boa_10 19 1987LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
OCTOBER 19, 1987
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 Board approved the minutes of the previous
meeting as mailed.
III. Members Present: Cynthia Alderman
Ronald Pierce
John McDaniels
Joe Norcross
Rex Crain
Thomas McGown
George Wells
Ronald Woods
Members Absent: Jim Mitchell
October 19, 1987
Item No. A - Z-4893
Owner: Mr. and Mrs. J.R. Hornibrook
Address: #14 Pinehurst Circle
Description: Lot 14, Block 5, Pleasant Valley Add.
Zoned: "R -2"
Variances
Requested: From the subdivision provisions of
Section 37.25 to permit an addition to
cross a platted building line.
Justification: The purpose of this request is to
construct a small room to house a
whirlpool tub in order to take
advantage of the whirlpool therapy
recommended by the applicant's
physician.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are no issues to report at this time.
B. Staff Analvsis
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is that of
granting a building line waiver. About six months ago,
the Subdivision Ordinance was amended to state
basically that any changes within a platted building
line will now be addressed by the Board of Adjustment
and not the Planning Commission as in the past. The
amendment is stated as follows:
Building Line Variances
In those instances where a recorded subdivision plat
has established building setback lines in accordance
with the Little Rock Subdivision Rules and Regulations,
Variances of those lines shall only be granted by the
Little Rock Board of Adjustment. That body shall
October 19, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Staff informed the Board that the application was deficient
because the notice requirement had not been met. The Board
then made a motion to defer the item until the October 19,
1987, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes,
0 noes, 4 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (10-19-87)
The applicant was in attendance. The Board of Adjustment
approved the variance with the understanding that the
applicant would still have to meet the requirements of
submitting an amended Bill of Assurance, and the filing of a
one lot replat in the Planning Department. There were no
objectors present. The approval passed by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes, 1 absent.
October 19, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
review each building line variance request for
hardship circumstances as instructed by Section 3-101.
of Chapter 43 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Little Rock, Arkansas. Those variances approved by the
Board of Adjustment shall be reflected upon a plat of
the subject lot /lots which shall be recorded in the
Office of the Circuit Clerk of Pulaski County,
Arkansas, along with an appropriate Bill of Assurance
amendment.
In accordance with what is set out in the Subdivision
Ordinance, it is now the function of the Board of
Adjustment to either endorse or not endorse
modifications to any platted building line. It should
also be understood that any action of approval by this
Board for a building line waiver is not to be
considered as final action. In order for any building
line waiver to be achieved, two additional steps are
needed. First, the Bill of Assurance which is "a legal
document specifying the covenants and restrictive
conditions applicable to a particular property" has to
be amended. This amendment is achieved by addressing
the conditions stated in the Bill of Assurance which
vary according to the instrument. Secondly, it will be
necessary to submit to the Planning Department a one
lot replat showing the new changes that have occurred.
The applicant's reason for the building line waiver is
for the expansion of an existing addition to encroach
into the southeast platted building line 6.5 feet. The
lot is large in size and the proposed request would not
place any impact on the traffic in the area or the
adjacent property owners. The expanded addition will
be constructed so as to keep with the present design of
the house. A hardship does exist and staff sees no
problems with the granting of the variance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance. If the Board
chooses to grant this variance, it is incumbent of the
applicant to then address: (a) the submittal of an
amendment to the Bill of Assurance properly drafted, and (b)
the filing in the Planning Department of a one lot replat
showing the changes in the platted building line.
October 19, 1987
Item No. B - Z-4905
Owner: Sloan Bennett
Address: #23 Brooklawn
Description: Lots 204 and 205, Brookfield Subdivision
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the height and area provisions of
Section 5-102.2/C to permit an accessory
structure less than 60 feet from the
front property line.
Justification: Due to the fact of utility easements
being located to the rear of my
property, I had no other choice but
to place the pool on the adjacent lot
which two front yard setbacks.
