an accessory structure and a separate building
permit would be needed but for those attached to the
principal structure when built, a permit is not needed as it
is part of the original building permit.
Mr. Barnett was then asked if he would share with Mr. Scott
a list of the members of the state association to which he
belongs in order that a notice can be mailed out. In
essence, the notice is to state that tolerance in the past
for already constructed pools in need of a variance possibly
will not be tolerated in the future. Also to be included on
the list are the names of pool contractors who have obtained
privilege licenses from the City of Little Rock and possibly
from North Little Rock.
A motion was then made to approve the building line waiver
conditioned upon the two additional steps being completed.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent, 1
open position.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 4 - Z-5026
Owner: Tom Buford
Address: 401 North Palm
Description: Lot 19, Block 2, Elmhurst Addition to
the City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the area regulations provisions
of Section 7-101.2-D.2 to permit
construction with a reduced side yard.
Justification: At the time the house was built,
adequate storage and closet space was
not included. The variance is needed in
order to relocate a bathroom and use
the present one as storage and closet
space.
Present Use of
Property: Residential /Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential /Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The applicant is coming before the Board of Adjustment
at this time requesting a side yard variance in order
to construct a new addition on the south side of the
property. The purpose of the construction is to
relocate the present bathroom facility in order to use
the existing one as storage space. In the applicant's
letter, it is stated that this proposal can be done by
adding the new bathroom on the south side of the house,
within the existing setback requirement; however, due
to the cost of extending the roofline, it is the desire
of the applicant to increase the size of the existing
bathroom at the same time.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 4 - Continued
In order for the applicant's desired proposal to
materialize, a variance with the side yard of 1.7 feet
to the south property line will have to be granted.
The ordinance states for residential zoned "R-2"
property, a side yard should be 10 percent of the width
of the lot not to exceed eight feet. Therefore, the
applicant should be providing a side yard of five feet
rather than the 1.7 as requested. Also associated with
this request is the issue for the reconstruction of a
proposed garage to the rear of the lot on the east side
of the property. When on an "R-2" zoned lot where an
alley abuts the property, the proposed construction has
to maintain three foot separation on the side or rear
property line. The proposed garage on the south side
has a zero setback. The applicant states that in order
to maintain an existing tree on the north side the
garage has to be built on the property line to the
south.
The area in question is one of the more established
ones with several of the houses being small in size and
the width of the lots generally being around 50 feet.
To the east attached to the brick and frame one -story
house is a wooden deck. Also located in this area of
the property is a three - (tied) built-up planter. All
access to the proposed garage will be taken off the
alley.
Staff feels the requested proposal for the upper south
side will place too much of a burden on the neighbor to
the south to have construction, within 1.7 feet of the
side yard. Although there exists a low retaining wall
separating the two properties, the size of the addition
is considerable. In regard to the proposal on the
southeast side to the rear of the property, staff will
support the construction inasmuch as the access will
come off the alley.
Staff would recommend to the applicant that the new
addition on the south be reduced to meet the required
five feet of side yard.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff at this time recommends denial of the requested side
yard variance for the addition to the south side but will
support the reduced side yard variance to the southeast
corner where the proposed garage will be constructed and
abuts the alley.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 4 - Z-5026
Board of Adjustment Action
The notice requirement for this item had not been met. A
motion for a thirty day deferral was stated and passed by a
vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. This
item will appear again on the agenda for the July 18, 1988
public hearing.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 5 - Z-5223
Owner: B and B Oil Company
Address: 5223 South University Avenue
Description: The South 44 feet of Lot 4, Smith and
Park Subdivision to the City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance
Requested: From the subdivision regulations
provisions of Section 37.10-C to
permit construction to cross a platted
building line.
Justification: The request is to reconstruct new
automobile canopies to replace the
automobile canopies that were blown in
the fall of 1987.
Present Use of
Property: Commercial /Service Station /Bait Shop
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial /Service Station /Bait Shop
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 a request
to reconstruct a canopy across a platted building line.
As indicated by the applicant, the request is for the
Kerr-McGee Service Station and Bait Shop located on
South University Avenue. The proposed canopy will be
approximately (40' x 74') to replace a (40' x 53')
canopy that was destroyed in the fall of 1987.
Included in the proposal are the following:
(1) Driveway cuts for entering and exiting were
established with the City and State approximately
25 years ago. Changing lot design would require
cuts (note: slant for entering /exiting) to
possibly be changed since they were designed for
present layout. Change would possibly confuse
June 20, 1988
Item No. 5 - Continued
long established customers entering from
University Avenue and create a hazard.
(2) The increased height and modern lighting on the
proposed canopy would project more light on the
existing entrance /exit and offer vehicles safer
access during dark hours. The canopy front edge
would be approximately 65 to 70 feet from
University Avenue.
