Loading...
boa_09 19 1988LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 2:00 p.m. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum. A quorum was present being six in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting. The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Jim Mitchell - Acting Chairman Cynthia Alderman Eduard Scharff Thomas McGowan Ronald Pierce Rex Crane Members Absent: George Wells - Chairman 2 Open Positions City Attorney Present: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 I. DEFERRED ITEMS A. Z-5027-B........... City of Little Rock/ Sam Strauss B. Z-5067 International Computer Systems, Inc. II. VARIANCES REQUESTED 1. Z-5018-A ...........8209 Geyer Springs Road 2. Z-5062 ............. 41 Longlea Drive 3. Z-5070 ............. 76 Woodhaven Drive 4. Z-5071 ............. Spur Cove 5. Z-5072 ............. 76 Valley Estates Cove III. OTHER MATTERS 6. Resolution to amend Bylaws September 19, 1988 Item No. A 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. September 19, 1988 Item No. A (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 defer this item until the September 19, 1988 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (September 19, 1988) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting this item to be withdrawn. A motion was made to do so at the request of the applicant. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 2 open positions. September 19, 1988 Item No. B 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. Justification: 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, September 19, 1988 Item No. B (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. C. 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. September 19, 1988 Item No. B (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. September 19, 1988 Item No. B (Continued) As requested by the Board, the applicant has submitted a new plan indicate a change in the variance requested for the rear yard. The new plan shows the rear yard encroachments to vary from four feet to 10 feet. All other requested variances will remain the same - front yard 15 feet and side yards 5 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of all three variances as indicated in sketch labeled 2B. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (September 19, 1988) Mr. Darrell Odem was in attendance and represented the applicant. Mr. Peter Thomas, also in attendance, represented Mrs. Ann Holloway, the neighbor to the east, who was objecting to the requested variances. Mr. Odem stated that the applicant had complied with the request of the Board by resubmitting a new plan showing less of an encroachment to the rear yard. Originally, the requested rear yard variance was to vary from 0 feet to 4 feet, but the new plan shows the rear yard varying from 6 feet to 10 feet. Mr. Odem stated that his applicant feels strongly about the building being placed on the lot fronting Garland Street because of exposure and visability. As far as he knows, the parking lot to the north does presently meet the standards of the Landscaping Ordinance. Mr. Odem again stated that regardless of where the building is placed on the lot, the property owner to the east will be shaded whether the building is one-story or the proposed two-story. The difficulty for emergency vehicle accessing in the alley will also remain. Mr. Peter Thomas stated that his client is an elderly widow who recently broke her neck and is confined to her house. To make her have to look out her window at a brick wall only five feet away is simply too much. He further stated that the parking lot to the north was not in compliance with the Landscaping Ordinance. In his opinion, the better location for the building would be to place it on the parking lot to the north. He further stated that his applicant agreed with everything contained in the letter from Swaffar and Associates voicing their objections to the variances that are being requested. A Board member then asked if the Notice Requirement had been met since it was mentioned in the letter. Staff stated that yes, the Notice Requirement had been met inasmuch as September 19, 1988 Item No. B (Continued) receipts were shown for all names contained on the abstract list. Another Board member asked if there were any changes to the other three variances and Staff stated no. Mr. Odem then stated his applicant felt that to have him reduce the other variances from what he was requesting would take away from the desired design of the building. He stated that his applicant agreed with what was stated in the write-up regarding the proposal being compatible with the adjacent buildings in the area. A motion was then made to deny the requested variance. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 2 open positions. September 19, 1988 Item No. 1 File No. Z-5018-A Owner: Marion D. Nash Address: 8209 Geyer Springs Road Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-4" Open Display Variances Requested: From the Area Regulations provisions of Section 7-103.4 - D.1 & 2 to permit construction with reduced front and side yard setbacks. Justification: The new addition is needed for office space and storage areas. Present Use of Property: Commercial /service station Proposed Use of Property: Commercial /service station with office and storage area 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 reduced front and side yard variances in order to construct a new addition for office and storage purposes. In the applicant's letter to the Board it is stated that at the present location, monies in excess of $10,000 are handled on weekends. Office area in the service station is presently being used to process the receipts. Geyer Springs, according to the applicant, is a high crime area; therefore by placing the building on the north property line, a more secure addition could be built with entrance to the front. Presently, the property is zoned "C-4" Open Display. The setbacks in the "C-4" zoning require the front yard September 19, 1988 Item No. 1 (Continued) to be 45 feet on both frontages to Geyer Springs Road and Dreher Lane. Constructed