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The applicant is requesting the granting of a variance
from the Zoning Ordinance requirement of having a
60 -foot front yard for an accessory structure. The
structure in question is an in ground concrete pool
that is 50 feet from the front yard setback on
Brooklawn and 40 feet from the front yard setback on
Rodney Parham Road. The structure is in place and is
located on the north side of the existing house. There
is an 8 foot privacy fence that surrounds the rear,
north, and part of the west property line. A
considerable amount of landscaping along with the fence
brings the pool from the neighbors to the east. The
property itself encompasses two lots, but the pool is
located only on one of the lots, and even though the
property has a considerable amount of depth, the
requirement of the ordinance stating a corner lot has
October 19, 1987
Item No. B - Continued
to have two front yards does present a hardship for the
applicant. Staff feels that due to the fact there is a
high enough privacy fence on the property and no impact
will be placed on the adjacent property owner or the
traffic on either street frontages, there are no
problems at this time. The applicant will, if the
variance is granted, retain enough frontage on both
streets in order to provide for the accessory
structure.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the variance as filed. The applicant will still
be required to meet all the building permits requirements
due to the fact the pool is already in place.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was not present at the meeting. A motion was
made to defer the item until the October 19, 1987, meeting.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (10-19-87)
The applicant was in attendance. There were no objectors
present. A motion was made for approval of the variance
subject to the applicant meeting the Traffic Engineering
requirement of the blind corner provision of the Traffic
Ordinance. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent.
October 19, 1987
Item No. 1 - Z-4897
Owner: Jimelco, Inc.
Address: 3400 Maple Street
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "I-3" Heavy Industrial
Variance
Requested: From the powers and prohibitions
provisions of Section 3- 101.0 /D to
permit a mobile hoane for security
purposes.
Justification: The location of the property makes its
a high risk for vandalism, stealing, and
break-ins.
Present Use
of Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
Engineering is recommending that the elevation of the
floor to the mobile home be a minimum of 258.7 feet,
due to the location being in the flood way.
B. Staff Analysis:
The request before the Board of Adjustment is for the
placement of a mobile home on property zoned "I-3"
Heavy Industrial for security purposes. A temporary
request was granted for placement of the mobile home
because of a previous approval for the same request
about two or more years ago. The applicant still has
to seek reapproval due to the fact the previous
approval by the Board has expired.
The use on the property at present is that of a Strip
Electrical Transformer Company. Inasmuch as the use of
the property is intense, the isolation of the property
does not present any undue hardship to any of the
adjacent property owners, which are of a mixed variety.
The applicant does state that during the short period
of time at this location the company has had a number
of criminal activities occurring.
October 19, 1987
Item No. 1 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval subject to the use running
with this business and occupant. Also, that the mobile home
be used as a residence for security purposes only. At which
time the property and use changes hands, the new occupant
will need to seek new approval. The applicant also is
required to meet the Engineering Department recommendation."
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. John Chandler, Jr., represented the applicant. There
were no objectors present. A motion for approval of the
variance as recommended by staff was made and passed by a
vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
October 19, 1987
Item No. 2 - Z-4814
Owner: Daniel Grundl
Address: 14822 Hickory Creek Circle
Description: Lot 10, Hickory Creek Subdivision
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the subdivision provisions of
Section 37.25 to permit an addition
to cross a platted building line.
Justification: The rear of my lot is in the flood way,
and we need to move everything as far
forward as possible. The elevations of
the floor are four feet above the
floodplain, but we want to be as safe as
possible.
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
As specified in the Subdivision Ordinance, any
modification to a platted building line has to be
approved by the Board of Adjustment. The sole action
of the Board is to determine whether to endorse or not
endorse any proposed encroachment into a building line.
When endorsements to modifications are granted, the
applicant is required to meet two additional steps in
the process, which are: (a) submitting a properly
drafted amendment to the Bill of Assurance to the
Planning Department, and (b) the filing of a one lot
replat indicating the new building line to the Planning
Department. All of the above mentioned steps will have
to be completed before any building line waiver is
considered final.
October 19, 1987
Item No. 2 - Continued
The request in_ question is for the construction of a
porch to a new, under construction house. Location of
the property is in one of the newer developments where
very few houses have been constructed. What the
applicant has proposed is to encroach within a 25 -foot
building line approximately 8 feet. Even though the
request would place the structure close to the street,
staff has no problems with the building line being 17
feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval conditioned that the porch is
never enclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. No objectors were in attendance.
A motion was made for approval of the variance conditioned
upon the porch never being enclosed and the applicant
submitting to the Planning Department an amended Bill of
Assurance and a one lot replat. The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
October 19, 1987
Item No. 3 - Z-4915
Owner: Kaufman Lumber Co.