(3) The proposed canopy would cover the entrance to
the store offering safer parking and movement of
people and autos in front and on side of the
building.
(4) The proposed canopy would offer a modern
impression to out -of- town /state motorists since
University Avenue is a main arterial for
Little Rock.
Also of issue to this request but not an issue in which
the Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over is a
request to use quitclaim property on the rear of the
site for landscaping requirements but not obtain a
rezoning. This particular parcel of property is a hill
approximately five or six feet high and not suitable
for another use without major changes. The landscaping
of the parcel would be more natural and enhance the
property.
The building already in place is located on a corner
lot. Frontage for the building is University Avenue
with West 53rd running on the right side of the
structure. On the left side of the building, there
will be constructed a car wash. Surrounding the site
are commercial uses. if approved, the applicant will
be required to complete two additional steps which are
the filing of a replat and amended Bill of Assurance.
Staff feels that with the proposed improvements as
submitted by the applicant the area will be better
served. The applicant's request is becoming more and
more common among service stations within the City and
is something the staff can support.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 5 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the building line waiver
conditioned upon the filing of a replat and an amended Bill
of Assurance both in the Planning Department and at the
County Courthouse.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION
A representative of the applicant was in attendance at the meeting.
There were no objectors present. A motion was made to approve the
variance subject to staff's recommendation. The motion passed by
a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 6 - Z-5029
Owner: Premier Homes
Address: 12204, 12208 and 12212 Rainwood Road
Description: Lots 28, 29, and 30, Rainwood Cove an
Addition to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the subdivision regulation
provision of Section 37.10-C to
permit construction to cross three
platted building lines.
Justification: The framer misread the numbers on the
plot plans and the houses were 90%
completed before the mistake was
realized.
Present Use of
Property: Residential /Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential /Single Family
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 to allow
for three already constructed buildings to remain. The
issue of concern is the fact that all three structures
were built across the platted 40' building line. The
encroachments areapproximately 12 feet. All three
structures are completed and ready for occupancy.
Located in the western part of the City, the property
is surrounded by residential uses. In the area to the
north, there is construction going on for additional
houses.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 6 - Continued
If this variance is approved, the applicant should be
aware that two additional steps are necessary in order
for the process to be completed. These two steps
include the filing of a three lot replat showing the
new-building lines and an amended Bill of Assurance for
all three lots. All of which are to be filed in the
Planning Department and at the County Courthouse.
Staff feels that the hardship of the applicant is the
fact of the building line being 40 feet instead of the
common 25 feet building line for residential uses.
Also, associated with the staff support is the fact
that the structures are already completed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval subject to the applicant
meeting the two additional steps which include the filing of
a three lot replat and an amended Bill of Assurance for all
three lots in the Planning Department and at the County
Courthouse.
June 20, 1988
Item 6 - Z-5029
Board of Adjustment Action
Mr. Larry Williford represented the applicant. There were
no objectors present. Mr. Williford stated that the mistake
was made by the contractor misreading the plan. This was
not found out until the plumber came to lay the sewer lines
but at that time the houses were already completed. It was
asked by the Board whether that statement applied to one or
all three houses. Mr. Williford stated all three. The only
possible excuse would be that building lines normally are
twenty-five feet and this one is forty feet.
Mr. Joe White, of White /Daters, stated that the only reason
there was a platted forty foot building line on the three
lots was because of shallow sewer line that was going to run
diagonally across the front of the lots to serve the
property to the west. Those are the only lots that have a
forty foot setback and by crossing them there still will
exist a twenty-eight foot setback compared to the twenty -
five feet on the other lots, which will be three feet more.
The sewer line is being relocated and the sewer company will
gain a larger sewer line. It was asked if the sewer line
located on the western -most part of the property is the one
being relocated on the front, the response was yes.
A motion was then made to approve the three building line
waivers per staff's recommendation. The motion passed by a
vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 7 - Z-5031
Owner: J.E. Jordan
Address: 1321 College Street
Description: Lot 5, Block 4, Dodge Addition to the
City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas
Zoned: "R -4" Two Family District
Variance
Requested: From the area regulation provision of
Section 7- 101.4 -D.1 to permit a
reduced front yard setback.
Justification: At some point, the porch was enclosed,
and it is my intention to replace it
to the original design.
Present Use of
Property: Residential /Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential /Single Family
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 the
reconstruction of an enclosed porch within the front
yard setbacks. At some point in time, the applicant
feels that the enclosed porch was a part of the
original design of the house. Presently, the porch is
halfway completed. The work was stopped by zoning
enforcement during an inspection. The applicant states
in his letter that the enclosure of the porch basically
consists of about 800 concrete blocks extending from
the front of the structure to the front steps.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 7 - Continued
As specified in the Zoning Ordinance in a "R-4" Two
Family zone, a front yard setback should be 25 feet and
the proposed enclosed porch will make the front setback
19 feet. Also, under construction is a garage on the
east side of the property. But because there is an
alley that abuts the proposed garage, there is not an
issue associated with this proposal.
