boa_02 21 1984LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 21, 1984
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A Quorum was present being 5 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting.
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members present: Ellis Walton
Steve Smith
Joe Norcross
Thomas McGowan
B.L. Murphree
Note: At this meeting, there were four positions of
the Board of Adjustment open.
City Attorney: Hugh Brown
February 21, 1984
Item No. A - Z-4143
Owner: St. Clair Development Company
Address: 612 East 6th Street
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "HR" High Density Residential
Variance
Requested: Approval of a conditional use permit for
use of the subject site as off-street
parking in support of condominiums on a
lot approximately 60' to the west. This
permit is provided for in Section 43-37
of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Little Rock.
JUSTIFICATION
1. The applicant states that these spaces are needed in
order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance and the
mortgage company requirements.
Present Use
of the Property: Vacant
Proposed Use
of the Property: Construction of 26 parking spaces for
existing condominiums.
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
There are no engineering issues associated with this
request. All design of paving, landscaping and drives
will require approval of the City Engineer. The
subject site is separated from the site served by a
60-foot lot occupied by a vacant two story multifamily
structure.
B. Staff Analvsis
There is little to be said except that the condominium
project to be served certainly needs the parking.
There are no design or related issues we are aware of
as all of the numbers appear to meet ordinance
requirement. The only negative noted is the 4-foot
front landscape strip. The ordinance requires that the
front 10' be retained as landscaping, except for
driveways.
February 21, 1984
Item No. A - Continued
We have received comment from staff members associated
with the Historic District Commission and the State
Preservation Office. That comment includes specific
recommendations dealing with drives, trees, walks and
landscaping which will be required through their review
process. We feel those points made are in tune with
our position. We would accept their direction.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the requested conditional use permit,
subject to attaching the requirements of the Historic
District Commission approval, so far as no conflict
will be presented with safety or traffic codes.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was not in attendance. A motion was made by a
Board member that this item be deferred to January 17, 1984,
due to the failure of the applicant to appear and represent
the application. The vote on that motion: 7 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent and 1 open position.
STAFF REPORT:
This applicant advises he will be in attendance on the 17th.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-17-84)
The applicant was not in attendance. Staff advised the
Board that a request had been received for a second deferral
of this matter for 30 days. The applicant stated the reason
for the deferral is illness in the family as well as on the
part of the developer. A motion was made to defer this
request to the February 21, 1984, meeting. The motion
passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open
position.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-21-84)
The applicant was represented by Mr. John Kooistra. There
were no objectors in attendance. A brief discussion of the
proposal was held. The applicant offered comments relative
to those items by the Historic District Commission. The
Board accepted the items as recommended by that body, but
constructed Mr. Kooistra that they were not empowered to
modify or change any of the requirements set by that body.
The motion was then offered to approve the application as
recommened by the staff and inclusive of the requirements of
the Historic District Commission which may be modified by
them without involvement of the Board of Adjustment. The
motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 open
positions.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 1 - Z-3310-A
Owner: Arkansas Real Estate Association
Address: 10,623 West Markham Street
Description: Lot 1, Bessie C. Lewis Addition
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial District
variance
Requested: 1. From the height and area
provisions of Section 43/7-103.3D
to permit erection of a 4-story
motel containing 90 rooms at
44 feet in height.
2. From the specific requirements
of the Off -Street Parking
Section 43/8-101.BE of the Zoning
Ordinance to permit a modified
interpretation of employee
requirements.
JUSTIFICATION:
This developer states that the site grade being
approximately 10 feet below West Markham Street the
elevation proposed would permit greater exposure to the
street system. The parking requirements of the Ordinance
are deemed to be excessive in this instance in that the maid
service for the motel would be on the site at a time when
the parking lot would not be filled plus one unit would be
occupied by a resident manager; therefore, additional
parking would not be required for that unit.
Present Use
of the Property: An office building occupied by the
Arkansas Real Estate Association.