Address: 3210 Carl Street
Description: Lots 2, 3, 4, and N 1/2 of Lot 5,
Block 25, C.O. Brack's Addition
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
Variance
Requested: From the development criteria provisions
of Section 1-104.2/B.1 to permit a
waiver from the screening requirements.
Justification: Any screening or blocking the view into
the storage area in any manner makes
this company an easy target for the
criminal element.
Present Use
of Property: Commercial
Proposed.Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Enqineerinq Issues
Engineering is requiring a minimum of 50 feet of
right-of-way on Carl Street which the applicant would
need to dedicate five additional feet of right-of-way
toward. Also, the applicant is now placed on notice
that any further building permits to the property will
require additional street improvements.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is a waiver
from the screening requirements for security purposes.
The ordinance requirements state that "outdoor storage
of equipment, materials, or merchandise must be
screened by a six-foot opaque fence."
This property is located in one of the older
established neighborhoods of the City. Surrounding the
property is some residential use. Zoned "I-2" Light
Industrial, the property is used to store lumber for
Kaufman's Lumber Company. The property is located on
three small lots that are paved and surrounded by a
October 19, 1987
Item No. 3 - Continued
six-foot wire fence that fronts on Carl Street which is
narrow in size. There appears to be a system used for
the storage of the lumber in that different types of
lumber are stacked in different locations on the lot,
and the stacking is considerably high. Even though
this use is a part of the major Kaufman Lumber Company,
the actual location is about a block away from the
principal location of the company. The applicant did
present a letter from the Police Department
recommending that the waiver be granted because of the
possible potential of problems in providing police
patrol against theft.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The recommendation of staff is approval for the waiver on
the north and east sides but not for the west and south
sides, due to the fact of the impact of the use to the
residential zoning.
Also, the applicant'is required to adhere to the
recommendation of the Engineering Department which is the
dedication of 5 feet of right-of-way on Carl Street, and the
applicant is now placed on notice that any future building
permits for this property will require further street
improvements.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Bob Watkins represented the applicant. There were no
objectors in attendance. Mr. Watkins stated that the reason
for the request was because of the high crime in the area.
he also stated that he had submitted a letter to the staff
from Captain Randy Reed of the Police Department, Patrol
Division stating that the screening requirement would hinder
the Police patrol for this location. Mr. Watkins stated
that the staff's recommendation of screening the west and
south side would hinder the view especially on the west side
where the alley is located. A Board member then asked staff
if there was anyone who could tell him what the screening
requirement was and staff then stated the requirement of the
ordinance. The Board member then wanted to know if there
were any stipulations which staff said their were none. A
considerable amount of discussion among the Board members
and the applicant occurred. Mr. Watkins then was asked what
screening could he agree to, and he stated that the
applicant would prefer screening only be required on the
south side. Staff then asked the applicant about the
meeting of the requirements of Engineering, and Mr. Watkins
stated that the applicant had no problems with meeting those
October 19, 1987
Item No. 3 - Continued
requirements. A motion was then made to approve the
variance only for the north, east, and west sides, but not
for the south side, and the meeting of the Engineering
requirements. The motion then passed by a vote of 6 ayes,
2 noes, 1 absent.
October 19, 1987
Item No. 4 - Z-4918
Owner: Ginger Martin
Address: 822 North Clarkson Street
Description: Lots 8 and 9, Block 43
Pulaski Heights Addition
Zoned: "R -2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the height and area exception
provisions of Section 5-102.2/B to
permit an accessory structure less than
60 feet from the property line.
Justification: The proposed location of the pool is the
best because of it being the less
accessible area in regards to
intrusion of invited persons and also
as much privacy as afforded on the two
lots of the property.
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
What is being brought before the Board of Adjustment is
a request to allow for an accessory structure of which
is a pool to be placed less than 6.0 feet from the front
property line on "H" Street. The applicant is asking
that the requirement be waived so the pool can be 49
feet from the front property line on "H" Street.
The property is located on a corner lot with two
frontages. One is on "H" Street and the other on
Carlson. Area -wise the property encompasses two lots.
