boa_01 17 1984LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 1984
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A Quorum was present being 6 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting.
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as
mailed.
III. Members present:
Members absent:
Ellis Walton
Richard Yada
B.L. Murphree
George Wells
Thomas McGowan
Herbert Rideout
Steve Smith
Joe C. Norcross
Attorney present: Jim Sloan
January 17, 1984
I"-em No. A - Z-4144
Owner: Don Kirkpatrick
Address: 500 East 9th Street
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "HR" High Density Residential
Variance
Requested: Approval of a conditional use permit for
the use of the site and existing
structure for 2,300 square feet of
office space. The subject 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 the size and nature of the
structure and the level of rents available as
residential will not permit the costly restoration
necessary nor the required maintenance.
Present Use
of the Property: Residential
Proposed Use
of the Property: Office space in the 2,300 square feet +
in the front portion of the building and
three apartments with a total of four
bedrooms in the rear of the site.
STAFF REPORT
A. Enqineerinq Issues
The subject site has several street and access related
issues. The new parking lot on the east side of the
lot requires that cars be backed into East Ninth Street
from the stalls. The applicant suggests the turnout
stub adjacent to the sidewalk would accommodate this
maneuver. We have reservations about that stall being
retained as constant open maneuvering space. The lot
width is too narrow, plus the house on the east is
quite close to the property line allowing no overhang
of vehicles for a maneuver. The stalls dimensions are
to narrow to comply with ordinance. The street
adjacent on the west is approximately 30 feet in
right-of-way with a narrow roadway and tight turning
radius off East Ninth. The corner radius at Ninth
Street should be reviewed for possible reconstruction
to a larger radius.
January 17, 1984
Item No. A - Continued
B. Staff Analvsis
The staff view of this proposal is that the owner
proposes excessive use of the site. It appears that
even when developed as residential, five or six units,
the site cannot accommodate parking within the property
line. As an office use, the problem is magnified by
the unknown associated with simply authorizing a quiet
use as office. Quiet office group of uses within the
ordinance permits an array of activities that are
totally unacceptable even if parking were not an issue.
The site is impacted by narrow yard spaces, narrow
streets, high traffic volume and two principle
structures on one lot. There are options available in
almost any circumstance which may resolve serious
concerns. In this case, the option apparent is to
acquire additional land for the vacant site to the
north. Staff views the existing design of parking in
the front and side yard as totally nonfunctional. It
would become a long-term problem both for the tenants
in apartments and office use. The potential for
backing into East Ninth Street is too great.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that a conditional use permit not be
issued for the use as proposed. We feel that there are
too many associated problems without ready resolution.
There is only one approach which we feel will receive
our endorsement. That is, a single user office such as
an attorney with living quarters above. This approach
also requires the addition of properly designed parking
in a maneuvering area which would require additional
land be added to the lot.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Don Kirkpatrick, filed a letter of
request for deferral of this item to the January 17, 1984,
meeting. A motion was made to accept the request and defer
the matter. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes,
1 open position and 1 absent.
STAFF REPORT:
Since discussion at the December Board meeting, the staff
has received no additional comment from this applicant.
January 17, 1984
Item No. A - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Don Kirkpatrick, was present as was
Charles Witsell, who represented Mr. Kirkpatrick.
Mr. Witsell offered a history of the structure and the site
and additional comments on the proposal. Bill Terry was in
attendance representing the adjacent vacant property lying
to the north. Mr. Terry stated a willingness to provide a
month to month parking arrangement for this activity;
however, he stated that nothing long-term or a sale could be
arranged. He suggested that nine parking stalls facing
their property in an unimproved state, perhaps gravel, is
all that they could work with at this time. He suggested
they did not want to encourage the paving of this property
inasmuch as it might deter the proper development of this
vacant land at a later date. There were no opposition
opinions expressed at the meeting. A lengthy discussion of
the options available to Mr. Kirkpatrick was held. A motion
was made to approve the variance request as filed accepting
a circumstance whereby only two on -site parking places would
be provided. Provision of any spaces possible off -site is
encouraged. The motion passed by a vote of: 5 ayes, 1 noe,
2 absent and 1 open position.