on site within the 45 foot setbacks are two,awnings. The setback to the awning on Geyer Springs Road is 19 feet, a difference of 26 feet; on Dreher Lane the awning has a setback of 12 feet, a difference of 33 feet. Staff found no record to indicate that variances were obtained for these encroachments. Therefore, the front yard variances were added to clear up the present case file. On the north property line or side yard, the request is for the new addition to be constructed within 4.1 feet of the property line. A side yard in this zone is required to be 15 feet, a difference of 10.9 feet. Surrounding this property are all commercial uses. Geyer Springs Road is a four-lane street with a large traffic flow. Dreher Lane is a two-lane street with heavy traffic flow, more or less during the weekend. Presently on this site is an existing brick building with three bays connected for maintenance and repair work of automobiles. Both awnings serve as cover for motorists to the pumps. One is connected to the principal building providing cover to and from the building in inclement weather. Staff feels that to allow the applicant's request as proposed would definitely present a potential fire hazard problem. The building to the north is built within no more than approximately 3 feet of the property line. The new addition simply would not allow for enough separation, especially since the requirement states that side yards should be 15 feet. A more suitable location would be for the addition to the built to the rear of the building with access being taken from the existing building for the security purposes. In the event the Board agrees with the recommendation of Staff, the applicant is advised to resubmit a plan showing the construction of the addition to the rear of the existing building at which time Staff will review and bring back to the Board of Adjustment for a decision on a rear yard variance if one is found to be needed. September 19, 1988 Item No. 1 (Continued) C. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending denial of the side yard variance due to the potential fire hazard if the building is allowed to be built so close to the north property line. However, Staff is recommending approval of the front yard variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (September 19, 1988) Mr. Bill Nash was in attendance and represented the applicant. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that there was a problem with the notice requirement. The abstract list that Mr. Nash submitted indicated ten property owners within the required 200 feet but Mr. Nash only submitted seven return registered cards. Along with the seven registered cards, Mr. Nash also submitted an affidavit stating he had complied with the requirement. After further discussion, the City Attorney present stated that the Board had in the past held a strong position about the applicant's meeting the requirements. Therefore, he felt the same should hold true for this case. A motion was then made to defer this item until the October 17, 1988 meeting. The applicant was told that during this time all effort should be given toward bring the Notice Requirement into compliance. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 2 open positions. September 19, 1988 Item No. 2 File No. Z-5062 Owner: Richard and Jean Kuelpman Address: 41 Longlea Drive Description: Lot 16, Longlea 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.3 to permit construction with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: The addition is needed for storage purposes and to have a third stall for vehicle protection from the weather. Present Use of Property: Residential /single family Propose Use of Property: Residential /single family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported as of this writing. B. Staff AnaIysis The request before the Board of Adjustment is for a reduced rear yard setback in order to construct an additional stall for car protection and storage area to the present garage. Since the property is zoned "R-2” single family, Ordinance requirement is the rear yard to be 25 feet. The applicant proposes a 15.5 feet rear yard, a difference of 9.5 feet. To the rear of the property is a te.n foot utility easement. Surrounding the site are all residential uses. To the rear of this site is a wooden fence with mature landscaping within various areas of the lot. The addition proposed is September 19, 1988 Item No. 2 (Continued) 10 feet by 28 feet, the same length as the current garage, and would be made of materials similar to the existing structure per the statement of the applicant in the letter to the Board. Staff feels the applicant's request is reasonable and will not present any hardship to the adjacent property owners. C. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (September 19, 1988) The applicant, Mr. Richard Kuelpman, was in attendance. There were no objectors present. The applicant stated there were no problems with the Staff's recommendation. A motion was them made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 2 open positions. September 19, 1988 Item No. 3 File No. Z-5070 Owner: Stephen and Sindy Vogler Address: 7600 Woodhaven Drive Description: Lot 1, Woodhaven Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the Area Regulations provision of Section 37.10-C to permit construction to cross a platted building line. Justification: The carport was needed in order to provide protection to the family during inclement weather as well as protection to our car. Present Use of Property: Residential /single family Proposed Use of Property: Residential /single family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues The proposed building line encroachment is in conflict with imminent construction of a bond issue project. This project will construct a 50 foot x 0 inches wide curb and gutter street, with 5 feet 0 inches wide sidewalks, which will require widening of the existing 60 foot 0 inches right-of-way of Chicot Road. Construction is presently anticipated to begin in 1989. B. Staff Analysis This request is before the Board of Adjustment as the result of an