Proposed Use
of the Property: A 4-story motel 9 feet in excess of
the 35-foot height limit in "C-3."
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
The Engineering Division reports that the developer
should hold discussions with that staff for purposes of
reviewing access and circulation.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 1 - Continued
B. Staff Analysis
The subject site is a restricted access property lying
below grade of the Markham Street/I-430 bridge. The
site has several design constraints such as shape,
access and orientation. The proposal submitted is
designed to the maximum and minimums to the extent that
a minor modification creates a loss of development
capacity for parking. The site plan as filed presents
several issues for discussion centered around the
density and the parking requirements. The platted lot
contains a building line of 45 feet along the street
fronts which is 15 feet greater than that required by
the "C-3" zoning. However, that building line was a
requirement of the plat which was recorded prior to the
"C-3" rezoning. An action by the Planning Commission
would be required to modify the location of this
building line. This being a corner lot, the owner has
potential to reduce the south or rear setback to 15
feet which will reduce the building line encroachment
to approximately 6 feet at the northeast corner of the
building. The parking issue associated with this
proposal consists of: (1) 90 units with 90 spaces, (2)
a resident manager instead of off -site employees
requiring additional spaces, (3) the manager lives in
one of the 90 units, (4) the maid service parking is
off-peak hour use and would be within the 90 stalls
specified for the unit count, (5) the Ordinance
requires an additional 10 percent of the total parking
space count be devoted to employee or accessory uses.
The staff has mixed feelings on this proposal but
generally feels the site is to the point of being
overbuilt. While it is true, the building may be moved
south 12 feet and that movement may gain approval of a
Planning Commission building line waiver, there remains
the possibility of the Fire Department requiring more
than a 15-foot rear yard. The Fire Department normally
requires 20 feet between a building and a property line
when access to both sides is not possible. On a site
such as this, we feel an increase in the height or
number of floors with the reduced ground coverage is a
better design solution. The plan does not provide for
a trash or dumpster location, and this may eventually
occupy some of the proposed parking stalls.
C. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval of the height variance as
requested and recommends that five or six floors be
approved if necessary to provide for proper parking
February 21, 1984
Item No. 1 - Continued
spaces on the site and proper circulation. We feel
that although the manager will live on site in one of
the units, there will be occasion for the maid service,
delivery trucks and repair vehicles to be on the site
during high occupancy periods, and this plan does not
provide any flexibility. Some additional parking
spaces should be provided for overflow users. It may
be possible due to this business being a nighttime
activity to obtain from adjacent commercial users the
use of parking spaces which may be out of service
during the nighttime hours. It is possible that a
lease could be provided with the Sterling Plaza to the
west or other adjacent users for parking spaces.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Steve Bonds, was present. There were no
objectors in attendance. A lengthy discussion of this
proposal followed. The applicant, Board and staff discussed
at length the application as amended by Mr. Bonds. Those
changes included increasing the number of units from 90 to
97. It further included the removal of the canopy and drive
through area at the front entry and replacing that building
element with seven parking spaces. The discussion continued
with many options offered as to resolution of the proposal
at hand so that a motion was made to accept a staff offered
plan which would include a maximum of 90 units and would
include a minimum of 94 parking stalls on -site, would
provide for the extension of the canopy over the driveway
and the first outer row of parking stalls and provide for
the inclusion of handicapped and access space beneath the
canopy. This motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and
4 open positions.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 2 - Z-4171
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance
Requested:
JUSTIFICATION:
William D. Luna Craver
#40 Nob View Circle
Lot 188, Leawood Heights 3rd Addition
"R-2" Single Family District
From the side yard setback provisions of
Section 43/7-101.2.D of the Code of
Ordinances to permit construction of a
garage with a 2-foot setback. Ordinance
requirement is 8 feet.
The owner states that the lot has a narrow frontage on a
curving street which creates design problems. This driveway
paired with the south driveway will allow a circle drive to
permit safe forward entry onto the street.