The site in question actually on-site visit is two lots
that are enclosed within a fence which gives the
impression that the lot is a corner lot. The alley to
the east is physically closed, but on the records it is
officially open. This particular area of the City is
one of the more established ones.
Staff feels that the applicant's hardships is the fact
of the lot being only 46 feet in width which means it
is harder to meet the requirements as stated in the
Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 7 - Z-5031
Board of Adjustment Action
Mr. J. E. Jordan was in attendance at the meeting. There
were no objectors present. No problems were stated by the
applicant regarding the staff's recommendation. A motion
was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion
passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open
position.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 8 - Z-5034
Owner: Michael Mosley
Address: 3001 Loma Drive
Description: Lot 1, Block 8, Richland Subdivision
to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the subdivision regulation
provision of Section 37.10/C.1 to permit
construction to cross a platted building
line.
Justification: The carport was built to provide
protection from the weather for the
vehicles as well for entrance to and
from the house.
Present Use of
Property: Residential /Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential /Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
This request has come about because of an enforcement
action. The applicant has already constructed a
two -car carport on the north side of the lot. In
building the two-car carport, a 25-foot building line
has been encroached over. As stated in the subdivision
regulations, no building line can be encroached upon or
built over without first obtaining approval from the
Board of Adjustment. In order for the process to be
completed, an amended Bill of Assurance will have to
filed as well as a replat showing the new building line
if this request is approved.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 8 - Continued
The area in question is located out past the Airport.
Surrounding the property are residential uses with
Badgett Elementary School to the east. The lot is
situated on a corner with both Pecan Avenue and Lomar
Drive being built to standard with no indication for
future widening. Access to the carport is from Pecan
Avenue. The garage storage building on the south side
is used as a shop. On the east, there is also located
a 30-foot easement drainage ditch. The two-car carport
is unobtrusive and doesn't present a site problem from
any direction. But the poles and roof extend within
four feet of the front property line on Pecan Avenue.
Staff is in support of the variance due to the fact
that it is already constructed and is compatible with
the surrounding residential uses in the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval conditioned on: (1) the
two-car carport never being enclosed, (2) the applicant
completing the process for a building line waiver by filing
a replat and an amended Bill of Assurance in the Planning
Department and at the County Courthouse.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 8 - Z-5034
Board of Adiustment Action
Mr. Mike Mosely, the applicant, was in attendance. There
were no objectors present. A motion was made to approve the
building line waiver subject to the two additional steps
being completed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 9 - Z-5035
Owner: Brandy Wine Corporation /White-Daters
Address: 501 Nix Road
Description: Lot 1, Block 5, Gibralter Heights
Addition to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the area regulation provision of
Section 7-101.2-D.2 to permit a reduced
front yard setback.
Justification: The lot is too narrow to practically
construct a residence with the
required setbacks.
Present Use of
Property: Residential /Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential /Single Family
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
reduced front yard setback. The ordinance requirements
state that for a corner lot, the property owner is
expected to provide for two front yard setbacks. The
zoning of "R-2" Single Family specifies a 25-foot front
yard. Therefore, the applicant is supposed to provide
that amount of footage on the frontage to Nix Road as
well as Archer Lane. The lot in question is 50 feet
wide, by meeting the requirements of the ordinance, the
applicant would not have been able to build the desired
design of the type of house the owner wanted.
Therefore, the owner has built a two-story house that
is completed and ready for occupancy with a front yard
setback on Archer Lane of seven feet and the frontage
to Nix Road being 25 feet. Archer Lane is not a
June 20, 1988
Item No. 9 - Continued
a complete through street. In this particular area,
the street dead-ends on the east side of the lot to
Gamble Street where it then becomes open and built to
residential standards. Gibraltar Heights Addition to
the City is an older established subdivision with no
active Bill of Assurance still in existence.
Surrounding the property is residential uses with
several houses under construction at this present
time.
The applicant does display a hardship because this
particular lot is on a corner and only 50 feet in
width. Staff feels the requirement of the ordinance
for two 25-foot front yard setbacks places restraints
on the owner as well as the fact that the house is
already built and ready for occupancy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the front yard variance as
filed.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 9 - Z-5035
Board of Adjustment Action
Mr. Joe White of White /Daters represented the applicant.
There were no objectors present. No problems were stated
concerning staff's recommendation. A motion was stated to
approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote
of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 10 - Z-5036
Owner: Louis Schnickel /White - Daters Associates
Address: 301 North Bowman Road
Description: Lot 10, Markham Commercial Subdivision
to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance
Requested: From the subdivision regulation
provisions of Section 37.10/C to permit
construction to cross a platted
building line.
