boa_08 15 1988LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
AUGUST 15, 1988
2:00 p.m.
I. RolI CalI and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being five in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members present: George WelIs, Chairman
Rex Crane
Eduard Scharff
Cynthia Alderman
Thomas McGowan
Members absent: Earlene Douglas
Ronald Pierce
Jim MitchelI
One (1) open position
City Attorney Present: Stephen GiIes
LITTLE ROCK
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
AUGUST 15, 1988
I. DEFERRED ITEMS
A. Z-1432-B ........... 7509 Cantrell Road
II. EXTENSION REQUEST
B. Z-4920 .............7400 Cantrell Road
III. VARIANCES REQUESTED
1. Z-4643-A ........... 1009 South Wolfe
2. Z-5060 ............. 215 North Bowman Road
3. Z-5063 ............. 2620 West 65th Street
4. Z-5064 ............. 1207 East 2nd Street
5. Z-5066 ............. 5123 Stonewall
6. Z-5067 ............. 912 Garland Street
IV. REHEARING REQUESTS
7. Z-5027-B ........... Roosevelt at Confederate
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. A
File No. Z-1432-B
Owner: Mehlco, Inc. /Terri Bonner
Address: 7509 Cantrell Road
Tanglewood Shopping Center
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Request: Extension request for an already
approved height variance.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
On March 21, 1988, the Board of Adjustment approved a
request by Mehlco, Inc. for a height variances located at
the southeast corner of the Tanglewood Shopping Center. The
height variance was for the purpose of a tower for a radio
station.
In accordance with the time limitation for an approved
variance, if a Building Permit isn't obtained within six
months of the approved date, then an extension has to be
obtained through the Board of Adjustment.
The Applicant states that the radio station for which the
tower is to be used is currently before the FCC and is
awaiting action. At present there is no way to determine
the exact amount of time it will take for the item to appear
on the FCC docket and for action to be taken on it. The
best estimate is in the neighborhood of two years, but
again, depending on the competition for the license and the
amount of litigation that might ensue, it could be a longer
or shorter period of time.
As with all extension requests, Staff's approach to each
request is on a case -to -case basis. In this particular
case, shortly after the approval was granted, a letter was
received indicating strong opposition to the approval. At
the time of the Public Hearing, no one was present to object
but the letter indicated that there was considerable
confusion as to the exact location of the variance. Rather
than the notice stating the Tanglewood Shopping Center,
approximately located at the corner of Georgia and Kentucky,
the general location was for Cantrell at Mississippi, a
location Staff placed on the form. The respondent of the
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. A (Continued)
letter definitely felt that because of this fact no one
showed to voice objection. In as much as this new concern
has come to the attention of Staff, those involved feel it
would not be in the best interest of those neighbors
adjacent to the proposed tower to allow for an extension
beyond what is normally placed on an approval.
According to the Applicant's request letter, there is
uncertainty as to exactly the amount of extension - two
years or possibly longer. If, for some reason, the Board
does not agree with the Staff's recommendation, an
alternative recommendation would be to offer a thirty-day
deferral. This time would allow for a more detailed
re- notice to the property owners informing them of the
extension request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending denial of the extension request.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
(July 18, 1988)
Due to the applicant's untimely delay out of state, Staff
recommended deferral of the item until August 15, 1988. A
motion was made to that effect and passed by a vote of
7 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (August 15, 1988)
Mrs. Terri Bonner, the applicant, was in attendance at the
meeting. There were no objectors present. Before Mrs.
Bonner spoke, the Board expressed confusion as to exactly
what they were voting on, a deferral for thirty days or a
denial as Staff had recommended. It was then explained by
Staff that the initial recommendation was denial of the
extension request but after the applicant's presentation, if
the Board felt a need to approve the request, Staff then
would recommend a thirty day deferral with a requirement for
the applicant to re-notify the property owners within 200
feet of the site in question, Tanglewood Shopping Center,
southeast corner.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. A (Continued)
Mrs. Bonner then stated that she had no idea or indication
from any property owners that there were objections to the
tower and because of the time involved with obtaining a FCC
License, she was aware that the time of approval would
expire before the license was obtained.
Staff informed the Board of the past history of the case.