Present Use
of the Property: Residence
Proposed Use
of the Property: Remain the same with new 18' x 28'
garage.
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There were none reported.
Bo Staff Analysis
The request filed is similar in nature to many previous
applications in that a true hardship does not exist.
This owner limits his vehicular use on the lot by not
maintaining all parking in the original garage and the
south side of the lot which has a larger setback.
There is a great problem on the lot, but it is not
viewed as an insurmountable problem for design of
parking area.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 2 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff does not support the requested variance.
However, if the Board determines a variance is in
order, we would encourage that two conditions be
applied: (1) An open carport be constructed with as
little overhang as possible on the north side. Only
one wall would be closed. (2) That it be compatible
with the residence in appearance, i.e., no shed or flat
roof, especially metal construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The Chairman noted for the
record that the Board's Bylaws require that in those
instances where the application is not represented, that the
item be automatically deferred until the next meeting. A
motion was made to defer the application to the
March 19, 1984, Board meeting. The motion passed by a vote
of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 open positions.
Note: After the meeting, a letter was submitted to the
staff requesting withdrawal of this item from further
consideration.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 3 - Z-4176
Owner: J. Tucker Morse
By: William R. Rector, Jr.
Address: 700 S. Rock Street
Description: Lots 11 and 12, Block 42
Original City of Little Rock
Zoned: "HR" High Density Residential
Request: Issuance of a conditional use permit to
allow conversion of an existing
multifamily structure to an office use
with approximately 6,000 square feet of
floor space.
Present Use
of the Property: Multifamily
Proposed Use
of the Property: Professional Offices
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
Engineer staff requests finalized plan on parking and
circulation.
B. Staff Analysis
The request as filed is a commendable effort on the
part of the owner to regain and maintain a significant
Priority One historic structure. The proposed
professional office usage is compatible with the
neighborhood and will have neglible effect on nearby
residential users or public property. The owner has
more at stake in this block than this building. He
owns property at 307 East 7th Street immediately west
of this site which he intends to remodel and keep as
apartments. He has entered into an agreement with
others in the block to develop a coordinated parking
lot in the core of the block fully improved and
landscaped. The overall parking needs of this block
are generally provided for by a variable use time and
no single user will fill the lot all of the time.
There are several items we feel should be dealt with by
the City Engineer. These are sidewalks, curbs and
driveways improvements off both streets. We are
especially concerned that all possible steps be taken
February 21, 1984
Item No. 4 - Z-3826-A
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance
Requested:
JUSTIFICATION:
Dr. Gaylon Carter
9910 Chicot Road
Lot lA of Burnelle Manor Subdivision
110-1" Quiet Office District
From the rear yard setback provisions of
Section 43/7-102.1D to permit reduction
of the rear yard from 25 feet to 13
feet.
The applicant states that a loss of architectural balance
would occur if the addition is placed on the side of the
building and that a loss of parking would occur if a
building side placement is utilized. He also states that
the ability to drive around the building would be restricted
if the addition is on the side of the structure.
Present Use
of the Property: Chiropractic Clinic
Proposed Use
of the Property: Remain the same with an additional 876
square feet of floor space.
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There were none reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The application as filed does not offer substantive
reasons for expansion of the use. This is a recently
rezoned and developed site which it appears did not
receive design consideration for expansions. There are
several options open to this owner including a second
story which could be accomplished without variance.
Unless and until a justifiable circumstance is offered
in support of the request, we cannot recommend a
variance.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 4 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Denial of the request.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Dr. Carter, was present. There was one
objector present, Mr. Dennis Byerly. Mr. Byerly offered
objection to an issue disassociated with the application at
hand. The objection he offered was in fact a complaint
relative to a fence requirement associated with the initial
building permit. He offered no specific comment or thoughts
on the proposal at hand. The applicant, Mr. Carter, then
offered a lengthy discussion of the options that he had been
offered by staff recommendation. He discussed with the
Board the problems associated with an alternate location of
his proposal. These problems generally were a loss of
parking spaces and a loss of movement potential within the
parking area, specifically in the rear of the building.