January 17, 1984
Item No. B - 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.
January 17, 1984
Item No. B - 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.
January 17., 1984
Item No. 1 - Z-4155
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance
Requested:
JUSTIFICATION
Bill Fisher
4800 Club Road
Lot 1 of Block 1, Country Club Heights
Addition
"R-2" Single Family
From the rear yard setback provisions of
Section 7-101.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
to permit reduction of the required rear
yard from 25 feet to 11.4 feet.
Age of the house and the establishment of large front yard
setbacks throughout the neighborhood. The economic value of
the house and its appearance would be adversely affected by
the placement of the addition in the front yard area.
Present Use
of the Property: Residence
Proposed Use
of the Property: To remain the same with the addition of
a den, a carport and a deck.
STAFF REPORT
A. Enqineerinq Issues
None received at this writing.
B . Staff Analysis
This property was involved in a variance request on
July 19, 1976, at which time a similar request was
filed. That variance consisted of a two-story
addition including a carport. The rear yard request
for that application was 11.3 feet. In this request,
11.4 feet is desired. That request was approved as
filed. We see little difference between the issues
except that the two-story addition on this application
is on the east. On the prior application, it lay in
the area of the now proposed deck. The house site
remains much as existed at that time with no additional
structural alterations. Terrain and proper access for
a carport dictate a design such as proposed. There are
no structural problems with adjacent lots and houses.
The grade of this lot lessens the impact of a two-story
addition on its neighbors.
January 17, 1984
Item No. 1 -.Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Bill Fisher, the applicant and owner, was present, but
offered no further comment on the proposal. He suggested
staff's recommendation was completely acceptable. There
were no objectors in attendance. A brief discussion was
held followed by a motion to approve the request as filed.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and
1 open position.
January 17, 1984
Item No. 2 - Z-4160
Owner: The Arkansas Children's Hospital
Address: 1914 and 1918 West 9th Street and
807 Summit Street
Description: Part of the West 1/2 of Block 4,
Marshall and Wolfe's Addition
Zoned: "R-4" Two Family District and "0-3"
General Office District
Request: Permission under provisions of
Section 8-101 of the Zoning Ordinance to
permit use of the subject property as an
unimproved parking lot.
JUSTIFICATION
The Master Plan for the Children's Hospital expansion
includes additional buildings on this block within two to
three years. However, a need exists for additional parking
at this time to handle overflow. Additional lots or parking
structure will be constructed at the time of erection of new
buildings.
Present Use
of the Property: Vacant, Parking and Office
Proposed Use of
the Property: Temporary Parking Lot with Gravel Base
Only
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
The closures of access to West 9th Street and Summit
Street are necessary for the near future due to 9th
Street traffic flows and Summit Street having no north
outlet. Also, the Screening and Landscape Ordinance
must be dealt with. The dead-end parking areas on the
south and west should be provided with controlled back
out space.
B. Staff Analvsis
The proposal as filed seems reasonable. We find no
problem with the proposal if certain steps are taken to
provide visual separation from the residences closely
abutting. Such a screening fence alongside the houses
is necessary due to after hours use of these lots and
headlights cast upon these structures. We are not
January 17, 1984
Item No. 2 - Continued
suggesting an opaque barrier along the entire property
line as that might create a security problem. It would
be appropriate for a variety of reasons to place wheel
stops along the fences. There is an additional point
we would make, that is the Master Plan on record should
be submitted for further review and to keep staff
updated if the plan is in any way altered by this
proposal.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the request subject to a commitment by the
hospital to return to this Board or the Planning
Commission for further review if the parking lot
requires use beyond two years from this date or
structural involvement requires modification of the use
area or access.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The hospital was represented by Messrs. Bill Ruck and
Bill Vogel. Mr. Ruck presented additional commentary and
supporting information in conjunction with the request.