The facts being that after the initial approval in March, a
letter was received from a Mrs. Gloria Thomas, President,
Stanford Court Horizontal Property Regime, objecting
strongly to the approval for the height variance. The
letter stated that because of the fact under the section
titled General Location, Cantrell at Mississippi was used
instead of Kentucy at Georgia Street. Therefore, no one
showed to voice their objection at the time of the Public
Hearing. The letter was sent to the City Attorney's office
which concurred with Staff that proper notice was given.
But since the applicant has requested to come back before
the Board, Staff felt that if the recommendation of denial
was not what the Board chose, the deferral recommendation
with re- notice would allow for the neighbors to come and
voice their objections to the extension.
Mrs. Bonner then stated that when she phoned to inquire
about what she needed to do for an extension of time, she
was told to write a letter requesting it but the time on her
initial approval would not expire until September, 1988.
Staff then stated that if the initial time has not yet
expired, there is no need for an extension at this time.
Staff was under the impression that the time had expired and
that was the reason a letter stating the request was needed.
Staff then informed the applicant, at the request of the
Chairman, what the time limits entailed. If a Building
Permit is obtained within the required six months, the
applicant has thirty -six months in which to complete
construction from the date of the original approval. When a
Building Permit is issued, the applicant should check with
the Building Permits Office regarding the policy on
extensions once the original issuance of the Building Permit
has expired.
Since it was determined that no action was needed on this
request at this time, the record will so be noted that no
action was taken and the application was withdrawn by Staff.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. B
File No. Z-4920
Owner: Coulson Oil Company
Address: 7400 Cantrell Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C-4” Open Display
Request: Extension of time for an already
approved front yard variance.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
As with some approvals granted by the Board of Adjustment,
there are times when certain conditions must be met before
the building permit can be obtained. On October 19, 1987
when this case was approved, the Board of Adjustment per
Staff's recommendation stipulated that (a) the right-of-way
to Kingswrow Drive would have to be closed and (b) meeting
of the engineering requirement which was the closing of the
drive on the east corner of Cantrell Road before the
Planning Commission acts on the right-of-way abandonment.
In the process of meeting the conditions set by the Board,
the final approval was not obtained until December of 1987.
Because of other concerns and problems it was not convenient
for the applicant to start construction as early as was
desired. In the meantime the initial approval time expired.
The applicant is now requesting an extension of one year for
the initial approved variances. Basically the plan is the
same except for the awning to the Kingsrow frontage. The
width of the awning is more than the initial plan but the
amount of setback is still the same as originally approved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the extension request for
one year with the understanding of the applicant that if
additional time is needed a return to the Board will be
needed.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. B (Continued)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (August 15, 1988)
Mr. Robert Brown, representative of the applicant, was in
attendance at the meeting. There were no objectors present.
Staff recommended approval of the extension along with minor
changes to the Site Plan, those changes being an increase in
the square footage for the car wash and convenience store
(242 sq. ft.), as well as the additional lid to the canopy
which will extend it approximately fourteen feet (14 feet)
from the initial property line.
A motion was them made to approve the extension request for
one year and the new Site Plan with the additional changes.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent,
1 open position.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 1
File No. Z-4643-A
Owner: Parents & Friends of
Children, Inc.
Address: 1009 South Wolfe
Description: Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 12,
Marshall and Wolfe Addition to
the City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas
Zoned: "O-3" General Office
Variances Requested: (1) From the area regulations
provisions of Section
7 -103.3 /D.1 and 3 to
permit new construction
with reduced front and rear
yard setbacks.
(2) From the parking provisions
of Section 8-101 to permit
less parking spaces than
required.
Justification: Temporary housing of families of
children who are receiving
treatment at near-by Arkansas
Children's Hospital.
Present Use of Property: Multifamily housing (Ronald
McDonald House)
Proposed Use of, Property: Multifamily housing (Ronald
McDonald House)
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported as of this writing from
the City Engineering Office.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 1 (Continued)
Wastewater Utility
No construction is permitted within an easement of ten
feet (five feet either side of the centerline of the
sewer) allowed for the sewer line. The proposed
construction would be over a 6 inch sewer line.