General discussion of the proposal followed. The discusson
resulted in a motion to defer this matter until
March 19, 1984, in order to provide Mr. Carter sufficient
time to review the options offered and develop further his
justification for a variance. The motion passed by a vote
of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 open positions.
R
February 21, 1984
Item No. 5 - Z-4170
Owner: Mary Jeannette Meurer
Address: 8718 Mabelvale Pike
Description: Part of the SW 1/4 of Section 35,
T-1-N, R-13-W
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family District
Variance
Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of
Section 43/7-101.2.D of the Code of
Ordinances to permit attachment of an
accessory building and the principal
structure with an open carport
thereby intruding into the side yard
plus or minus 6 feet. The Ordinance
requires 8 feet.
JUSTIFICATION:
The carport will be rain cover over an existing concrete
slab. When the existing garage is removed, the side yard
for the principal structure will then be conforming. The
current state of the land and buildings was annexed to the
City.
Present Use
of the Property: Residence
Proposed Use
of the Property: Remain the same with covered parking
area.
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There were none reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The request as filed has some merit based on a
suggested removal of the garage at a future time
although the applicant suggested no date for such
removal. The residence on the lot is in great measure
impacted by its location on a collector street, nearby
industrial and Highway Department maintenance
facilities. The location of this canopy will in no
way adversely effect any of the neighbors, residential
or industrial.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 5 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the request as filed with a commitment to
removal of the garage within five years.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The application was represented by Mr. Carl Meurer. There
were no objectors in attendance. A brief discussion was
held followed by a motion to approve the variance subject to
the condition set forth in the staff recommendation. The
motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 open
positions.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 6 - Z-4173
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance
Requested:
JUSTIFICATION:
Robert Martin
#10 Saxony Circle
Lot 95, Allendale Addition
"R-2" Single Family District
From the accessory building setback
requirements of Section 43/5-101.F.2 of
the Code of Ordinances to permit a
4.1-foot building separation.
Ordinance requires 6 feet and a front
setback of 32 feet. Ordinance requires
60 feet.
This lot does not have a conventional rear yard. As
platted, it is pie shaped, therefore, not having a rear
property line. The building involved in the variance is in
place. A tree occupies the only site behind the residence
where the structure might be relocated. The lot is
unusually configured and access to the rear is hampered by
adjacent fenced yards.
Present Use
of the Property:
Proposed Use
of the Property:
Residence
Remain the same.
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None were reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The subject site is an irregular lot with little or no
potential for moving a preconstructed building into the
very small rear yard area. The structure at issue is
in place and has been flagged as a zoning violation.
Early discussions with the owner led staff to consider
a signoff on this issue. However, further review and
observation of the site led us to believe that a
variance was the appropriate way to deal with this
situation. We do not find fault with the request and
point out that this owner has practically no other
February 21, 1984
Item No. 7 - Z-3742-A
Owner: Marion Burton
By: Robert J. Brown P.A.
Address: 1000 West 3rd Street
Description: Part of Lots 7, 8 and 9 of Block 258
Original City
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial District
Variance
Requested: From the side street setback provisions
of Section 43/7-103.3.D of the Code of
Ordinances to permit addition of a new
entry projecting into the setback area 6
feet. A variance is also requested from
the off-street parking provisions of
Section 43/8-101.B.2 of the Code of
Ordinances to permit less than the
required number of parking spaces
on -site. Spaces provides are 8.
Ordinance requires 12.
JUSTIFICATION:
The applicant states that the building is being remodeled to
change its use to offices. This requires a new entry off
Chester Street to make the building more efficient. The
building will be more convenient and safety will be
increased for pedestrian traffic. The building will be more
attractive and pleasing after remodeling.
Present Use
of the Property: Eight multifamily units.
Proposed Use
of the Property: Professional office space.
