boa_06 20 1983LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 20, 1983
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A Quorum was present being seven 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: Ellis Walton, Chairman
Steve Smith
Tom McGowan
Herbert Rideout
Richard Yada
George Wells
B.L. Murphree
Members Absent: Marcelline Giroir
Joe Norcross
June 20, 1983
Item No. 1 - Z-3997
Owner: Larry Jacimore
Address: 6908 Kingwood Road
Description: Lot 235, Kingwood Place Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: Relief from Section 7-101.2.D to permit
a 3-foot side yard and a 9-foot rear
yard for an attached garage and storage
addition.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Same
STAFF REPORT:
There were no adverse comments from reviewing agencies. A
staff visit to the site revealed the following:
1. The existing structure apparently contained a garage at
some point and has been closed in.
2. Substantial clear area exists beside the existing
structure inside the setbacks to accommodate an
addition for garage purposes.
3. The lot is not shallower than the neighborhood average.
Its grade from the street toward the rear is more the
issue.
4. Adjacent structures are rather close on lots to the
rear.
5. The Ordinance allows only 30 percent coverage of a rear
yard by accessory structure. In this instance, we see
34 percent by the principle building.
6. Where most intrusion into a side yard or rear yard
represents a small percentage of the width or depth,
this proposal represents 50 percent of the width of the
lot.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial of the request as filed.
June 20, 1983
Item No. 1 - Continued
BOARD ACTION: (April 18, 1983)
The applicant was not present. He had written a letter and
asked that it be deferred in light of the staff
recommendation and stated that he would try to work out some
details in the meantime. The Board moved to defer the item
to the May 16 meeting, and the motion passed - 6 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent and 1 vacancy.
STAFF COMMENT
The applicant says that he has not had an opportunity to
revise his plan and requests an additional one month
deferral.
BOARD ACTION: (May 16, 1983)
The Board moved to defer this item to the June 20 Board of
Adjustment meeting. The motion passed - 9 ayes, 0 noes.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present. He stated that he had spent some
time with his architect considering other ways to accomplish
the addition that he was requesting and it was the
architect's conclusion that there was no other way to make
the addition compatible with the existing structure and the
neighborhood character. The applicant showed drawings of
the proposed roof treatment and the drainage plans
associated with the development and he also showed copies of
the floor plan for the proposed addition. There was a
lengthy discussion of alternatives and various other aspects
of the development. After the discussion, the Board moved
to approve the application as filed. The motion passed:
4 ayes, 3 noes and 2 absent.
June 20, 1983
Item No. 2 - Z-3883-A
Owner: Pulaski Heights Development Corp.
by: Ronnie Caveness
Address: SW Corner of Taylor and "R" Streets
Description: Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 12
Mountain Park Addition
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance
Requested:
Relief from
Section 7-103.3.D to permit
0 setback on
the south and
west and
10 feet of setback
on the
north and
relief from
Section 8-101
to permit
reduction of
the required
parking by
six spaces.
Present Use of
Property:
Vacant
Proposed Use of
Property:
Retail Shops
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This is an amended proposal to one which was approved by the
Board of Adjustment in September. Since then, the owner has
acquired one additional lot and turned the proposed building
90% The building footprint size has been increased from
6600 square feet to 9800 square feet. The proposed
27 parking places are six short of the required number.
Staff believes this to be a superior plan to that previously
approved. Landscaping issues and parking are better
addressed. Further, the neighborhood scale is more
preserved by this proposal since it does call for a
one-story building.
Staff recommends approval as filed.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. There
was a brief discussion of the development proposal. After
this discussion, the Board moved to approve the application
as filed. The motion passed: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
June 20, 1983
Item No. 3 - Z-4033
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance
Requested:
Present Use of
Property:
Proposed Use of
Property:
Donald Lane Ward
#12 Trent Drive
Lot 86, Wakefield Village Addition #4
"R-2" Single Family
Relief from Section 7-101.2D to permit a
side yard encroachment to within two
feet of the property line for an open
carport.