B. Staff Analysis
Parents and Friends of Children, Incorporated, a non-
profit organization, which serves as the representative
of the Ronald McDonald House, is requesting of the
Board of Adjustment two setbacks and parking variances
in order to accommodate expansion plans for the on-site
two-story structure. The expansion is needed in order
to facilitate more temporary living quarters for
parents of children in Children's Hospital.
The property is zoned "O-3" General Office with the
setback requirements being a front yard setback of
25 feet, a side yard of 10 feet, and a rear yard
setback of 15 feet. The applicant proposes 14 feet on
the frontage to West 10th Street, a side yard of 11
feet and rear yard setbacks of 6 feet.
Surrounding the property on the north is the Arkansas
Children's Hospital, on the east and south are parking
lots for the hospital, and on the west is the Little
Rock Housing Authority along with treatment centers for
the hospital.
Parking requirements for the use in question are 27.
There exist on-site 14 spaces; therefore the parking
variances is for a total of 13 spaces. A letter was to
have been submitted by the applicant from Arkansas
Children's Hospital stating the guests of the Ronald
McDonald House will be allowed to use the adjacent
parking lots, due to the fact that both institutions
serve the same clients but as of this writing no notice
has been received. On any given period of time only
one parent lives at the residence while the child is
hospitalized with no need or availability of a vehicle.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 1 (Continued)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of all three variances
subject to written documentation regarding the parking being
submitted as well as the issue with wastewater being
resolved.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (August 15, 1988)
Mr. Scott Davies represented the applicant. There were no
objectors present. Mr. Davies stated that he had no
problems with the Staff's recommendation. Staff stated that
the conditions which consisted of documentation of the
parking and a letter from Wastewater Utility resolving the
problem of the sewer line had both been met.
A motion was then offered to approve the request per Staff's
recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes,
0 noes, 3 absent, 1 open position.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 2
File No. Z-5060
Owner: Maury Mitchell
Address: 215 North Bowman Road
Description: Lot 11, Markham Commercial
Addition to the City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance Requested: From the area provisions of
Section 7-103.3/D.3 to permit
new construction with a reduced
rear yard setback.
Justification:
1. The building as located is at the highest elevation on
the lot. For exposure to Bowman and West Markham
Streets, this is the best location for the building.
2. Because the rear property line is at an angle, only the
southeast corner of the building encroaches on the rear
yard setback. If you averaged the distance from the
rear property line to the building, it would exceed the
required 25 feet.
3. The building as located allows me to obtain the maximum
number of parking spaces.
4. This variance will have no effect on the adjoining
properties. To the north of my property is a hillside
and retaining wall. To the east is a large undeveloped
tract which will probably be developed as a shopping
center.
5. The platted front building line on Bowman Road is
40 feet instead of 25 feet as required by ordinance on
"C-3" zoned properties.
Present Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Commercial /Petty's Drug Store
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 2 (Continued)
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues:
There are none to be reported as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis:
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is for a
reduced rear yard setback. In a "C-3” General
Commercial zoning, the rear yard requirement is
25 feet. The applicant is proposing 16 feet; therefore
the amount of encroachment in the rear yard is 9 feet.
Site review revealed that the lot is vacant with at
least two degrees of height elevation. Frontages to
Bowman Road are platted at 40 feet instead of the
normal 25 feet. Due to the angle of the lot, the
encroachment occurs on the southeast corner of the lot.
The remaining front and side yard setbacks will be met,
those being 25 feet for the front, where the applicant
will have 40 feet, and the side which has no setback
requirement because the property does not abut
residential zoned properties. The area is in the
western portion of the City where a considerable amount
of new development is being done. Associated with this
issue but not a concern of the Board is a foundation
permit that was issued to the contractor. When a
foundation permit is issued before action is taken by
the Board, it is with the understanding of the contract
that it is issued at the risk of the contractor pending
action by the Board.