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
The only issue raised concerns the reconstruction of
the alley to City Engineering requirements. Also, some
work may be needed in the area of present curb cuts.
Engineer Division requests information as to off -site
parking.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 7 - Continued
B. Staff Analysis
This owner proposed to convert an existing multifamily
structure into a professional office building and
redirect the access to the Chester Street side. The
requested setbacks involve a vestibule or entry area
which will be a very small intrusion into the setback.
Present building alignment on Chester encroaches into
the setback 9 feet. This is due to the building
predating our Ordinance. The parking variance required
is approximately one-third of the spaces normally
required by Ordinance. However, this area of the City
contains numerous commercial lots for monthly rental.
In most instances, we feel the 8 spaces offered would
be sufficient for the uses proposed. We do not feel
that four parking spaces should be cause for
disallowing the conversion of this structure.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to a proper parking lot plan being
filed which complies with the Landscape Ordinance as
well as design criteria of the Zoning Ordinance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The application was represented by Mr. Jim Kubicek. There
were no objectors present. A brief discussion of the
proposal was held. The staff pointed out that detailed
parking and landscape plans would be required to be filed
with this office for approval prior to the issuance of
building permits for the remodeling. A motion was made to
approve the application subject to comments of the staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 open
positions.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 8 - Z-3888-A
Owner: Martin S. Dorman
Address: 9901 West Markham Street
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial District
Variance
Requested: 1. From the front, side and rear
yard setback provisions of
Section 43/7-103.3.0 of the
Code of Ordinances to permit
construction of a 24' x 41.2'
addition for a second business
and two freestanding pump island
canopies.
2. From the parking requirements
of Section 43/8-101 to permit less
than required number of parking
spaces. He provides 5 spaces not
including any of the 8 stalls at
the pump islands. The Ordinance
requires a total of 14 for all
uses as proposed.
JUSTIFICATION:
The owner states that:
1. He would like to place in use a pump island facility
which was in use and uncovered as recent as five years
ago.
2. Ten feet of clearance is needed for cars and should be
covered on the street side.
3. The street side is on a dead-end street with low
traffic generation.
4e The canopies would provide additional lighting for the
site.
5. This plan will allow us to offer diesel fuel.
6. The rear yard construction variance is needed to permit
a four -bay work area.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 8 - Continued
7. The lot adjacent on the south is owned by this same
owner.
Present Use
of the Property: Service Station
Proposed Use
of the Property: Floor space for second business
being an auto detail shop which is
more or less a car wash.
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
Boundary street improvements are required along Oak
Lane on the west side of this lot. Also, Markham
Street curb cuts should be reviewed for conformance to
City Ordinance.
B. Staff Analysis
This request as filed offers little or no justification
for variance as specified by Ordinance. Two of the
requested actions directly tie to increases in
investment return. The Ordinance suggests pecuniary
difficulties are not grounds for variance. The pump
island canopies proposed are as a separate issue
justifiable because a public service is involved and
convenience and safety are factors allowed in the
Ordinance. The proposed 24' x 41' car wash addition is
in our view inappropriate and causes the site to be
grossly overbuilt. We say this in light of the parking
requirement being 14 cars. This number is a 100
percent increase over the existing requirement which
can barely be accommodated on the site.