To the rear of the property presently, there is a
wooden deck located along part of a brick walkway that
leads to a carport and attached frame storage structure
that abuts an open alley. The proposed new structure
October 19, 1987
Item No. 4 - Continued
will be located on the south of the property. The
frame structure on the front of the property is small
in size and located more toward the northeast corner of
the lot. The applicant is also proposing a six-foot
wooden fence to replace a wire fence which presently
serves to separate the adjacent property owner on the
south. There also will be a six -foot wooden fence to
provide for privacy from the view on Carlson Street.
Staff feels that because of the corner lot requirement
the applicant has displayed a hardship and chosen the
best location for the pool.
STAFF REOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval conditioned upon the wooden
fence not being higher than six feet of the natural grade of
the lot.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Richard Farkas represented the applicant. There were no
objectors in attendance. Mr. Farkas was asked if he had any
problems meeting the requirements of staff. He then
requested a clarification as to what staff was referring to
in regard to the fence not being higher than six feet of the
natural grade of the lot. Staff then stated that it meant
the applicant could not mount the fence on anything that
would make it higher than six feet and intrude upon the
neighbor to the south. Mr. Farkas then agreed to staff's
recommendation. A motion was then made for approval as
recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
October 19, 1987
Item No. 5 - Z-4919
Owner: dike Montgomery
Address: #7 Eldorado Drive
Description: Lot 5, Pleasant Valley, 22nd Hole
Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variances
Requested: (1) From the rear and side yard setback
provisions of Section 5-102 (A)
2.(e) to permit construction of
wooden decking around a swimming
pool.
(2) From the 30 percent land coverage
provisions, Section 5-102.(A) 2.c
to permit construction of a deck
around a swimming pool.
Justification: We are building a swimming pool in
a limited area, and the extra
decking would greatly benefit the
installation and convenience to the
owner.
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
b. Staff Analysis
What the applicant is proposing before the Board of
Adjustment is the construction of extra wooden decking
to surround a pool that is to be built. The extra
wooden decking would be located on the south and west
property lines. The ordinance states that an accessory
structure has to be at least three feet on the side and
rear property line. The applicant is also requesting a
waiver of the 30 percent .rear yard provision because
with the addition of the extra wooden decking the rear
yard would occupy more than 30 percent and the
ordinance states that no more than 30 percent for an
accessory structure.
October 19, 1987
Item No. 5 - Continued
The property in question has located on it a two -story
brick and frame house. It is located below the street
level of Eldorado and abuts the Pleasant Valley Golf
Course and a greenbelt strip. To the east and west of
the property, there are residential uses. The
applicant has secure approval of the request from the
Property Owners' Association, and Staff has no problems
with the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the application as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was not in attendance nor had the applicant
met the notice requirement. The Board then made a motion to
defer this application until the November 16, 1987, meeting.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
October 19, 1987
Item No. 6 - Z-4920
Owner: Coulson Oil Company
Address: 7400 Cantrell Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C-4" Commercial Open Display
Variance
Requested: From the area regulations provisions of
Section 7-103.4 to permit an interior
side yard with a reduced setback and an
exterior side yard with a reduced
setback.
Justification: The proposed improvements are a
reasonable use of the property, and the
resulting facility will be a great
improvement.
Present Use
of Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
Engineering is recommending that the southwest driveway
on Cantrell Road be closed prior to the Planning
Commission acting on the right-of-way abandonment
request.
B. Staff Analysis
At issue before the Board of Adjustment is a request
for an interior side yard setback of five feet for the
proposed construction of a car wash and an exterior
side yard or front yard of 27 feet to allow for
placement of gasoline pumps, islands, and an overhead
canopy. The property in question is zoned "C-4," but
the current and proposed use is for a "C-3" General
Commercial zoning. The requirement of the ordinance
states that an interior side yard under "C-4" should be
15 feet and an exterior side yard or front should be
45 feet. Closely related and awaiting action by the
Planning Commission is a request for a 15-foot
October 19, 1987
Item No. 6 - Continued
right-of-way abandonment on Kingsrow Drive located on
the east side of the property, that is presently an
80-foot right-of-way. Also on the south side, the
applicant is proposing to give to the City 10 feet of
right-of-way on Cantrell Road.