enforcement action. Presently on site is a carport that is attached to the principal structure and built over a 25 foot platted building line. September 19, 1988 Item No. 3 (Continued) What the applicant has done is build a carport that is of wood material and stands on four poles with three open sides. Initially a contractor was hired to do inside work as well as the construction of the carport. The applicants assumed all necessary permits were obtained. Once the concrete drive was poured, the applicants saw where they could do the work cheaper than the contractor and therefore constructed the carport over the newly poured concrete drive. Surrounding the property are all residential uses. The encroachment over the building line is approximately 11 feet. On site presently is a one-story frame house with a considerable amount of rear yard area. To the north is a 15 foot utility easement. There existed a carport that has been enclosed because of the need for additional space. If for some reason the Board sees fit to approve this request for a building line waiver, Staff would like to remind the applicant that there are two additional steps to the building line waiver process. The two steps involve the filing of an amended Bill of Assurance and a one-lot replat all in the Office of Comprehensive Planning and at the County Court House. These two items must be achieved before the actual process is completed. In the process of evaluating applications where the construction has already occurred, Staff has been consistent in reviewing each application on its own merits and wholeheartedly understands the position the contractor has placed the applicant in by not obtaining the necessary building permits. However, after review of the materials submitted, Staff concluded that support cannot be given to this requested building line waiver due to the pending Bond Issue Project, which is the widening of Chicot Road slated to begin in 1989. C. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending denial of the building line waiver per the Engineering issue. September 19, 1988 Item No. 3 (Continued) What the applicant has done is build a carport that is of wood material and stands on four poles with three open sides. Initially a contractor was hired to do inside work as well as the construction of the carport. The applicants assumed all necessary permits were obtained. Once the concrete drive was poured, the applicants saw where they could do the work cheaper than the contractor and therefore constructed the carport over the newly poured concrete drive. Surrounding the property are all residential uses. The encroachment over the building line is approximately 11 feet. On site presently is a one -story frame house with a considerable amount of rear yard area. To the north is a 15 foot utility easement. There existed a carport that has been enclosed because of the need for additional space. If for some reason the Board sees fit to approve this request for a building line waiver, Staff would like to remind the applicant that there are two additional steps to the building line waiver process. The two steps involve the filing of an amended Bill of Assurance and a one-lot replat all in the Office of Comprehensive Planning and at the County Court House. These two items must be achieved before the actual process is completed. In the process of evaluating applications where the construction has already occurred, Staff has been consistent in reviewing each application on its own merits and wholeheartedly understands the position the contractor has placed the applicant in by not obtaining the necessary building permits. However, after review of the materials submitted, Staff concluded that support cannot be given to this requested building line waiver due to the pending Bond Issue Project, which is the widening of Chicot Road slated to begin in 1989. C. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending denial of the building line waiver per the Engineering issue. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (September 19, 1988) Mrs. Sindy Vogler, the applicant, was in attendance at the meeting. There were no objectors present. Mrs. Vogler September 19, 1988 Item No. 3 (Continued) explained to the Board the circumstances involved with her case. The contractor had informed her and her husband that all the necessary permits were obtained for the construction work. Once the contractor poured the concrete for the driveway, she and her husband decided they could do the work cheaper and therefore constructed the carport. Mr. Jerry Gardner of the City Engineer's office addressed Staff's reason for the denial of the variance. Mr. Gardner stated that the consultants hired by the City for the pending Bond Issue Project, which is the widening of Chicot Road, have indicated that the City will need approximately 7.5 feet for the right-of-way and an additional 10 feet for the construction of an easement. Mrs. Vogler was then asked by a Board member who was the contractor that did the initial work. Mrs. Vogler stated that North Little Rock Construction Company was the firm. She went on to state that because the family has two chow dogs, the rear yard would not be accessible because the area is needed for the dogs to exercise. Mr. Gardner was then asked if it would be possible for the construction of the Bond Project to go around the area of the carport. Mr. Gardner stated yes, but not only was the carport an issue but the fact that the driveway has been constructed so close to the area where a curb cut is planned for the widening project and this is just something the City does not allow. After explaining the above statement to Mrs. Vogler, she then stated that the driveway is curved and not straight as the sketch indicates. Further discussion was done, after which a motion was made to approve the building line waiver subject to Engineering reviewing the driveway for compliance. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (McGowan), 2 open positions. Staff then informed Mrs. Vogler that there were two additional steps involved in any building line waiver process. Those steps include the filing of a replat and amended Bill of Assurance all in the Planning Department and at the County Court House. The Board then directed the Zoning Enforcement office to investigate and bring whatever charges necessary against the North Little Rock Construction Company for not meeting all the City building permit requirements. September 19, 1988 Item No. 4 File No. Z-5071 Owner: E.R.C. Properties Address: Spur Cove Description: Lot 259, Point West Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variances Requested: From the Area Regulations provisions of Section 7-101.2- D.2 to permit new construction with a reduced side yard setback. Justification: The lot has a 30 foot platted building line which the applicant wishes to maintain and not encroach over. Present Use of Property: Vacant 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 a reduced side yard variance. Presently the property is vacant and zoned "R-2” Single Family. The Ordinance requirement for a side yard in this zone is 10% of the width of the lot. The lot is 75 feet in width; therefore a side yard of 7.5 feet is needed. The applicant is requesting a side yard of 5 feet, a difference of 2.5 feet. To the north of the property is a 15 foot utility easement. Presently within this cul-de-sac there are other houses under construction. The lot is on a corner with both street frontages to Spur Cove and Point West Drive being met with over the September 19, 1988 Item No. 4 (Continued) required 25 feet of setback. Since there exists more than enough front yard setback to Point West Drive, the applicant was left with a choice of crossing a platted building line or seeking a side yard variance. Surrounding the property on all sides are residential uses with Point West Drive being built to residential standards and Spur Cove, a built to standards cul-de- sac. Point West Second Addition is comprised of two cul-de- sacs, Pinto Point and Spur Cove. The lots in Pinto Point are all "R-3" zoned but the lots in Spur Cove are all "R-2" zoned. The applicant feels the remaining lots and houses under construction have no problems with meeting the required setbacks. Staff feels the applicant's proposal presents no problem to the adjacent property owners and would like to see the 30 foot platted building line maintained rather than have the applicant encroach over it with the proposed construction. C. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the side yard variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION; (September 19, 1988) Mr. Pat McGetrick represented the applicant. There were no objectors present. Mr. McGetrick stated there were no problems with the recommendation of Staff. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 2 open positions. September 19, 1988 Item No. 5 File No. Z-5072 Owner: Jerry & Freddie Neal Address: 76 Valley Estates Cove Description: Lot 21, Pleasant Valley Estates Subdivision to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned.: "R-2” Single Family Variances Requested: From the Area Regulations provisions of Section 7-101.2- D.3 to permit construction with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: (1) The lot is situated in the middle of a cul-de- sac curve, and therefore some frontage has been lost due to not having a straight front property line. (2) Lot 21 is sloped and by reducing the rear yard setback, the house can be placed to assure better drainage. (3) The lot is only 50 feet wide in front. By moving the house back as much as possible, the driveway will approach the house at a better angle and will be more functional and more attractive to the neighborhood. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Residential /single family September 19, 1988 Item No. 5 (Continued) STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis The applicant is requesting of the Board to grant approval for a reduced rear yard variance. In a zoning of "R-2," to which this lot belongs, a rear yard is required to be 25 feet and the applicants propose a 20 foot rear yard setback, a difference of 5 feet. The lot is vacant with vacant lots to the east and west. The site is heavily wooded with variation in the slope of the lot. The site fronts on a cul-de-sac which is built to standard. This particular subdivision is well secured with an iron gate and intercom entrance security system. There is a 25 foot platted building line to the front which the applicant plans to maintain. To the north is a 15 foot utility easement. Staff found no problems with the applicants' request due to the fact the property backs up to the Pleasant Valley Country Club and will pose no hardship to the adjacent property owners. C. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (September 19, 1988) Mrs. Freddie Neal, the applicant, was in attendance. There were no objectors present. Mrs. Neal stated that there were no problems with the recommendation of Staff. A motion was then made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 2 open positions. September 19, 1988 Item No. 6 Other Matters Adoption of a resolution amending that portion of the Bylaws that specifically states that all work on approved variances is to be completed within thirty-six (36) months of the date of approval. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (September 19, 1988) During the discussion of this item at the Agenda session, several of the Board of Adjustment members felt that additional time other than six (6) months was needed for approved variances. It was then recommended by the City Attorney present to defer this item until next month's meeting. The deferral would allow time for the proper language to be adopted and additional research done regarding extending the time limit on approved variances. The recommendation was then taken into consideration and all the Board members present unanimously agreed to delaying any vote until the October 17, 1988 meeting. September 19, 1988 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING There being no further business before the Board of Adjustment, the meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m. DATE: Chairman Secretary