C. Staff Recommendation
Denial of the request as filed and recommend that only
those variances necessary to permit the pump islands
and canopies location be granted. We would encourage
the attachment of street improvements to the issuance
of a variance.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 8 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Martin Dorman, was present as was
Mike Skipper, his spokesman. There were no objectors in
attendance. However, staff received one letter of objection
from a neighbor. A lengthy discussion of the proposal and
the options offered followed. Mr. Skipper suggested that
the use to be located in the new addition was in fact not a
new use to the site, but consisted of movement from the
service station service bays to this area. The Board then
discussed the potential for violations of the zoning on the
site if the proposed new structure were converted to a
garage or auto service facility which is not permitted in
"C-3" zoning. The issue of the nonconforming status of the
service station was discussed with the result that it was
determined that two uses were being discussed and that the
service station's base use was not changed by the initiation
or construction of the separate activity in the new
addition. The discussion then moved to the area of the
proposal for canopies above the pump islands, and the
intrusion of the new island into the setback area. Staff
and Board agreed that the proposals for the pump islands
were in the public interest and appropriate. The discussion
then moved to the area of perhaps separating this
application into at least two hearing processes, the first
of which the Board would deal with at this meeting and the
second of which would be deferred. A motion was then made
to approve the variances as necessary to permit the location
of the pump islands and canopies. The motion included the
caution to the applicant to file the appropriate information
with Arkansas Power and Light Company for their review of
the structural involvement. The motion passed by a vote of
5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 open positions.
A second motion was then made. The motion was to defer the
issue of the building addition on the rear to
March 19, 1984, in order to permit the owner and the user
time to develop their needs and return to the Board with
additional justification and supporting information on that
proposal. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and
4 open positions.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 9 - Z-4179
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance
Requested:
JUSTIFICATION:
Winrock, Inc.
By: Jack G. Odom
506 Parkway Place Drive
Lot 19 of Block 3, Phase I of
Parkway Place Addition
"R-2" Single Family District
From the rear yard setback provisions
of Section 43/7-101.2.D of the Code of
Ordinances to permit a 6-foot intrusion
into a 25' rear yard.
The owner states that the irregular shape of the lot and a
minimum house floor area of 14,050 square feet commits the
lot to a development configuration as shown on his drawing.
Present Use
of the Property: Vacant Lot
Proposed Use
of the Property: New Residence
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
There were none reported.
B. Staff Analvsis
The variance requested appears at first view to be out
of line. However, this plat was filed for review by
the City with the lot shape and minimum house size
given. There are perhaps other designs for homes that
would work on the lot, but we feel that site
compatibility with use is more valuable than rigidly
held bulk and area requirements. It does not appear
that any adjacent owner or lot will be impacted by the
approval of this variance request.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 9 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. A brief discussion of the proposal was held
resulting in a motion to approve the application as filed.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 open
positions.
V
February 21, 1984
Item No. 10 - Z-4180
Applicant:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance
Requested:
Present Use
of the Property:
Proposed Use
of the Property:
STAFF REPORT:
City of Little Rock
By: Mike Batie
8820 Tall Timber Boulevard
Lot 209, Pecan Lake Subdivision
"R-2" Single Family District
From the floodplain provisions of the
Code of Ordinances to permit the
completion of construction of a single
family dwelling lying within the
floodplain of Brodie Creek with a
finished floor elevation of 273.54 feet
and the adjacent floodplain elevation at
274.0 feet.
Residence under construction
Single Family
Background: Construction Unlimited obtained a building
permit for 8820 Tall Timber Boulevard on October 2, 1980.
At that time, the lot location was not picked up by the
permits officials as being in the 100-Year Floodplain;
therefore, a minimum floor elevation was not required on the
permit. The house was approximately 60 to 70 percent
complete when the builder went out of business.
Presently, a local savings and loan association has title to
the land and has requested that the City instruct them as to
the status of the lot and the uncompleted structure. The
structure has been vacant for a long period of time and has
been vandalized.
The existing floor elevation is 273.54 feet MSL with a
100-Year floodwater surface of 274.0 feet MSL. Therefore,
the existing slab floor elevation is approximately 1/2 foot
below the existing 100-Year floodwater surface. There have
been no other homes started on the north side of Tall Timber
Boulevard; therefore, when any other building permits are
issued for this area, a minimum floor elevation in the area
will be elevation 274.0 feet + 3.0 which = 277.0 feet MSL.
This means that if the existing structure is left in place
all other surrounding structures will be approximately
February 21, 1984
Item No. 10 - Continued
3.5 feet higher than this address.
OPTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Demolish the existing structure and require the proper
floor elevation for any new structure.
