boa_10 17 1988LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
OCTOBER 17, 1988
2:00 p.m.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A quorum was present being eight in number.
II Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting.
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members present: George Wells, Chairman
Jim Mitchell
Eduard Scharff
Ronald Pierce
Cynthis Alderman
Diane Chachere
Rex Crane
Thomas McGowan
Members Absent: One Open Position
City Attorney
present: Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
OCTOBER 17, 1988
I . DEFFERED ITEMS
A. Z-5018-A 8209 Geyer Springs Road
II. VARIANCES REQUESTED
1. Z-2908-D 5908 West 19th Street
2. Z-5067-A 912 Garland Street
3. Z-5078 5701 Lindsey Road
4. Z-5080 8807 West 33rd Street
5 Z-5081 10312 Baseline Road
6. Z-5083 10 Barbara Drive
7. Z-5085 1623 West 24th Street
8. Z-5089 101 Poinsetta Drive
9. Z-5091 1200 South University
10. Z-5101 511 East 8th Street
III. OTHER MATTERS
11. Clarification request to the Height and Areas
Exceptions Provisions of the Little Rock Zoning
Ordinance
12. A determination to the appropriate zoning district
for outside auto storage
13. Adoption of a resolution changing the time limit
provisions in the Bylaws
October 17, 1988
Item No. A
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
October 17, 1988
Item No. A (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.
October 17, 1988
Item No. A (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.
BOARD OFADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Cash. There were
no objectors present. Mr. Cash stated that his client
really felt strongly about the need to have the addition
built to the north side. The reason was because of security
purposes since the applicant handles large sums of monies on
the weekend and the area has a high degree of crime. Mr.
Cash also said that there was a need for the addition to
front onto Geyer Springs Road. A Board member then asked
Mr. Cash if the addition could be placed on the south side.
Mr. Cash stated, "No, because of pumps being located in that
area." Mr. Cash then asked for clarification of the Staff's
recommendation. Staff stated that the applicant had more
than enough area on the east side of the lot, which is the
rear of the principal structure, in which to construct the
October 17, 1988
Item No. A (Continued )
addition. A Board member then asked why couldn't the
applicant, since it's the desire to front on a street,
locate the addition fronting on Dreher Lane which is a less
busy street with commercial uses in the immediate area.
Mr. Cash stated that he had discussed that possible
alternative with his client but the client had refused the
idea.
A motion was then made to approve the front yard variance
only. This motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes,
1 open position. No motion was given nor a vote taken on
the side yard variance request.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 1
File No. Z-2908-D
Owner: Louis & June Nalley
Address: 5908 West 19th Street
Description: Lot 11, Block 24, Bateman's
Subdivision of Cherry & Cox's
Addition to the City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance Requested: From the Floodplain
Restrictions of Paragraph (a)
of Paragraph (4) of Section B
of Article 5 of Ordinance
No. 14,534 of the City of
Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas
Justification: The variance is needed in order
to construct a building for the
purpose of storage within the
floodplain.
Present Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Storage
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering lssues
The engineering issues are included WitMnthe Staff's
analysis.
B. Staff Analysis
The request before the Board of Adjustment is for a
variance from the Floodplain Restrictions to allow for
the construction of a building within the floodplain
for the purpose of storage. City Ordinance does allow
for the construction within the floodplain but because
of the 100 year flood restrictions, floor elevations
must meet certain requirements.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 1 (Continued)
Coleman Creek is located adjacent to the two lots in
question on the west. There is a pending improvement
project by the City for this creek. Presently, the two
lots are vacant except for a small metal building
located in the northeast corner of Lot 12. The site
area is paved with wire fencing surrounding it. The
neighborhood consists of residential and commercial
uses. West 19th Street is a residential built street.
University Avenue is a major arterial, located west of
the site.
The present location of the storage building places it
within the floodway which cannot be allowed. If the
floodplain variance is granted, the building will have
to be relocated from where the sketch indicates it will
be placed. By relocating the building further east on
the site, it will place it in the floodplain and not
the floodway as the sketch indicates. The new storage
building will serve as storage, an accessory use to the
principal use of which is the Hog Pen, a retail
business.
Staff feels the applicant's hardship is the fact of the
pending City project to improve Coleman Creek. There
also existed a structure similar to the one the
applicant desires before the flood occurred during the
seventies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval subject to: (a) the
building's being located as far east on the site as
possible, and (b) the floor elevation plan must be reviewed
and signed off on by the City Engineering Office.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Kim Gaines represented the applicant. There were no
objectors present. Mr. Gaines shows a plot plan to the
Chairman and Staff and asked if that was what Wastewater
Utility wanted. Staff informed him that she was not able to
make that decision. The applicant should contact Wastewater
Utility. Mr. Gaines then was asked if there were any
problems with the conditions as stated in the Staff's
recommendation. Mr. Gaines stated that no problems existed.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 1 (Continued)
A motion was then made to approve the floodplain variance
per the conditions stated in Staff's recommendation. Also
included in the motion is the request by Wastewater Utility
to review the site plan because of the sewer easement
located on the site. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes and 1 open position.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 2
File No. A-5067-A
Owner: International Computer Systems,
Inc.