Staff feels that the applicant request is a reasonable
one, the hardships being the angle of the lot and
frontages of 40 feet to Bowman Road instead of the
standard 25 feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the rear yard variance as
filed.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 2 (Continued)
BOARD OFADJUSTMENT ACTION: (August 15, 1988)
Mr. Maury Mitchell, the applicant, was in attendance. There
were no objectors present. A Board member questioned the
location of the building on the site during the Agenda
session but stated that it had been resolved at that time
and he had no questions for the applicant. Due to the fact
only 5 members of the 9 member Board were present and one
had to abstain from voting, the City Attorney stated that
from his interpretation of the Bylaws, if one of the absent
members could be reached by phone and a vote taken, the case
could be acted upon inasmuch as the members had the Agenda
in hand before the meeting in order to review the cases.
The Bylaws state that it takes at least five votes of the
nine members to act on a request. A Staff member was able
to reach Jim Mitchell who stated that if he was in
attendance he would be in support of the variance as filed.
A motion was then made to approve the requested variance as
filed. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2
absent, 1 abstention (Rex Crane), 1 open position.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 3
File No. Z-5063
Owner: Texaco Refining and
Marketing, Inc.
Address: 2620 W. 65th Street
Description: Part of the SE 1/4, NW 1/4,
Section 28, T -1 -N, R -12 -W,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
Variances Requested: From the subdivision regulations
of Section 37.10-C to permit
construction to cross a platted
building line and multiple uses
on one site.
Justification: The purpose is to rehabilitate
this site, remodeling and
converting the interior of the
existing building and canopy to
the Texaco image and construct a
new free - standing car wash in
order to provide good interior
traffic flow /circulation,
provide adequate vehicle
stacking and reduce the
disturbance to the paved area.
Present Use of Property: Commercial /self- service station
Proposed Use of Property: Commercial /self- service station
with car wash
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
The issues before the Board of Adjustment are for
approval to cross a platted building line and multiple
uses on one site. As indicated on the sketch, there
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 3 (Continued)
presently exist three platted building lines of record:
one for 50 feet, 15 feet, and 75 feet. This occurrence
is due to the fact of this lot's being an older platted
lot of record. There once existed a practice of
requiring applicants to plat a building line for the
principal structure and a different one for an
accessory structure.
The first issue will consist of two changes to the
three building lines. The 50 foot building line will
remain but, if approved, will indicate the already
constructed awnings and new construction of a car wash
encroachment across the building line. Secondly, the
15 foot and 75 feet building line will be deleted from
the plat. Therefore, the encroachment to the 50 foot
building line on the east frontage to I-30 will be 15
feet and the encroachment to the 50 foot frontage to
Geyer Springs will be 35 feet. In an "I-2" zoning, the
ordinance requirement for a front yard setback is
50 feet. As with all building line waivers, the
applicant will have two additional steps to complete if
the approval is granted: the filing of a replat
showing the changes in the building lines and amended
Bill of Assurance. All filings should be done in the
Planning Department and at the County Court House.
The second issue of consideration for approval is
multiple uses on one site. Normally this type of
request is handled by the Planning Commission but when
there are variance issues included in the request, the
Board of Adjustment has acted on both issues in the
past. The principal use on site is that of a self -
service gas station and the secondary use will be a car
wash and storage area. With the car wash being placed
on the site as shown on the sketch, good interior
traffic flow /circulation and adequate vehicle stacking
will be accomplished. To the north of the site is
Days Inn (formerly Holiday Inn - SW), East Interstate 30,
south Kerr-McGhee Self-Service Station, West Smith
Products. Staff feels the applicant's request is
reasonable and justifiable considering the three
platted building lines.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 3 (Continued)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the building line waiver
and multiple uses on the site. A condition of approval will
be the completion of the two additional steps for a building
line waiver. Those consist of the filing of a replat and
amended Bill of Assurance, all in the Planning Department
and at the County Court House.
BOARD „OF ADJUSTMENT ACTI „ON: (August 15, 1988)
Mr. R. E. Burkman represented the applicant. There were no
objectors present. Mr. Burkman stated that he had no
problems with Staff recommendations and understood the two
additional steps; the filing of the replat and an amended
Bill of Assurance at the Planning Department and at the
County Court House. A motion was then made to approve the
building line waiver and multiple uses on one site
conditioned upon the two steps to the building line waiver
being met. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes,
3 absent, 1 open position.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 4
File No. Z-5064
Owner: Charles A. Burks
Address: 1207 East 2nd Street
Description: Part of Lots 6, 7, and 8,
Block 15, Russell's Addition to
the City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas
Zoned: "I-3" Heavy Industrial
Variances Requested: From the area provisions of
Section 7-104.3-D.1 and 3 to
permit an addition with reduced
setbacks.