2. Grant a variance from the required floor elevation.
ENGINEERING STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The ideal option is to demolish the structure and construct
any new structure at the proper elevation. However, the
eixsting structure appears to be in good condition and could
be completed without further major expense. It is the
staff's opinion that a variance could be granted if the
following items are agreed upon:
1. If the savings and loan or any other owner feels that
they want to complete the structure knowing that there
is a probability of future flooding and that it might
be difficult to sell the property because of the
flooding.
2. All lot surveys, legal documents and bills of sale
show in clear language that the structure has a floor
elevation built below the 100-Year floodwater surface
and will require any owner to purchase and maintain
flood insurance at all times.
3. Any owner be advised that flood insurance at this
elevation may be higher than normal.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This site at first review appeared to be located within an
area specified as an expansion area for Hindman Park.
Further review and discussion with the department head in
the Parks Department indicated that the several lots on the
north side of this street have been eliminated from that
plan element although they remain within the floodplain.
The Parks Department suggests that acquisition of these lots
is not appropriate at this time. It is the feeling of the
Planning staff that a variance of the nature requested
should not be granted or that any encouragement be offered
toward developing the lots on this side of Tall Timber
Boulevard. Although notified by Parks that this is not part
of their plan area, we feel that the City should at least
review that plan for possible amendment and move toward
acquisition of these lots to eliminate the possibility of
some very poor homesites on the north side of this street.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 10 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mike Batie of the City Engineering Division of the Public
Works Department was present. Mr. Batie was accompanied by
a Mr. Matson from a local savings and loan association who
would be the buyer of the site should the variance be
approved. There were no objectors present. Mr. Batie
provided comment as did Mr. Matson concerning the house and
its future use. The Board discussed the format for
attaching a covenant or restriction to the title on this
land to protect prospective buyers. This instrument was
suggested by the Engineering Department to protect any buyer
at a future time with respect to requirement for maintenance
of proper insurance and to advise that person of the flood
elevations involved. The City Attorney, Mr. Brown,
suggested that an instrument along the lines of a Bill of
Assurance could be filed by the title holder after the City
review and approval of such instrument. A brief discussion
then followed resulting in a motion to approve the
floodplain variance with a condition that a title instrument
be attached providing for the appropriate cautions as
recommended by the Engineering staff. The motion passed by
a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 open positions.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 11 - Other Matters
Board of Adjustment discussion of election of officers for
1984 and discussion of appointments to the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Inasmuch as the Board of Directors has not filled the four
open positions, it was determined that election of officers
should be set aside until the March 19 meeting. A motion
for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 5 ayes and
0 noes.
�J
February 21, 1984
Item No. 12 - Deferred Matter from August 15, 1983
Owner: Hendrix College
By: Mr. George Anderson
Address: NW Corner of West 12th Street at
Fair Park Boulevard
Description: Lots 10, 11 and 12 of Block 1
Peay and Worthen Addition
Zoned: "C-4" Open Display District
Variance
Requested: Reconsideration of variance conditions
imposed by the Board on October 18,
1982, relative to curb cuts.
STAFF REPORT:
At the Board of Adjustment meeting in August 1983, the Board
granted certain variances to this owner in order to expand
the service station and allied facilities now in place. At
that time, the staff suggested that the closure of certain
curb cuts should be accomplished. The applicant argued
strongly that this would severely impact the pump islands
adjacent to the street and the traffic patterns within the
property. As a result of the discussion on this matter, the
Board determined that the staff and the City Engineer's
Office should view the site over the next six months or so,
monitor the movement to and from the site and the usage of
the involved curb cuts. The Board directed the staff to
place this matter on the February 1984, agenda for
consideration of a study of the effects observed by staff.