There were in attendance three (3) persons objecting to the
proposal at hand. Two of these persons addressed the Board.
They were Vernon Stidham and Olivie Horner. Both objectors
addressed the issue of the activity level generated by a
commercial parking lot adjacent to their residential
properties. Additionally, they had concerns about
destruction of certain elements of their private property by
all of the vehicle movement adjacent to their property lines
and the reduction in property value. A lengthy discussion
of the proposal then followed involving all of the
participants. The discussion resulted in a motion to
approve the request as filed, subject to those points raised
in the staff recommendation and suggestion that the staff
monitor for a period of two years the operation of the lot
to determine if dust becomes a problem and how the problem
should be resolved. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
January 17, 1984
Item No. 3 - Z-3344-A
Owner: Dace Corporation by E.M. Harvey
Address: 800 and 900 blocks of the West Side of
South Sh ackleford Road
Description: Lots 33, 47 and Part of Lots 34 and 48
of West Highland Subdivision
Zoned: "0-3" General Office
General Office District
Variance
Requested: 1. From the height provisions of the
Little Rock Zoning Ordinance to
permit a maximum height on the site
of 240 feet above a base elevation
of 410 feet M.S.L.
2. Modification of the Board bylaws to
permit two years on completion of
Phase I from the date of the Board
approval. The bylaw requirement
permits the applicant to proceed
but must obtain the required permit
within 90 days and completion
within 6 months.
3. Approval of conceptual plan for
bulk and area.
JUSTIFICATION
The applicant does not offer specific justification inasmuch
as the variance sought is more in the realm of a conceptual
plan and establishment of a building envelope specification
for the entire development area.
Present Use of
the Property: Vacant Land and Church Site
Proposed Use of
the Property: To locate a three-phase development
with the following:
la Phase I consists of a 200,000
square foot 10-story office
building at 160 feet in height.
2. Phase II consists of a 300,000
square foot 15-story office
building at 240 in height.
January 17, 1984
Item No. 3 - Continued
3.
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
Phase III consists of a 180,000
square foot 6-story hotel and
commercial space 80 feet in height.
Street improvements on the boundary streets will be
required. Further discussion with the City Engineer
must be held concerning the access and circulation to
the hotel. Also, the City Engineer encourages that
access be developed through the block to Kanis Road on
the south.
B. Staff Analysis
The project proposed involves additional public
hearings beyond the Board of Adjustment; inasmuch as
the site is not now zoned for placement of a hotel.
The applicant states in his cover letter that further
rezoning or a planned unit development will follow this
action to gain the required approvals. The three
exceptions requested provide for certain secure
positions from which to pursue the project further. We
do not see a problem associated with this approach. We
do feel that the requested conceptual plan approved be
limited to exactly that and that no assurance of
building permits be implied. The bylaw provision
involved has been loosely adhered to especially on
commercial developments. Height variances sought do
not in our judgment seem unreasonable due to the
terrain, access and visibility factors.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the request subject to comments in our
analyais.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The application was represented by Mr. Gene Lewis and
Mr. Ed Willis who offered some comment in support of the
proposal. There were no objectors in attendance. A brief
discussion was held during which the Planning staff offered
additional comment concerning first phase appropriateness
for issuance of a building permit. The staff quoted that it
had reached an agreement with Mr. Ed Willis as to several
conditions which would be applied here in the record in
order to assure that he could obtain a building permit for
January 17, 1984
Item No. 3 -
Continued
the first phase. Both items were as follows: (1) that a
master plan for the entire property be submitted within a
period of one (1) year to the Board of Adjustment by the
appropriate City agency, (2) that setbacks for the
structural location be fixed by this approval as indicated
on the plan which were 45' from Shackleford Road and 30'
from Hermitage Road, (3) that curb cuts and access to the
site be limited to two points on each of the abutting
streets, (4) that a subdivision plat be filed following
approval of the master plan which would provide for the
dedication of street right-of-way and the construction of
Hermitage Road to collector standard, (5) acceptance of the
height limit requested in the application as the height
restriction for the entire site and (6) that the buildings
illustrated on the plan be recognized as general locations
so as to allow some movement, especially with respect to the
first phase, and in addition that the first phase be
permitted construction of portions of the parking deck
appropriate to serve that structure. The Board and
applicant briefly discussed this agreement which resulted
in a motion to approve the plan subject to staff
modifications. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
January 17, 1984
Item No. 4 - Z-4156
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Geyer Springs Baptist Church
SE Corner of Geyer Springs Road at
West 57th Street
Long Legal
"R-2" Single Family
Request: Permission under provisions of
Section 8-101 of the Zoning Ordinance to
permit use of subject property as a
church parking lot.