Address: 912 Garland Street
Description: Lot 11, W. B. Worthen
Subdivision of Block 352,
Original City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
honed:
Variances Requested:
Justification:
"0 -3” General Office
From the Area Provisions of
Section 7-102.3-D.1, 2 and 3 to
permit construction of a
building with reduced setbacks
A. The "O-3" zoning setbacks
create a hardship for any
office development on
this site.
B. Office development
constitutes the best use
of this property and the
setback variances
requested are less than
the setback variances
enjoyed by the majority
of the buildings on the
block.
Present Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Office
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal before the Board of Adjustment is for the
construction of an office building with reduced
setbacks. A similar proposal was before the Board last
October 17, 1988
Item No. 2
month. One difference between the old and new proposal
is the fact the applicant is exceeding the requirement
of the side yard setback on the east side. In "O-3"
General Office zoning, side yard setbacks are required
to be ten (10) feet. On the west side, the request is
for a five (5) foot setback, a difference of five (5)
feet; a fifteen foot setback is being proposed to the
east, an increase of five (5) feet. A front yard
setback should be twenty-five (25) feet and the
proposal is for a fifteen (15) foot setback, a
difference of ten (10) feet. Rear yard setbacks should
be fifteen (15) feet, the applicant is requesting a
varying setback of four (4) feet to six (6) feet, a
difference of eleven (11) feet to nine (9) feet.
Construction plans consist of a two -story building
being 30' x 60' with a total square footage of 3600
feet. Also associated with this request is the desire
of the applicant to utilize the parking lot to the
north of the site in order to meet the parking
requirements. Parking requirements indicate that nine
(9) spaces will be needed for the new two -story
building, of which the applicant's parking lot to the
north can adequately provide. Please note the
applicant owns the lot in question as well as the two
lots to the north.
Surrounding this site is a mixture of uses which
include commercial, office and residential. The lot is
50 feet in width and a gravel alley running the contour
of east and west is located to the north of the site.
Garland is a narrow residential street with off-street
parking occurring during the daytime hours.
Staff feels the applicant does have a hardship due to
the fact the lot is only 50 feet in width and the
request is compatible with the other office uses in the
area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Inasmuch as a possible change in the future ownership or
type of uses for all three properties involved may occur,
Staff is recommending approval of all three variances
subject to: (a) any new privilege licenses on either
side may not be issued without review of the parking by
Staff, and (b) no partial sale or reuse of any or all three
properties may occur without Staff's approval.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 2 (Continued)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Darrell Odom represented the applicant. There were two
objectors present: Mr. Peter Thomas representing the
neighbor to the east, Mrs. Annie Holloway, and Pat
Colberson, also representing Mrs. Annie Holloway. Mr. Odom
spoke to the position of his client. He stated that his
client had presented the best proposal possible and still
meet his desire for an office building. There is a meeting
of the setbacks on the east with a five foot increase. Mr.
Peter Thomas stated that his client's position was still the
same which was objection to the variances. Inasmuch as the
applicant's variances may be approved, his client would
rather keep the hedges that are presently on -site instead of
the opaque screen the ordinance requires. His client would
also like for the applicant to assure that the proper
drainage will be provided to ensure that no rain run -off
will affect her property to the east. Mr. Odom, responding
for the applicant, stated that there were no problems in
meeting the conditions of Mr. Thomas' client. He further
agreed to replace any hedges which may be damaged from
construction.
Mrs. Pat Colberson stated that she was a good friend to Mrs.
Holloway and was in attendance to let the Board know how
strongly Mrs. Holloway objected to the building being
constructed. If the building is constructed, it will block
all light to the east side of Mrs. Holloway's house. Mr.
Odom stated that he does understand Mrs. Holloway's
position, but even without the variance, there still could
be an office building constructed on the site. It was then
asked of Mr. Odom whether their existed any problems with
the conditions Staff outlined in their recommendation. Mr.
Odom stated no problems existed.
A motion was then made to approve the three variances per
the conditions stated in the Staff's recommendation. This
motion also is to include the consent by Mr. Odom to provide
for proper drainage of rain run-off away from the property
to the east as well leave in place or replace any of the
rows of hedges located on the east side of the site. The
motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 3
File No. Z-5078
Owner: Garrison, Inc.
Address: 5701 Lindsey Road
Description: Long legal
Zoned: "I-2" Light industrial
Variance Requested: From the Development Criteria
Provisions of Section 7-104.2 -
B.1 to permit a change in the
screening requirements
Justification: Due to the fact all the
surrounding property will have
an industrial use, there is no
need for the opaque screening.