Monitoring of the site was accomplished by the City Traffic
Engineer, Mr. Henk Koornstra. The report submitted by
Mr. Koornstra is as follows:
January 27, 1984
TO: Bob Lane
FROM: Henk Koornstra
SUBJECT: West 12th Street and Fair Park Boulevard
Northwest Corner
SITUATION:
The Board of Adjustment requested the staff to evaluate the
February 21, 1984
Item No. 12 - Conitnued
access of the Texaco Service Station located at West 12th
Street and Fair Park Boulevard, northwest corner (Item
No. 9-2-3827). During two previous review periods, the
southern driveway along Fair Park Boulevard was scheduled
for closure which the applicant now opposes.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Maintain a total of four driveways, two along West 12th
Street and two along Fair Park Boulevard.
2. Rebuild the curb cuts to channelize the traffic flow on
the site.
DISCUSSION:
1. The land use of the property will generate a continuous
traffic demand which necessitates a reasonable
"unrestricted" access into the property.
2. The buildings and pumps are located in such a way that
vehicles have a restricted maneuvering area on the
property. If maneuvering (e.g. turning around) would
occur, it may restrict access into the property,
resulting in entering vehicles queuing up within the
right-of-way.
3. The use of the southern driveway may impact the
operation of the intersection when northbound left turn
vehicles are delayed to enter the property.
4. In view of the above, I feel that two driveways along
Fair Park Boulevard are required to prevent vehicles
from maneuvering on the site as the queuing of
northbound and southbound vehicles in the right-of-way
will be worse than the possibility of northbound
vehicles backing into the intersection.
5. The existing curb cuts along Fair Park Boulevard and
West 12th Street need to be rebuilt to improve the
channelization and to conform to City regulations,
which require a 40-foot divider strip between
driveways. This divider strip will provide for (1)
proper pump approaches and (2) a protected area for
cars which are parked near the pumps.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 12 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Anderson, was in attendance. There were
no objectors present. The Planning staff reported that its
position on curb cuts to this site has changed with a memo
inserted in this write up. Staff offered explanation of the
Engineering Department's position as to the dimensional
changes and curb cut offered by the Engineering staff. A
lengthy discussion then followed during which staff and the
Board clarified for Mr. Anderson exactly what was involved
in completing the required improvements for this location to
then be in compliance with the original Board of Adjustment
approval. A motion was made to approve the curb cut study
and designs offered by the Engineering Department and
included in the memo in this write up. The motion passed by
a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 open positions.
Note: Mr. Anderson was directed by staff to make contact
with Mr. Lane in the Engineering Department relative
to the procedure for filing the plans for correcting
the curb cut design.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 6 - Continued
option for a detached structure on his lot. A building
addition to his house could be placed in this area
maintaining an 8-foot side yard, a detached accessory
building cannot. We are unsure as to whether there is
a prohibition against accessory structures in this
addition but did note there were several detached
storage buildings on lots in the neighborhood. The
only condition we would attach to a recommendation
would be that this owner erect a privacy fence much
like his neighbor to the east to conceal most of the
structure from view.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments in the analysis.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Martin, was in attendance. There were no
objectors present. A brief discussion of the proposal was
held. The Board identified for the applicant the potential
of a Bill of Assurance conflict with his accessory building
and cautioned him that their approval would not negate or
set aside Bill of Assurance provisions. As to the potential
for his construction of a 6-foot opaque fence to screen this
building from the street, Mr. Martin indicated that such a
proposal had already been discussed. A motion was then made
to approve the variance request subject to the provision of
a 6-foot opaque fence. The motion passed by a vote of
5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 open positions.
February 21, 1984
Item No. 3 - Continued
in the design phase to protect the trees in and about
this site.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed, subject to filing for record the
parking agreement and Public Works review of the
physical improvements.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. A brief discussion of the proposal was held. A
motion was then made by the Board to approve the requested
permit subject to staff comment and those items required by
the Historic District Commission relative to aesthetic
values and improvements within the parking lot area. The
motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 open
positions.
February 21, 1984
There being no further business before the Board, the
Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:10 p.m.
Date n no
Sgdretlry
Z1. � 0 - z �61
Chairman