JUSTIFICATION
Inasmuch as this is not a conventional variance but a use
exception provided for by Ordinance, no justification is
offered. The lot is an overflow parking space from on -site.
Present Use
of the Property: Residence
Proposed Use
of the Property: A fully improved parking lot.
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
Drainage plans must be approved by the City Engineer,
also landscape requirements and screening. Boundary
street improvements on both Geyer Springs and West 57th
Street as well as sidewalks are required. This should
be coordinated with the City Engineer with respect to
the Geyer Springs plans.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal at hand presents a properly thought out
plan for use of this site. It adequately serves the
public needs on the abutting streets. The only
comments we have are concerning a request for a
screening and landscape variance. The Board of
Adjustment does not deal with these matters as that is
an area of involvement for the Public Works Department
and the Landscape Ordinance. Therefore, we did not
list the request as stated in the application on the
agenda due to a requirement that the City Beautiful
Commission review such exceptions or variances. Our
only other comment is that a plat be required for
purposes of dedication of street right-of-way on the
abutting public thoroughfares.
January 17, 1984
Item No. 4 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed, subject to the items noted above.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Ronnie Hall of Garver and Garver Engineers was present
representing the church. He made no further comment in
support of the application except to say that he accepted
the staff recommendation. He noted for the record that he
would file with the City Beautiful Commission for review of
the landscaping requirement waiver. There were no objectors
in attendance. A brief discussion of the proposal followed.
A motion was then made to approve the application as filed.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and
1 open position.
January 17, 1984
Item No. 5 - Z-4154
Owner: Conestoga Wood Specialities
Location: East 6th Street at the Missouri
Pacific Spur Track 1/2 Block South
on Nichols Street identified as
Short Fletcher
Description: Part of Block 1, Oil Mill Addition
Zoned: "I-3" Heavy Industrial
Variance
Requested: From provisions of Section 8-101 to
permit use of subject property as an
unimproved parking lot utilizing
temporary base or gravel only.
JUSTIFICATION
1. Soil conditions are suspect on the area due to a prior
usage. Use of the land will likely identify poor
subsoil.
2. Title to the land is as yet not in this applicant's
name, therefore, creating a reluctance to invest in the
land.
3. Final land holding - total boundary is unknown due to
continued discussions on purchases; therefore, the
final overall plan has not been fixed.
4. Within two years of this approval, the final use of
this lot will be known.
5. Use of the lot temporarily will free up a needed lumber
storage area on another site closer to the kilns.
6. Traffic congestion should be reduced within the
development area.
Present Use of
the Property:
Proposed Use of
the Property:
STAFF REPORT
Vacant
Parking lot, unimproved
A. Two abutting streets on the east and south are being
closed at this time to permit a more secure arrangement
and allow better overall planning of the site. Certain
fences containing these facilities will be relocated to
better control traffic access and security.