Existing on the property at present is a gasoline
service station and what is being proposed is the same
use except with a car wash and convenience store
included. The present structure will be removed and a
new one built. All necessary improvements to Kingsrow
Drive and the landscaping requirements are also
included in the applicant's proposal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the application
conditioned upon the right-of-way abandonment on Kingsrow
Drive being approved and the meeting of the engineering
requirement which is the closing of the drive on the
east corner of Cantrell Road before the Planning Commission
acts on the right-of-way abandonment.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Mr. Robert Brown. There
were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Brown stated that he
had met with Engineering about the driveway and had no
problems with the recommendation of staff. A motion was
then made to approve the variance as outlined in staff's
reoommendation. The motion passed by a vote 8 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent.
October 19, 1987
Item No. 7 - Other Matters - Z-4900-A
Owner: James and Sharon Burton
Address: 1601 South Pine Street
Zoned: "R-3"
Request: Ruling to determine whether a
nonconformance status still exists at
1601 South Pine Street.
The applicants are requesting of the Board of Adjustment a
ruling to determine whether the nonconforming status (of a
vacant grocery store) is still in existence at 1601 South
Pine Street after not being in use for a period of 12 years.
In August of this year, the applicants restocked and
attempted to reopen the grocery store but were stopped when
they tried to obtain a privilege license. In September, the
applicants ,sent before the Planning Commission with a
rezoning request, but the Commission advised the applicants
that they needed to request a determination from the Board
of Adjustment as to whether the intent of the nonconforming
status still existed.
The applicants feel that the intended use has always
existed. The store operated under the name of Carrick's Food
Market for a number of years. The name remained on the
store until August of this year when it was removed in order
to hang the new name.
The applicants live in one part of the structure with the
grocery in the other part. No major structural changes have
occurred at the location. The inside and outside are
identical to what was there 12 years ago. Except for the
meeting of a Health Department requirement of a sink, the
same shelves, fixtures, and desire have remained as of 12
years ago. Utilities to the grocery are connected to one
meter, the same meter used for the residential part of the
structure.
The question before the Board of Adjustment is determination
of whether the nonconforming status is still in existence.
(See attached letter for additional information.)
October 19, 1987
Item No. 7 - Continued
BOAR OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mrs. Sharon Burton, the applicant, was in attendance. There
were no objectors present at the meeting. Staff outlined to
the Board all the pertinent information relating to the
case. Ms. Burton submitted to the Board bills indicating
the commercial use of the grocery and a petition of names
from the neighborhood indicating a desire for the store to
remain in operation.
There was discussion among the Board about the obvious
indication that the nonconforming status was no longer in
existence. Staff then reminded the Board that the intent of
the use as well as no indication of abandonment of the
building were the issues the applicant had to prove.
Mr. Kenny Scott of the Zoning Enforcement Office stated that
he had visited the site, and as far as he could tell the
intent was still present. He stated that the interior and
exterior of the store were the same as when the store was in
operation. It was then discussed among the Board and staff
as to the intent behind the Planning Commission sending the
applicant to the Board of Adjustment. The staff stated that
in their opinion the intent was fo'r the Board to seek some
relief because if the property was rezoned, first it would
be going against the land use plan for the area and secondly
present the possibility of a more intense use with a
commercial zoning if the property ever changed hands. After
more discussion among the Board, a ruling was then stated
that the applicant had proven intent and the nonconforming
status should be allowed to continue, henceforth 12 years
later. The ruling passed by a vote 8 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent.
City Hall
Markham & Broadway
Little. Rock, AR 72202
James & Sharon Burton
1601 S. Pine
Little Rock, AR 72204
My hushand and I are trying to open our store for business. We want
to use the store as a grocery store.
The store was previous a grocery store, about 12 vears ago. At the
tlme, the store was operated under the name of Carrlck's Food Market,
which was a non-confirming unit. Therefore, we are undergoing re-
zonlng procedures.
Although, the store has not been In business for about 12 years. It
is basically the same as it was when it was operated under the name
of Carrick's Food Market. The outside and inside appearance of the
store is identical to what it was 12 years ago, with the exception
of Health Department regulations.
My husband and I feel that we shouldn't have to undergo rezoning pro -
cedures, SInce the store held it's value as a store. The store has
been the same for 12 years, structure, fixtures. The name Carrick's
Food Market remained on the store through August of 87. Therefore,
this means that the store was still existing through August of 87.
Is it possible that we might be able to operate the store as a non -
confirming unit?
We are not asking to huild a store in the area; we just want to reopen
our store that's already in the area.
Sincerely,
James & Sharon Burton