Justification: Expansion of the present
structure is needed for
additional storage space.
Present Use of Property: Industrial /warehouse
Proposed Use of Property: Industrial /warehouse
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
The requests before the Board of Adjustment are for
reduced front and rear yard setbacks. Heavy industrial
zonings require a front yard setback to be 50 feet and
the applicant is proposing a front yard of 40 feet.
Rear yard setback requirement is 25 feet and the
proposal is for 5 feet.
A variance was granted prior to the construction of the
existing building in 1980 to reduce the rear and side
yard setbacks to five feet and to reduce the front yard
setback to 25 feet at the office area. Since that time
additional land has been acquired to the west of the
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 4 (Continued)
original building. The applicant needs 1500 square
feet of additional space. However, the available land
is limited by the Union Pacific Railroad tracts to the
southwest. If the requested variances are granted, the
area available will be just over 14000 square feet.
With the front yard setback of 45 feet, the required
additional parking can be provided while maintaining
the continuity of the existing building. Since the
rear yards border on the Union Pacific Railroad tracks
for its entire length, there will not be any building
adjacent to this reduced setback. North of the site is
industrial use, east is commercial, and south is
industrial.
The hardship of the applicant is the unusual shape of
the lot, being triangular without the real existence of
a side yard.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval subject to the angle parking
spaces being changed from what is indicated on the sketch
and approved by Traffic Engineering.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (August 15, 1988)
Mr. Mike Steelman represented the applicant. Mr. Charles A.
Burks was in attendance. There were no objectors present.
Mr. Steelman stated that he had talked with Jerry Gardner of
the Engineering Staff and there was no problem with changing
the angle parking spaces from what was shown on the sketch.
A motion was then made to approve the requested variances
subject to the angle parking being changed. The motion
passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, 1 open
position.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 5
File No. Z-5066
Owner: Denis and Clare Seyer
Address: 5123 Stonewall
Description: Lot 7, Block 26, Newton Addition
to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned : "R -2" Single Family
Variances.Requested: (1) From the area provisions of
Section 7-101.2-D.1 to
permit an addition with a
reduced setback.
(2) From the height and area
provisions of Section
5-102-2.0 to permit
accessory structures less
than 60 feet from the front
property line.
Justification:
1. To allow construction of an enclosed stairway to a
bedroom and bath to be added to the upper floor.
Structural and functional considerations made this the
logical location for the stairs.
2. To allow construction of a carport which will provide
the owner with covered off - street parking.
3. Permission to enclose the stairway by extending the
existing building wall and also to build the carport by
extending the building wall of the shed so that we can
match the existing structures, visually connecting them
with a uniform appearance by lining up the existing
elements. Also, the location of the carport provides
useful backyard space in one location instead of being
divided into smaller areas.
4. The proposal is not establishing any new encroachment
distance in relation to the property line, but is
merely extending the building walls of existing
structures
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 5 (Continued)
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 as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal before the Board of Adjustment is for the
construction of a new addition with a reduced front
yard setback and the construction of two accessory
structures, carport and pool, that will be less than
the required 60 feet from a street frontage. This site
is located at the southeast corner of Stonewall and
Newton Streets. Both street widths are considerably
wider than normally found with a residential street
where the traffic flow is minimal. Since this is a
corner lot and the applicant is required to provide a
25 foot front setback on Newton Street, the request to
allow for the new construction on the property line
with a zero setback. The addition will consist of a
bedroom and bath with the present carport enclosed.
Ordinance requirements for accessory structures in
residential zonings state that a 60 foot separation
from the property line to the structure should be
provided. The applicant is requesting that the new
carport be constructed on the present property line
with a setback of 0 feet. On site is a shed to which
the new carport will be attached. A 27 foot separation
from the frontage on Newton Street is being requested
for the pool which will be located at the southeast
corner of the lot.