Justification: In order to provide a covered area to
park and handle freshly cleaned
clothing without damage from the
elements.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial /Cleaners
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The request before the Board of Adjustment at this time
for a building line waiver in order for the
construction of a cover canopy to cross a platted
40-foot building line. The applicant states that the
covered canopy is needed for the customers in order to
protect them and the clothing they may be picking up or
dropping off from the weather. Enough area under the
covered canopy is needed to provide for six parking
spaces, which when all completed will be approximately
12 feet from the frontage of Bowman Road. The lot in
question is a corner lot with Markham Park Drive to the
south and Bowman Road to the west. The proposed
construction is for a cleaners with egress and ingress
to be taken from three proposed drives, Bowman Road,
June 20, 1988
Item No. 10 - Continued
Markham Park Drive and from an access drive that is to
be built to the north between this lot and the adjacent
lot with accessibility available to the five acre tract
to the east.
A point of interest regarding this particular variance
request is the concern surrounding the proposed
driveway to be taken from the access drive to the north
of the lot. On April 19, 1988, the Planning Commission
conditionally approved a request by The Danny Thomas
Company for the access drive that would serve the
five-acre tract to the east. The recommendation of
denial for the access drive was offered to the Planning
Commission by both staff and the Engineering
Department. Under the conditions for approval for the
request, the applicant (The Danny Thomas Company) must:
(1) at his cost provide for additional length to the
southbound left turn lane equal in length to that
existing, (2) there can be only one access onto Bowman
Road to serve all of the three lots (5, 10, and 11),
and (3) The Danny Thomas Company has to assure that the
other two owners comply with Item No. 2.
Due to the fact that this particular case was to come
before the Board of Adjustment on June 20, 1988, the
Planning Commission at the May 30, 1988, meeting added
an amendment to the April 19, 1988, conditions of
approval. The amendment states that if a building
permit is issued that will allow for a curb cut to
access either of the two lots that front on Bowman
Road from Bowman Road then the conditions of approval
for the access drive are void, and the access to the
five-acre tract to the east would only be allowed from
Markham Park Drive.
As with any case that is brought before the Board of
Adjustment where there is an issue of concern regarding
a Planning Commission action, it has been staff's
position that all information being given in order that
one action will not impair or override the action
of the another. It is the opinion of staff that the
requested variance would impair the development of the
lot for the following reasons: (1) The size of the
structure and over building the lot especially for the
type of commercial use proposed which is that of a
cleaners. (2) The potential for a more intense
commercial use occupying the building in the future if
ever vacated by the present owner. (3) The applicant
June 20, 1988
Item No. 10 - Continued
indicates that the parking spaces to the north will be
9' x 18', but the ordinance states that the parking
spaces should be 9' x 20'. (4) Possible on-site
traffic flow problems if the access drive to the east
is not built with egress and ingres being taken off
Bowman Road and Markham Park Drive.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending denial of the building line waiver as
filed for the above stated reasons.
June 20, 1988
Item No. 10 - Z-5036
Board of Ad'ustment Action
Mr. Joe White of White /Daters represented the applicant.
There were no objectors in attendance, but Mr. Maury
Mitchell of the Danny Thomas Company was in attendance to
review the new proposed plan.
Staff informed the Board that the recommendation of staff
was still denial of the proposed plan which is in the
agenda. It was staff's understanding the applicant wishes
to present a new plan for the same location. Staff would
recommend to the Board that a thirty day deferral be granted
in order to allow for (a) proper legal notice to be given,
and (b) the normal distribution of the plan to the proper
departments and agencies for review.
Mr. Joe White stated that rather than defending the proposal
which is in the agenda after their review of the staff's
denial, the applicant decided to modify the old plan which
he is submitting today. In regard to staff's recommendation
for a thirty day deferral, the applicant would ask that the
proposal be approved conditioned upon the sign-off by those
agencies and departments. A thirty-day deferral would be a
definite hardship for the applicant. Since a representative
of the Danny Thomas Company was present and had no
objection, wasn't the legal notice requirement satisfied.
The City Attorney present stated that if the representative
had no objections and there were no other property owners
within 200 feet in attendance, then in her opinion the legal
requirement had been met.
Mr. Maury Mitchell, the representative for Danny Thomas
Company, stated that there were no objections to the new
plan. He had an opportunity to review the plan and felt the
action could take place. Mr. Joe White then stated that in
essence what the applicant did in the new plan was to reduce
the size of the building and add more landscaping.
A motion was then made to approve the building line waiver
subject to the sign -off by the utility companies, the
engineering and fire departments, the filing of a replat and
amended Bill of Assurance in the Planning Department and at
the County Court House. The motion passed by a vote of
6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstaining (Scharff), 1 absent, 1 open
position.
June 20, 1988
There being no further business before the Board of Adjustment, the meeting was
adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Secretary Chairman