Present Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Industrial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The applicant is requesting of the Board of Adjustment
to allow a different screening requirement than what is
stated in the Zoning Ordinance. Presently, the
property is cleared with some construction being done
in the beginning stages. Surrounding the property is
the Picron Ports Industrial Park. Lots adjacent to
this site are zoned residential with the intent being
to have each lot rezoned to "I-2” when a sale occurs.
The only exception to this is a tract that is being
mined as a granite quarry.
The ordinance states that every use, or any part
thereof, that is not conducted within a building
completely enclosed on all sides shall be enclosed
within a wall of fence [six (6) feet in height]. Such
wall of fence shall completely screen all operations
conducted within such wall of fence from observation.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 3 (Continued)
The applicant is proposing rather than the six (6) foot
opaque type fence or wall, a six (6) foot chainlink
security fence be used instead.
Lindsey Road is a paved right-of-way of which the
industrial uses in the area front. Staff would like to
inform the applicant and make the Board aware of two
pending issues regarding the Subdivision Committee
Review of the Preliminary Plat titled Pratt-Cates-
Remmel Road which was approved on July 12, 1988 by the
Planning Commission. The applicant was asked to extend
the boundaries of the plat so that the surrounding
ownership was included and identified as lots, and to
provide a 90 degree angle at the intersection with
Lindsey Road. No records have been found to indicate
the applicant has met these two conditions. The
applicant is to be advised that any approval of the
variance request does not in any way delete or remove
those conditions.
Inasmuch as the surrounding property will be of an
industrial use, Staff feels the applicant's request is
reasonable and therefore will not present a problem to
the adjacent property owners.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the change in the
screening requirement. The applicant is also advised to
comply with the conditions of the preliminary approval by
the Planning Commission.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. George Toombs of the Cromwell firm was in attendance at
the meeting. There were no objectors present. Mr. Toombs
stated that there were no problems with the Staff's
recommendation. A motion was then made to approve the
variance request subject to the applicant's meeting the
preliminary approval by the Planning Commission. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 4
File No. Z-5080
Owner: Van Melson
Address: 8807 West 33rd Street
Description: Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 171,
John Barrow Addition to the
City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R -3" Single Family
Variance Requested: From the Parking Provisions of
Section 8-101.4-H.2 to permit
residential zoned property for
parking
Justification: The parking is needed to
accommodate a small shopping
strip "West Acre Square."
Present Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: A parking lot
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
residential zoned property to be used for a parking
lot. Three lots are involved in this request. The
ordinance states that no lots can be used for parking,
if that is not the intended purpose of the zoning,
without approval by the Board of Adjustment.
West Acre Shopping Center is located to the east of the
three lots. Additional parking is needed to serve the
center. Therefore, the three lots will provide that
needed parking area. The present parking area to the
center abuts the three lots. There is a driveway to
the center off of West 33rd Street and John Barrow
Road. Surrounding the three lots are residential,
commercial and vacant lot. There is an alley located
October 17, 1988
Item No. 4 (Continued)
to the east of the lots. Physically the alley is
closed but not on the record. Pending before the
Planning Commission is a request to close the alley and
have it serve as part of the parking lots. Located on
site are some mature trees. West 33rd and Ludwig are
both residential streets which have been improved
through the Community Block Grant Program. John
Barrow, a minor arterial to the east, is a four -lane
road with commercial uses along the frontage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval subject to the applicant
meeting the following conditions:
1. A twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback should be
provided and maintained on the frontage to Ludwig.
2. No access to the site can be taken from Ludwig.
3. A six (6) foot opaque fence should be provided along
the 25 foot setback line and along the south property
line.
4. Any access drive should be located from the furthermost
point from Ludwig.
5. No lighting can be mounted any higher than the six (6)
foot fence and should be directed away from the
residential properties.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present at the meeting. There were no
objectors present but Staff stated one call was received
objecting to the request. Mr. Melson stated he had no
problems with the conditions as outlined in Staff's
recommendation. A motion was then made to approve the
variance request per the Staff's recommendation. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 5
File No. Z-5081
Owner: Tony Bolin /Carl Martin
Address: 10312 Baseline Road
Description: Long legal
Zoned: "R -2" Single Family
Variance Requested: From the Powers Provisions of
Section 3 -101-D to permit a
mobile home to be used for
security purposes.
Justification: The mobile home is needed to
provide some security against
theft.
Present Use of Property: Auto parts salvage
Proposed Use of Property: Auto parts salvage
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The request before the Board of Adjustment is to allow
a single wide mobile home to remain on the property for
security purposes. This request is the result of an
enforcement action. Presently on site are several
automobiles from which parts are removed and sold to
customers. As entrance is gained to the site, there
exists an unimproved driveway with a mobile home for
security purposes to the east. The mobile home is
older, in need of repair, and sits on concrete blocks.