Abutting this property to the south is a commercial
use, with residential uses on the north, east and west.
In order for the proposed changes to occur, the present
curved drive will be redesigned to a straight direction
coming off Newton Street.
In review of the request, Staff found that the
applicant's hardship is the fact of the lot being on a
corner and 50 feet in width which makes it difficult
for the requirements of the ordinance to be met.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 5 (Continued)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval subject to the carport never being
enclosed and no cover being placed on the pool.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (August 15, 1988)
Mr. Wassell Turner represented the applicant. Mrs. Patricia
Brown of 31 Beverly Place was present to object to the fence
being allowed to remain in the right-of-way but not to the
variances for the construction of the additions and pool.
Staff stated that in conversation with Mrs. Brown, she was
informed that the fence being placed on the curb or
right-of-way was not an issue the Board could address
because (a) it was not a part of the variance request, and
(b) the majority of the house in the area have some type of
construction within the right-of-way which establishes the
precedence for the fence. Mrs. Brown stated that she
understood but since the applicant was before the Board a
possible trade-off could take place even if the applicant
only moved the fence back a few feet. In her opinion, the
fence being at its present location presents a safety
problem for traffic. A Staff member was then asked if there
was anything the Board could do regarding the request and
Staff responded no, but another member of Staff stated that
the motion could state that the Engineering Office should
send someone out to review the site and see if the fence
presented a problem to safety of pedestrians or flow of
traffic. Mr. Wassell Turner stated that he had no comments
to Mrs. Brown's request, nor did he have any problems with
Staff's recommendation.
A motion was then made to approve the requested variance as
recommended by Staff. Also included in the motion is a
directive to the Engineering Department to go out and review
the location of the fence for safety to pedestrians or
traffic flow obstruction. The motion passed by a vote of
5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, 1 open position.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 6
File No. Z-5067
Owner: International Computer
Systems, Inc.
Address: 912 Garland Street
Description: Lot 11, W. B. Worthen's
Subdivision of Block 352,
Original City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, AR
Zoned: "O-3" General Office
Variances Requested.: From the area provisions of
Section 7-102.3-D.1, 2, & 3 to
permit new construction with
reduced setbacks.
Jus.tifi „c.ation,: Without the requested setbacks,
the buildable area would not be
great enough to justify the
development.
Present Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Office
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported as of this writing from
the City Engineering Office.
Wastewater Utility
Records indicate a six inch sanitary sewer line is
located across the north property line, or in the alley
of Lot 11. Before construction begins, the applicant
must verify that the proposed building will not
encroach on the easement reserved for the sewer line.
B. Staff Analysis
The applicant is coming before the Board of Adjustment
at this time requesting front, side and rear yard
setbacks in order to construct a new office building.
The property is zoned "O-3” General Office; therefore,
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 6 (Continued)
the requirements of the ordinance are a front yard
setback 25 feet, side yard setback of 10 feet, and rear
yard setback of 15 feet. The variances requested are a
front yard of 15 feet, a difference of 10 feet; side
yard of 5 feet, a difference of 5 feet; and a rear yard
setback of 0 -6 feet, a difference of 15-9 feet.
Parking is also a issue associated with this request.
The applicant is the owner of the two lots to the north
of this site. The immediate lot to the northwest of
this site presently houses a company of the applicant,
International Computer, Inc. Located adjacent to the
northwest lot is a parking lot which provides parking
to the employees of the company and will be utilized to
provide the parking for the proposed new office
building. The Ordinance requirement specifies that
twelve parking spaces will be needed for a new two -
story office with square footage of 2400 feet. The
applicant has been requested to provide documentation
indicating the parking lot to the north has enough
overflow parking spaces where the six needed spaces can
be provided.
Surrounding this property are commercial and
residential uses. To the north or rear of the property
is an open alley. The lot is vacant and small in size.