Single Family
Same
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant plans to construct an open carport on the side
of his house. The lot is 60 feet wide on the front and
diminishes to 55 feet on the rear. The proposed carport
will be 12 feet wide at the rear and encroach into the side
yard to within two feet of side property line. The front
will be 14 feet wide and encroach to within about four feet
of the line. No external structural conflicts are noted.
Staff recommends approval as filed.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. After
a brief discussion, the Board moved to approve the
application as filed with the condition that the carport be
retained as an open carport with no subsequent enclosure.
The motion passed: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
June 20, 1983
Item No. 4 - Z-4036
Owner: Ralph B. Patterson
by: John Allison
Address: 2206 Country Club Lane
Description: Lots 3 and 4, Block 11
Country Club Heights Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: Relief from Section 7-101.2D to permit a
six-foot rear yard encroachment for an
addition.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Same
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant plans to construct an addition onto the rear
of the house as shown. The encroachment will be about six
feet into the required rear yard. The existing house which
has been extensive remodeled sets about 45 feet back from
the front property lane. There is significant open space
surrounding this home.
Staff recommends approval as filed.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were no objectors. The
applicant stated that one of the neighbors he was required
to notify had been out of town and that he had been unable
to reach him ten days prior to the meeting and stated that
the neighbor had been given notice and he had his signature
on the notice form, but the notice had not complied with the
requirements of the Board of Adjustment. The Board moved to
waive the ten day notice requirement for that one
individual. The motion passed: 7 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
After a brief discussion of the proposed addition and the
other considerations, the Board moved to approve the
application as filed. The motion passed: 7 ayes, 0 noes
and 2 absent.
June 20, 1983
Item No. 5 - Z-2908-B
Owner: C.B. Pugh
Address: 5908 W. 19th Street
Description: Lots 11 and 12, Block 24
Bateman's Subdivision of Cherry and
Cox's Addition
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial and "R-3"
Single Family
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
On March 17, 1975, Mr. Pugh was permitted by the Board of
Adjustment to have a driveway serving a commercial use
across residential property with the conditions that he
provide a screening fence eastward along 19th Street from
the east driveway and provide landscaping and additional
foliage for the east 15 feet of the lot between the six-foot
fence and the property owners to the east.
On July 19, 1976, Mr. Pugh received approval to expand the
building to the north to within two feet of the property
line. This approval carried with it the requirement that
the fence along the north line be moved to the property line
and the east fence be extended to fit the location of the
moved north fence.
These fences were maintained for a number of years, but in
recent times, they have fallen into disrepair and finally
were removed. The owner is under enforcement action by the
Protective Inspections Division of Public Works to replace
the fences. The owner is seeking to remove the fencing
requirements set forth in the earlier action. He says that
the fences produce a security problem.
Neighbors are still insisting that the fences be maintained
(replaced). Staff feels that the fence was an integral part
of the original approval for use of this property and was
required for good reason, specifically to reduce the impact
of the development upon the neighboring properties. Under
the present Ordinance, it is unlikely that this use would
have been permitted. Therefore, staff recommends that the
fence be replaced and maintained as per the original
requirement.
June 20, 1983
Item No. 5 - Continued
O$ ARD ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were three objectors.
The applicant stated that over the years he had built three
separate fences on the property and that two of them had
been lost to floods and that the last one had just been lost
to deterioration and vandalism. He argued that it was his
feeling that the Landscape Ordinance would allow him to
substitute shrubbery for the screening fence required by the
Board of Adjustment and he stated further that were he being
allowed to do this development today, the requirements would
be different.
Staff stated, in response to his argument, that the
development he did in 1975 had not changed with respect to
the ordinance in 1983 and the same kind of approval would be
required today as was required then. The Landscape
Ordinance would not dictate the development style. Staff
stated further that the Board of Adjustment had placed the
requirement for the screening fence as a buffer to the
neighbors to lessen the impact of the proposed use of the
property and that requirement was certainly within the
legislative authority of the Board of Adjustment.
Louise Smith, Linda Booher and Ricky Booher all spoke in
opposition to removing the requirement for the fence, and
Ms. Smith provided the Board with a history of the
neighborhood's ongoing problems with the car wash. The
Boohers showed photographs taken of the situation and spoke
about security considerations that they had for their
childrens safety.