It is the understanding of Staff that the mobile home
has been in the same location for a period of about
eight years. The property is zoned "R-2" with the use
being of a nonconforming status. Surrounding the
property are residential, commercial and some office
uses. On site in the same vicinity of the mobile home
is a metal storage building used for repair and
dismantling of the automobiles. The entire site is
enclosed within wire fencing.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 5 (Continued)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance subject to
the mobile home being used for security purposes only.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Tony Bolin was in attendance at the meeting. There were
no objectors present. Mr. Bolin stated no problems existed
with the recommendation of Staff. A motion was made to
approve the variance subject to the mobile home being used
for security purposes only. The motion passed by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 6
File No. Z-5083
Owner: Beverly Burress /Eugene Laurence
Address: 10 Barbara Drive
Description: Lot 312, Broadmoor Addition to
the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R -2" Single Family
Variance Requested: From the Area Provisions of
Section 7-101.2-D.1 to permit
construction with a reduced
front yard setback.
Justification: The cover is needed for
protection from the weather due
to the fact both parties
involved are handicapped.
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 An.a.lysis
This request is before the Board of Adjustment as the
result of an enforcement action. The applicant has in
place two wooden poles on which a cover will be mounted
that encroaches within the front yard setback
requirements. Due to the fact the property is zoned
"R-2" Single Family, the front yard setback is 25 feet.
The proposed cover, if allowed, will have a setback of
14 feet, a difference from the requirement of 11 feet.
All other setbacks will be met. The sides and rear of
the yard are enclosed with a chainlink fence. Barbara
Drive is a residential built to standard street with
curb and gutter in place. Surrounding the property are
all residential uses. On the north side of the one-
story house is a concrete drive that leads to a
carport.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 6 (Continued.)
Staff feels a hardship does exist due to the fact both
applicants are handicapped and the request would not
present any undue hardship to the adjacent property
owners.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the front yard variance as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Staff informed the Board that the notice requirement had not
been met and a 30 -day deferral was being requested by Staff.
Mr. Joe Prager, owner of #8 Barbara Drive, was in attendance
to object to the variance. He submitted a petition of
signatures of the neighbors in the area. It was stated by
Mr. Prager that no one in the neighborhood wanted the
variance and he would be back at the November 21, 1988
meeting if that was when the item would be addressed again.
He further stated that he was told that the applicants
wanted to withdraw the request but had not gotten a letter
to Ms. Brown.
The Chairman stated that the applicant would have to meet
the notice requirement and, unless he does, the item would
not be heard. A motion was then made to defer this item
until the November 21, 1988 meeting. The motion passed by a
vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 7
File No. Z-5085
Owner: Seth B. Porchia
Address: 1623 West 24th Street
Description: Long legal
Zoned: "R-4” Two-family District
Variance Requested: From the Area Provisions of
Section 7-101.2-D.2 to permit
construction with a reduced
rear yard setback.
Justification: The new addition is needed to
provide a living area for an
elderly relative.
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 Ana l y,s is
The request before the Board of Adjustment at this time
is for reduced rear and side yard setback variances.
The applicant is proposing to add a one-story addition
in order to accommodate space for an elderly relative.
The property is zoned "R-4" Two-Family. In this
particular zone the ordinance requirement states a rear
yard setback is to be 25 feet. The proposal before the
Board is for the rear yard to be 2.5 feet, a difference
of 22.5 feet. A side yard is supposed to be ten
percent of the width of the lot. The lot is 75 feet in
width. The applicant is requesting a side yard of
5 feet, a difference of 2.5 feet. There is a
considerable elevation from the property to the street.
A 20 feet alley is located to the west of the property.
There are residential uses along with commercial in the
immediate area. There is a drive located on the south
October 17, 1988
Item No. 7 (Continued)
side of the property where the side yard variance is
being requested but is used to access the property on
the south of this site.
Staff feels the applicant's hardship is the need for
the addition as well as the fact of the house being
located so far back on the lot, leaving a substantial
front yard to West 24th Street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the rear and side yard
variances as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Seymore Treitman represented the applicant. There were
no objectors present. Staff stated that a visit was made to
the department by Mr. B. J. McCoy of 2417 Marshall Street.
Mr. McCoy was objecting to the variance because: a) the
rear yard setback would not allow enough separation from his
property, b) the alley shown on the sketch is his driveway,
and c) he doubts that there is enough separation on the side
yard.
Mr. Treitman stated that there were several things incorrect
in the write-up and he didn't know if that would have any
bearing on the hearing. He stated the addition will be one-
story rather than two-story as printed. The rear yard
request is for 2.5 to 3 feet rather than the 8.8 feet.
There is also a request for a side yard variance of 5 feet.
From the statements made by Mr. Treitman there was
considerable discussion as well as confusion as to what the
applicant really was requesting.