Due to the fact this site is small and the proposed
building will be compatible with the existing setbacks
of the surrounding properties in the area, Staff feels
that a hardship does exist.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Inasmuch as a possible change in future ownership or type of
use for all three properties involved may occur, Staff
recommends approval conditioned upon: A) any new Privilege
Licenses on either site may not be issued without review of
the parking by the Staff, and B) no partial sale or re-use
of any or all three properties may occur without Staff's
approval. Also, Wastewater should sign off on the proposed
construction plans before a building permit is issued.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 6 (Continued)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (August 15, 1988)
Mr. Steven Elliott represented the applicant. There was one
person in objection at the meeting, a Mr. Peter Thomas,
attorney for Mrs. Holloway, the neighbor to the east. One
letter was received objecting to the variance from Swaffar
and Associates.
Mr. Thomas explained to the Board that his client was an
elderly handicapped woman whose only sole possession was the
property she lives on and that to allow these variances
would devalue the property. He also stated that he agreed
with all the conditions stated in the letter from Swaffar
and Associates, the neighbor to the west. The letter
basically objected to the construction of a two-story
building on such a small lot with the reduced setbacks as
requested.
One Board member questioned the accessibility of the alley
with the utility poles already in place and the alley being
only ten feet in width inasmuch as the applicant is
requesting that the rear yard to the new building be allowed
to vary from 0 -6 feet. Mr. Elliott stated that the larger
trucks even now have problems getting through the alley and
that with the new building's rear yard being constructed as
proposed, he did not see where it would increase the problem
of accessibility. If the Board saw fit, the applicant could
reduce the rear of the building line to indicate at least
2 -4 feet where the zero setback is indicated. The Board
member stated that he would like to see a plan showing a 2-4
rear yard setback. Another Board member questioned whether
the applicant had considered constructing the new building
on the parking lot and making the lot in question the
parking lot. Mr. Elliott stated that no, that was not
something the applicant had considered but the parking lot
is built, striped and landscaped to standard.
Mr. Elliott was then advised that because of there being
only 5 members of the Board present, he would need all five
positive votes for the variances to pass. He could,
however, request a deferral until next month which would
allow time for him to research the two issues the Board
members had stated and, in all likelihood, there possibly
will be more members present at the next meeting. Mr.
Elliott then stated that he would prefer the deferral. A
motion was made to defer the item until the next meeting on
September 19, 1988. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes,
0 noes, 3 absent, 1 open position.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 7
File No. Z-5027-B
Owner: City of Little Rock /Sam Strauss
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C -3" General Commercial
Request: Rehearing for a denial for a
front yard setback
STAFF ANALYSIS:
On June 20, 1988 the applicant came before the Board of
Adjustment requesting a variance for a front yard setback in
order to construct an addition to an existing building. At
the time the request came before the Board, the property was
zoned "I-2" Light Industrial with a front yard setback
requirement of 50 feet. The applicant was proposing a front
yard setback of 3 feet which would be in keeping with the
building alignment to the existing structure.
In order for the addition to occur as the applicant had
proposed, construction would have to be done over an
existing concrete culvert. The Engineering issues
associated with this request and one of the major reasons
for the denial was the maintenance problems and danger that
possibly could occur when a concrete culvert of this size is
obstructed and rendered nonaccessible.
Another issue regarding the request was the City Attorney's
concern regarding an agreement the applicant submitted
indicating any damage incurred from the building will be the
responsibility of the shopping center. The City Attorney
present stated that before any agreement which relinquished
liability or imposes liability to the City of Little Rock
must first be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office. The
agreement had not been reviewed at the time the request came
before the Board.
The applicant now feels that new evidence exists regarding
the initial request and is requesting that another public
hearing be held in order for the evidence to be presented
with proper notice given to the surrounding property owners.
AUGUST 15, 1988
Item No. 7 (Continued)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (August 15, 1988)
Mr. Elvin Shuffield represented the applicant. Staff stated
that the applicant was requesting a thirty day deferral for
the rehearing. Mr. Shuffield stated that the reason for the
deferral was because his client was trying to meet with the
representatives of the Kroger Company to see if the addition
could be placed in the front. If that can not be
accomplished, then before the next meeting he plans to meet
with Engineering and the City Attorney's office to see what
alternatives could be worked out regarding the building over
the concrete culvert.
A motion was then made to deter this item until the
September 19, 1988 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of
5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, 1 open position.
August 15, 1988
There being no further business before the Board of Adjustment the meeting
was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Date
Chairman Secretary