boa_11 16 1981LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
NOVEMBER 16, 1981
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 of the previous meeting were approved as
mailed out.
III. Members Present: Marcelline Giroir
Jim Summerlin
George Wells
Richard Yada
Jerry Wilcox
Ellis Walton
One Position Vacant
City Attorney
Present: Sherry Means
November 16, 1981
Item No. 1 - Z-1850-A
Owner: Ruffin and Jarrett Funeral Home
By: Ms. Johnnie L. White
Address: 1015 West 12th Street
Description: East 1/2 of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 268,
Original City of Little Rock
Zoned: "0-3" General Office
Variance
Requested: Interpretation of the Ordinance to
permit accessory parking for the funeral
home on a residential property which is
zoned for office use.
Present Use of
Property: Duplex Residence
Proposed Use of
Property: Duplex Residence with accessory parking
Staff Recommendation:
The Zoning Ordinance does not deal with accessory structures
within the "0-3" General Office District. The duplex is
occupied as a residence, and the proposed garage will serve
the funeral home rather than the residence. The duplex is a
nonconforming use in the "0-3" District.
If the property were zoned for the duplex and the garage
were being constructed to serve the duplex, then there would
be no issue and a permit would be granted. If the duplex
were being used as an office, then the accessory use would
require a multiple building site plan to be approved by the
Planning Commission, and there would be no zoning issue.
Also, if the property were zoned for the duplex and the
garage were for the duplex, then it could be built seven
feet closer to the west property line and two feet closer to
the south property line.
In Staffs opinion, the situation is unique to this
property and this circumstance. No particular precedent
would be set by any action of the Board of Adjustment. The
proposal will not damage the integrity of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Staff recommends an interpretation which permits the garage
as proposed by the applicant.
November 16, 1981
Item No. 1 - Continued
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Rose Ruffin, and there were
no other parties present relative to this case. There was a
lengthy discussion of the various alternatives within the
Zoning Ordinance and of the situation in general. Finally,
after this lengthy discussion, the Board moved to approve an
interpretation of the Ordinance which would permit the
garage on this property to be used by the funeral home. The
motion passed - 6 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
November 16, 1981
Item No. 2 - Z-3771
Owner: Leroy H. Collins
Address: 11819 St. Charles Boulevard
Description: Lot 69, Turtle Creek Subdivision
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: Relief from Section 7-101.2D to permit
an 8-foot rear yard.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family Residence
Staff Recommendation:
This application deals with the problem of having two yards
with 25-foot setbacks platted along street frontages and
having very little remaining buildable area. This proposal
would leave a 15-foot rear yard, which is well within the
expected tolerance of the new Zoning Amendment package which
will go to the Planning Commission shortly.
Staff recommends approval.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were no objectors.
After a brief discussion, the Board moved to approve the
application as filed. The motion passed - 6 ayes, 0 noes,
0 absent.
November 16, 1981
Item No. 3 - Z-3774
Owner: James F. Tice
Address: 1121 Rushing Circle
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: 11
I-2" Light Industrial
Variance
Requested: Relief from Section 7-104.2E to permit
yard encroachments as shown on the
sketch.
Present Use of
Property: Tice's Automotive Air Conditioning
Proposed Use of
Property: Same
Staff Recommendation:
The proposal is to construct an addition onto the existing
building for expansion of the storage capacity. The lot
configuration clearly provides a hardship to the applicant.
While the site plan provided does not reflect it, there is a
common access drive along the western boundary of this
property which is used by both adjacent property owners.
Sufficient separation between businesses is provided;
therefore, Staff recommends approval.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant and one neighboring property owner were
present. There was a brief discussion about the staff
comment relative to a common access drive along the western
boundary of the property, and it was determined that the
driveway, while it is used by both property owners, is the
property of the owner to the west. The Board asked that the
statement relative to common access drives be removed from
the minutes.
There was a lengthy discussion about the proposed
construction, and specifically how access to the building
would be achieved. Mr. Tice stated that the building was to
be used for storage of equipment and would be accessed from
inside the existing building. He stated there would be one
or two pedestrian doors opening out of the building directly
onto the lot, but there would be no vehicular access to the
building from these points. The property owner,
November 16, 1981
Item No. 3 - Continued
Dave Rogers, who attended the meeting and spoke regarding
the use of his property for access to this building, stated
that he had no objection to the request, but that he wanted
it specified that no access be taken from his property to
the building. Mr. Tice stated categorically that no access
through neighboring properties will be used.
After this discussion, the Board moved to approve the
application as filed with the specific condition that no
access be taken from any neighboring property. The motion
passed - 6 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
November 16, 1981
Item No. 4 - Z-3776
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance
Requested:
E.I. Pollard, Jr.
65 Kingspark Road
Lot 190, Colony West Second Addition
"R-2" Single Family
Relief from Section 7-101.2D to permit
an 18-foot rear yard.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family Residence
Proposed Use of
Property: Same
This application is similar to another application approved
several months ago. This addition will provide new storage
space for the owner. On -site inspection reveals no
conflicting problems with adjacent properties.
Staff recommends approval.
Rnnun Ar rPTr) -
The applicant was present, and there were no objectors.
After a brief discussion, the Board moved to approve the
application as filed. The motion was passed - 6 ayes,
0 noes, 0 absent.
November 16, 1981
Item No. 5 - Z-3777
Owner: Nancy Vanhoy
By: Mallory W. Crank
Address: 3623 Hill Road
Description: The north half of Lot 10 and all of
Lot 11, Block 5, Auten and Moss Addition.
Zoned: "R-5" Urban Residence
Variance
Requested: Relief from Section 7-101.7D to permit
a 9-foot front yard.
Present Use of
Property: Multifamily
Proposed Use of
Property: Same
Staff Recommendation:
This application will permit a nine -foot front/side yard.
The front of the house faces Hill Road; however, the lot is
platted with the front yard toward North Oak Street. While
the site plan implies some spaciousness to the property,
on -site inspection reveals what appears to be quite a bit of
crowding. Trees, shrubbery and structures seem to eliminate
most of the open areas indicated by the site plan.
The proposed garage is quite large and would seem to present
a very imposing structure for a front yard. Staff feels
that a better design is possible in which this variance
would not be required. An example would be to construct a
garage to the rear of the property near the existing
carport.
Staff recommends denial.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were no objectors.
Mr. Crank presented several renderings and drawings of the
proposed development of this property which indicated that
the rear yard would be provided with a swimming pool and
deck treatment and stated that the garage as proposed would
serve as a partial privacy screen for the rear yard
activities. He stated that the garage would be a one-story
structure, situated slightly below grade resulting in a
height of approximately 9 1/2 feet thereby not obstructing
existing windows in the house. There were several questions
asked and answered relative to the proposed development, and
finally, after the discussion, the Board moved to approve
the application as filed. The motion was passed - 6 ayes, 0
noes, 0 absent.
November 16, 1981
There being no further business, the Board moved to adjourn
at 2:45 p.m.
Date:
Chairm n
1
jUlrT o