January 17, 1984
Item No. 5 - Continued
B. Staff Analysis
The staff view is that the proposal at hand is an
acceptable temporary arrangement. Long-term, we feel
that it is imperative that an overall plan be
submitted to the Planning Commission so that we have
such a commitment from this owner. Thus far, in our
dealings with Conestoga, we have experienced a good
working relationship and feel that they are definitely
moving toward a stabilization and upgrading of the
neighborhood in general.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the plan submitted with a two year time
limit imposed beyond which this Board or the Planning
Commission must review further use and improvements.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Vern Gilmartin was present representing the owner. He
stated that he had no further comment on the application
except to say that the staff recommendation was acceptable.
There were no objectors in attendance. A brief discussion
of the proposal was held followed by a motion to approve the
application subject to the items in the staff analysis and
recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
January 17, 1984
Item No. 6 - Z-3995
Owner: Dante and Rosalyn Jacuzzi
By: Robert C. Slay
Address: 1024 N. University Avenue
Description: Part of the Block 10, Pleasant Hills
Addition
Zoned: "MF-6" Multifamily District
Request: Permission under provisions of
Section 8-101 of the Little Rock Zoning
Ordinance to permit accessory parking
on a residential zone lot to serve an
office use.
JUSTIFICATION
None offered as the issue at hand is a use exception and not
a conventional variance.
Present Use of
the Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of
the Property: Parking Lot with 19 Spaces
Only
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
No adverse comments. However, due to the proposed cut
and fill of the lot and the location of the stream to
the southwest, seeding or sodding is requested to
prevent erosion and sediment damage to the stream.
B. Staff Analvsis
This issue was first docketed for a hearing before the
Board on April 18, 1983, at which time the subject
property was owned by Edward K. Willis, et al. There
were several following meetings dealing with this
matter inasmuch as there was significant objection from
abutting property owners. On the last occasion for a
public hearing, staff received a communication from the
applicant stating that they desired an indefinite
deferral of the matter in order to work out their
problems with the neighborhood. Since that deferral,
Mr. Jacuzzi has purchased the lots. The plan last
submitted has been modified to better align the
January 17, 1984
Item No. 6 - Continued
driveway with the drive to the north. Planning staff
views this issue as nearing conclusion since we have
received comment from both sides suggesting a middle
ground can be reached. In fact, it has been suggested
by Mr. Slay that certain items of objection have been
dealt with such as the lighting on the rear of the
building. The staff position is as follows: (1) if
the neighborhood concerns are answered, (2) if the site
is rezoned to "OS and 110-3" to provide permanent
assurance of open space undisturbed, (3) Garfield
Street right-of-way is closed. We will support the
request as now drawn.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Robert Slay, was present. He offered the
plan amendments accomplished since the last Board review and
additional clarification of the issues. There were
objectors in attendance. Dr. David Hall and several
neighbors were present. They offered much the same
objections as presented before the Board at the last
hearing, except that Dr. Hall offered a list of items as a
compromise. The list of items were as follows: (1) accept
the plan for the drive through and parking lot as proposed
except for elimination of the western nine parking spaces,
(2) 6 to 8-foot fence surrounding the south and western
portions of the parking lot, (3) stakeing out of the lot
prior to excavation with tagging of the trees, (4) placement
of chain or fence across the sparking lot entrance after
hours and (5) rezoning of the remainder of "MF-6" to "O-S"
Open Space. Discussion of these points followed resulting
in a motion to deny the variance which failed to receive a
second. Discussion then turned to the possibility of a
meeting on the subject site on a weekend so as to enable all
interested parties to view the site with flagged boundaries
and issues clearly identified. All parties present
expressed approval of such an approach. A motion was then
made to reconvene the hearing on this item on the site on
Saturday, February 4, 1984, at 10:00 a.m. The motion passed
by a vote of 5 ayes, 1 noe, 2 absent and 1 open position.
January 17, 1984
There being no further business before the Board, the
Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m.
Date 42-11'FY---
OF
ecre ary w
�-5-�alr�man_