Staff stated that Mr. Treitman had misrepresented his
request. When the application was taken, first of all the
plot plan was out of date for what was acceptable by Staff.
There was confusion even then as to what Mr. Treitman was
requesting. The sketch was off because the plot plan was
incorrect. Staff was then asked if there would be a problem
with simply acting on what the applicant was requesting at
the meeting. After a considerable amount of discussion and
due to the fact the neighbor was objecting as well as the
fact that Staff's recommendation may change, Staff stated
that it would recommend a deferral of the item until the
November 21, 1988 meeting.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 7 (Continued)
Mr. Treitman stated that his client had a true hardship with
the elderly relative. Presently, the person is sleeping in
the living room and the applicant wanted to get this
addition built as soon as possible. A thirty-day deferral
would present a hardship to the applicant.
Staff was asked if there was any way this matter could be
corrected and handled before the next regularly scheduled
meeting. Staff stated that the only way would be to suspend
the vote of this item until a meeting could be held on the
site with at least five members present to review the
request. A motion was made to defer this item until a
special meeting can be held on the site at which time a vote
can be taken. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0
noes, and 1 open position.
SPECIAL MEETING: (October 24, 1988)
A special meeting regarding this item was attempted on the
above date. Scheduled to attend were six members of the
Board of Adjustment. For reasons unknown to Staff, only
three members were in attendance along with two staff
persons. Those members present were Cynthia Alderman, Jim
Mitchell and George Wells. The applicant, along with
Seymore Treitman, the contractor for the job, was in
attendance. Also in attendance was the neighbor to the
south, B. J. McCoy. Since there were not enough members of
the Board of Adjustment in attendance, no official vote was
taken.
The members present listened to the comments from both the
applicant, contractor and neighbor. Mr. McCoy stated that
he was not necessarily objecting to the variances being
requested but wanted some clarification as to exactly what
the applicant was going to construct and the amount of
encroachment. He further stated that when approached by the
contractor, different amounts of encroachments were stated
to him. The contractor and applicant both disagreed with
what Mr. McCoy stated. Staff stated that the amount of
encroachments Mr. McCoy stated were the same ones Mr.
Treitman, the contractor, stated when the application was
first taken. Mr. Treitman's foreman arrived at the site.
He stated different dimensions from what the contractor had
stated earlier at the gathering. After more discussion, the
Board members present stated that they were all confused as
to what the applicant wanted to construct and agreed with
Mr. McCoy's concerns. Due to the confusion, a new survey
October 17, 1988
Item No. 7 (Continued)
should be obtained showing the exact dimension of the
addition and the exact location of the property line. Staff
was informed to allow time for the survey to be obtained and
to place this item back on the November 21, 1988 agenda.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 8
File No. Z-5089
Owner: Donald E. Rice
Address: 101 Poinsetta Drive
Description: Lot 17, Brook Hollow Addition
to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R -2" Single Family
Variance Requested: From the Area Provisions of
Section 7-101.2-D.2 to permit
construction with a reduced
side yard setback.
Justification: The variance is needed in order
to align the new construction
with the house and avoid the
loss of an established shade
tree.
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 the
construction of an addition over an existing concrete
slab for the purpose of a hobby workshop with a reduced
side yard setback.
Presently the side yard is 6.3 feet and applicant
wishes to maintain that same setback with the addition.
The property is zoned "R-2" Single Family which
requires the side yard to be 10% of the width of the
lot. The lot is 75.7 feet in width; therefore the side
yard should be approximately 7.8 feet, a difference of
1.5 feet. The new addition will be enclosed and
aligned with the principal structure on the site.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 8 (Continued)
Initially a permit was obtained for the work in 1981
for a dog run with a hobby shop as a future
undertaking. The slab was constructed except now the
applicant wishes to extend the area with a 10' x 16'9"
extension. A new drive extending from the existing
drive is constructed all but for the concrete to be
poured. A cage-like structure is presently on the site
where the slab is located. Surrounding the site are
residential uses with some commercial. Markham Street
is a minor arterial with a substantial traffic flow.
Poinsetta Drive is a residential street with curb and
gutter in place.
Staff feels the applicant does display a hardship due
to the fact this particular location is the only
available area on the lot to achieve the applicant's
intent. No adverse hardship will be placed on the
adjacent property owners.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Donald Rice was in attendance. There were no objectors
present. Mr. Rice stated that he had no problems with the
Staff's recommendation. A motion was made to approve the
variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes, and 1 open position.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 9
File No. Z-5091
Owner: William D. and Nina Mathis
Address: 1200 South University Avenue
Descriptlon: Long legal
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variances Requested: 1. From the Area Provisions
of Section 7-103.3-D.1
and 3 to permit
construction with reduced
setbacks.
2. To allow multiple
buildings on one site.
Justification: Because of the redesign of the
intersection at 12th and
University Avenue, the
variances are needed to achieve
the best development possible
for the site.