After the discussion, the Board moved to require Mr. Pugh to
replace the fence as per the original Board of Adjusment
requirement. The motion passed: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2
absent.
June 20, 1983
Item No. 6 -,Camp Aldersgate -_Interpretative Issue
Staff has received a request from Camp Aldersgate's
Executive Director, Rev. John Blundell, seeking to determine
an appropriate zoning district for the camp (letter
attached).
After consideration, staff agreed that "OS" Open Space
zoning seems appropriate for the Camp's intended uses.
However, there is concern that future staff personnel might
have different views on this matter; therefore, it
appropriate to bring the issue to the Board of Adjustment
for official and more or less "permanent" resolution.
All the stated activities and uses suggested by
Rev. Blundell's letter would seem best suited for the "OS"
District, assuming broad interpretation of the day camp use.
Staff believes that any other determination would lead to an
unnecessarily complex assortment of zoning districts
scattered over the camp property which would serve no public
interest.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present. Price Roark, representing Camp
Aldersgate as a member of the Board, stated that the 120
acres had been acquired in 1957 with the intention that it
be used as open space for the camp's ongoing mission. He
stated that it was the intent of the Board at Camp
Aldersgate to seek the most restrictive zoning that could be
achieved on the property but which would still permit the
Board's ongoing intentions with respect to the property.
After some discussion, the Board moved to interpret that
"OS" zoning would permit the ongoing activities of Camp
Aldersgate to include the various activities described by
Mr. Roark, including some construction of overnight
residential units and a chapel. The interpretation was
limited by the Board to include those activities which would
be carried out under the auspices of Camp Aldersgate and not
to include any activities that might be carried out by a
private interest which might, at some later time, purchase
the property from the Camp. The Board directed the staff to
provide a letter to Camp Aldersgate outlining the proposal
and to place copies of that letter into the appropriate
files for future reference. The motion on all of these
items was passed: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
June 20, 1983
Item No. 7 - 24-Hour Club - Interpretative Issue
Staff has considered this issue at length and cannot come up
with any way to allow this use by right without seriously
jeopardizing the overall effectiveness of the Ordinance.
Simply put, there is no way to write a defensible definition
of this kind of use which would not include other uses of
similar type but which might not be suitable for residential
neighborhoods.
By the same token, even the 24-Hour Club might not be
suitable in all areas for one reason or another. Individual
considerations of these kinds of uses would solve this
problem, but this would seem to create yet another process
within the Ordinance structure.
Staff believes that the present short form PUD format can
handle this and other similar situations. This process is
similar to the conditional use process which allows for
property -by -property consideration and permits the special
handling of uses so that the neighborhood impact is
minimized. Therefore, it appears that the best approach
would be to use the existing processes.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was not present. This item had been
considered before and was essentially at this point a matter
between the staff and the Board of Adjustment. Staff
stated that it had been virtually impossible to find a way
of dealing with the 24-Hour Club without opening up many
other problem areas. After considerable discussion the
Board stated that it agreed with staff that the short form
PUD format would provide a reasonable solution to the
problem. The Board directed staff to provide a letter to
Warren Baldwin, President of the 24-Hour Club, outlining the
proposal as discussed at the meeting. The motion on that
directive was passed: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
June 20, 1983
Other Business
Robert Slay who had been the applicant for a request at the
May meeting to build a parking lot behind the surgery center
on North University Avenue, requested a rehearing on the
issue for the purpose of clarifying the open space
requirement made by the Board of Adjustment. He said that
he did not wish to open up the entire question of the
parking lot, but merely to clarify just exactly what could
be done with the property.
After some discussion, the Board moved to grant a rehearing
only for the purpose of considering the open space question
with respect to development and directed Mr. Slay to
renotify the neighbors who had been objecting to the
original parking lot. That motion passed: 6 ayes, 1 no and
2 absent.
There being no further business, the Board adjourned at
3:15 p.m.
Date ! %
f
n
IS eC-r ar 'Chairman