Present Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal before the Board of Adjustment is for the
development of the southwest corner of University
Avenue and 12th Street. The development will consist
of a convenience store, gas operation, automatic
carwash and the possibility of a future express lube
operation. All construction will be built with the
highest specifications. The site will be paved with a
combination of asphalt and concrete paving and will be
landscaped according to requirements of the Landscape
October 17, 1988
Item No. 9 (Continued)
Ordinance. The curb cuts and driveway as well as the
site plan in general have been designed in cooperation
with the City Engineering Staff according to the
applicants' letter. It is further stated by the
applicant that because of the redesign of the
intersection at 12th and University Avenue and the
City's taking of approximately a 20 foot strip across
the north boundary of the site, the north side
dimension of the site has been reduced from 158 feet
down to 139 feet.
The property is zoned "C-3" General Commercial and the
front yard setback requirement is 25 feet. The
frontage for University Avenue will meet that
requirement but not the frontage to 12th Street. The
applicant seeks a variance to encroach within 17 feet
of that frontage. A rear yard setback requirement is
also 25 feet. Because of this site being located on a
corner and zoned commercial, the applicant has to meet
both 25 foot frontages. Regardless of the street
frontage the applicant chooses as the building
frontage, rear yard setbacks will be needed for both.
Therefore, the rear yard to the front to 12th Street
indicates a 10 foot setback and the one to University
Avenue indicates a setback of 16 feet. The difference
for both varying from 15 feet (West 12th Street) to 9
feet (University Avenue).
Also associated with this proposal is the request to
allow more than one building on one site. Since there
exists the issue of the variances, the Board of
Adjustment also has the right to act on the request of
multiple buildings on one site. The buildings will
serve the different uses stated in the first paragraph.
Presently, part of the site is vacant with a commercial
operation of a pest control company on the remaining
portion. Surrounding the site is a mixture of
commercial uses with some residential uses in
proximity. There exists two drives on the site from
University Avenue and one from West 12th Street. The
vacant portion of the lot has mature vegetation with
the concrete and paving in a deteriorating condition.
Staff feels the applicants' hardship is the fact of the
City's pending redesign of the intersection on West
12th and University Avenue.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 9 (Continued)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the variances and multiple
buildings on one site as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Barksdale McKay represented the applicant. Reverend
Daniel Ward, pastor of the Unity Missionary Baptist Church
located at 1223 South Garland, was in attendance to make a
statement on record regarding the church's position on the
development of the site. Mr. Barksdale McKay stated he had
no problems with the Staff's recommendation. Mr. Ward
stated that the church was not objecting to the variances
but had a list of concerns composed in a letter, which he
wanted submitted as part of the record. He stated that no
meeting had occurred between the church and the developer.
In the letter submitted by Reverend Ward, there were listed
four areas of concern. ( 1) All parts of the site under
consideration for construction of a convenience store are
less than 300 feet from the church building. They desire
that regulations preventing the sale of beer and wine under
the circumstances be enforced. (2) Both of the parties
share the same hilly elevation and they wanted the
opportunity to work together on the excavation and leveling
of the site for the mutual benefit of both owners. One of
the church's buildings is located near the property line and
could be adversely affected by excavation of the ground
nearby. (3) The church would like to work with the new
owner on landscaping and fencing along common boundary
lines. (4) The church is also concerned that the proposed
automatic carwash might have an offensive noise level and
requested it be designed to avoid this problem.
Mr. McKay stated that the carwash would be of the
conventional type that is presently being used by most
service stations in the City and no offensive odors should
be present. A Board member then asked if it was the intent
of the owner to sell alcohol and Mr. McKay stated no. He
further stated that as the agent for the owner, he foresaw
no problems with meeting and working with Reverend Ward
regarding the four concerns.
A motion was them made to approve the variances as filed.
The Staff was informed to make the letter submitted by
Reverend Ward a part of the official record. The motion
passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position and
1 abstention (Mitchell).
October 17, 1988
Item No. 10
File No. Z-5101
Owner: James and Carolyn Duke
Address: 5111 East 8th Street
Description: Part of Block 5, Johnson's
Addition to the City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: HDR, High Density Residential
Variance Requested: From the Use Provision of the
Central Little Rock Ordinance
of Section 43-34.2-D. to permit
a catering service to operate
as a Conditional Use.
Justification: The request for this permit is
in order to make available to
businesses in the immediate and
surrounding areas a service
which is not incompatible with
what normally occurs in a High
Density Residential zoned area.
Present Use of Property: Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Residential /commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering lssues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The request before the Board of Adjustment is for the
operation of a catering service as a Conditional Use in
a High Density Residential zone. The property is
located in the Central Area of the City and the uses
are governed by the Central Little Rock Ordinance
rather than the Citywide Zoning Ordinance. Located in
the Quapaw Quarters, this site presently is being used
as a four-unit two-story apartment building. The
October 17, 1988
Item No . 10 (Continued)
applicant plans to use one of the apartments on the
bottom floor, a total of 650 square feet of space.
Surrounding the property is a mixture of different uses
being
residential, commercial and office. East 8th Street is
built to standards with no immediate plans for widening
with some on- street parking. To the east there is a
paved drive that leads to the south or rear of the site
where approximately 3-4 parking spaces could be
provided. The applicant stated that this area would be
used for the loading of deliveries. MacArthur Park is
located approximately one block south of the site.
Included in the letter to the Board, the applicant
states that the business will be strictly catering, not
a retail operation, and all food products will be
delivered to the clients' offices. There will be one
full-time employee. There will be no changes to the
exterior of the building or property. The business
hours will be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with no expansion
of the building foreseen.
STAFF „RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit
subject to:
1. The operating hours being from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
2. Any expansion of the business regarding floor area will
have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment.
3. No signs can be posted on the property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mrs. Juanita Singleton represented the applicant. There was
one person in attendance, Mrs. Norma Povio, who was
concerned about the parking in the area. Mrs. Singleton
stated that there were no problems with the conditions
stated in the Staff's recommendation. Mrs. Povio stated
that parking in the area is a problem. She has only one
parking space available on the street in front of her house.
She wanted to'know where the parking for the business would
be located. Mrs. Singleton stated that it would be only she
and another employee and the parking would be to the rear of
the site, not on the street. Since the operating hours will
be during the daytime, the tenants would be gone to work.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 10_...(Continued)
A motion was then offered to approve the Conditional Use
Permit subject to the conditions outlined in the Staff's
recommendation and to include that all parking for
activities pertaining to the catering business be located to
the rear of the site and not on the street. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 11 - Other Matters
Applicant: James P. Keary
Address: 5503 B Street, #20
Request: Clarification of the Height and
Area Exception Provisions to
the City of Little Rock Zoning
Ordinance
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This request is before the Board of Adjustment as a result
of a referral from the City Attorney's office. Mr. Keary is
disagreeing to the sections of the City of Little Rock
Zoning Ordinance which address height and area, Section
5-102. This particular section is referenced when
determining the placement of accessory structures on
residential zoned property.
It is Staff's understanding that the disagreement stems from
a complaint of which Mr. Keary was the initiator to the City
Zoning Enforcement office. The complaint was regarding an
accessory building constructed at 522 South Oak Street. Mr.
Keary feels the building is constructed too close to the
property line and presents a fire hazard to the adjacent
property of which he is the owner. Supposedly, the
accessory structure was built without a permit being
obtained. After the enforcement complaint action was
brought to the attention of the owner, a building permit was
requested and obtained (No. 8806194).
Mr. Keary is questioning whether the City used proper
judgment by issuing the building permit since the
construction was completed. He also feels that those
sections of the Height and Area Provisions used in a request
for an accessory building (ie, Section 5-102.B. and Section
5-102.E.) are confusing and misleading.
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is to make a
determination as to whether the Height and Area Exceptions
Provisions of Section 5-102 is being interpreted wrong by
the City Staff and if a change is needed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was in attendance at the meeting. There were
no other persons present to speak regarding this matter.
Staff explained to the Board the issues concerning the
October 17, 1988
Item No. 11 (Continued)
clarification. Mr. Bob Brown of the Zoning Enforcement
Office was in attendance and addressed the Board regarding
what was found on his site inspection. Mr. Brown stated
that the accessory structure is located approximately
16 inches from the owner's property line. Located next to
this property is another principal structure which is
approximately 37 inches from the property line of that
property which is Mr. Keary's house. Presently, this case
is under Enforcement. Mr. Brown stated that Mr. Smith, the
owner at 522 South Oak, was informed of the procedure and
stated that he would either move the structure or come
before the Board to obtain a variance.
Mr. Keary addressed the Board and stated that the
clarification which he was seeking is to that particular
section of the ordinance (ie, Section 5- 102.6) which states
all single family and two -story structures shall be
separated from accessory structures by a distance of not
less than six feet. The law states this fact and he feels
that the accessory structure in question should be six feet.
He went on to further describe what the owner was storing in
the accessory structure such as 55 gallon drums labeled EPA.
The official's, in his opinion, are not interpreting the law
correctly. It was asked of Mr. Keary if this lot was a
corner lot and why does the building set so far back. Mr.
Keary stated that this was an old house and lot. In fact,
it is a carriage house which was built before the adoption
of the ordinance. The lot is low and there will be some
problems with flooding. The situation is very dangerous.
There was considerable discussion among the Board regarding
the exact intent of the ordinance. One member stated that
he was very reluctant to limit a property owner's ability to
use his lot depending upon what the neighbor had already
done on his property. Another felt that the applicant has
some good points for the intent and purpose of that section
of the ordinance. Staff again stated that the Board's
position was only to interpret whether Staff was properly
using that section of the ordinance for the intent for which
it was written. More discussion continued, after which a
motion was stated to interpret the Height and Area
Exceptions Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to mean that
accessory buildings must be at least three feet from a side
or rear yard property, that is paragraph e. is applicable
for determination of placement of accessory structures.
Paragraph b. has no place in determining accessory
structures except for accessory buildings located on the
same lot. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes,
and 1 open position.
OCTOBER 17, 1988
Item No. 12 - Other Matters ( Z-5068)
Owner: Tim Dennis
Address: 3331 Old South Shackleford Road
Zoned: "R-2" (a "C-4" request has been
filed)
Request: To determine the appropriate
zoning district for outside
auto storage as the principal
use
STAFF REPORT:
In January 1987 the owner, Tim Dennis, approached the City
about operating a storage lot for autos on the property in
question. Mr. Dennis operates an auto recovery company and
needed a location to store vehicles. An initial inspection
was made by the Enforcement staff in January 1987 and, at
that time, nothing was being stored on the site. The City
determined that the property did not have nonconforming
status and there was no basis for allowing an auto storage
yard. Based on the enforcement file, the property was
fenced in February 1987, and after that the owner started
storing cars. Following the normal enforcement procedure,
the owner was directed to discontinue the use or file the
appropriate rezoning request. After some contact with the
Planning office, a "C-4" application was filed by the owner
as suggested by the Staff.
The Planning Commission heard the rezoning item at their
September 20, 1988 meeting and deferred the request. A
deferral was approved to allow the Board of Adjustment to
review the use and determine the appropriate zoning
classification. This action was taken because several
Commissioners indicated that they felt that a more
restrictive zoning could probably accommodate the use and
"C-4" was not needed. During the hearing, Mr. Dennis told
the Commission that the property has been used for years and
that he plans to purchase additional land for an office. He
said the site in question was only being used for auto
storage and his business office was at a different location.
Staff's position is that the principal use of the property
is outside storage of autos which is similar to an auto
sales lot and requires a "C-4" rezoning. There is no other
activity taking place on the site so the existing use cannot
be classified as being accessory or ancillary to another
OCTOBER 17, 1988
Item No,. 12 (Continued)
use. (A site visit on September 30, 1988 found only two
inoperable vehicles on the property.)
A commercial parking lot or garage is found in the Zoning
Ordinance and defined as "a facility for the temporary
storage of motorized or wheeled vehicles." This use is
listed as a Conditional Use in the "O-2," "O-3" and "C-1"
districts and permitted by right in "C-2" and "C-3." It is
the Staff's opinion that Mr. Dennis' storage of autos does
not fall under the definition of a commercial parking lot.
(The owner was asked to provide a written description of the
use and his future plans but nothing has been submitted to
the Staff as of this writing.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION;
The applicant was in attendance. No other persons were
present to address this issue. Tony Bozynski, Zoning
Administrator in the Office of Comprehensive Planning,
instructed the Board as to the reason this item was before
them. He stated the Planning Commission referred the case
for a determination as to whether the use should be
classified as "C-4" or whether a less intense zone could be
obtained with the same intended purpose.
Mr. Smith, the applicant, stated that his business is
repossession of cars. On a given week, there may be a total
of ten or more vehicles on the lot. Once the paperwork is
completed, the vehicles are moved away from the site, but
until that happens, he has to have some place to store the
vehicles. He has been at this particular location doing
this type of work for approximately five years or more.
Presently, a room in his residence is being used as the
office which is not on the site. He would like to be able
to build a suitable office as well as make the site more
attractive. Fencing presently surrounds the property.
A Board member stated that it appears the applicant has an
established nonconforming use. Mr. Bozynski stated that the
nonconforming use has been established, but Mr. Smith stated
that the nonconforming status would not help him because no
expansion can occur and within the next few months, he has
to increase his employees by at least two people.
Further discussion continued regarding what uses are
included in a "C-4" zone and what other lesser intense zones
did the Planning Commission have in mind. After this
OCTOBER 17, 1988
Item No. 12 (Continued)
particular period of discussion, a motion was made to inform
the Planning Commission that the Board determined that this
particular use does fall under the "C-4" zoning. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position.
October 17, 1988
Item No. 13 - 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.
(October 17, 1988)
After further research, Staff determined that in order to
accomplish the request of the Board of Adjustment for a two-
year time limit on approved variances a resolution is needed
to change the entire time limit provision. It will be the
understanding of all parties involved that each approved
variance will have a time limit of two years in which to
obtain the building permit as well as to initiate some type
of construction before having to appear back before the
Board of Adjustment.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
By a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position, the Board
passed a motion to change the time limit provisions of the
Bylaws which govern approved variances coming before the
Board of Adjustment.
October 17, 1988
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
There being no further business before the Board of
Adjustment, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Date
Chairman Secretary