boa_07 16 1984LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTE RECORD
JULY 16, 1984
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A Quorum was present being 8 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting.
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
George Wells
Richard Yada
Ellis Walton
Joe Northcross
Thomas McGowan
Herbert Rideout
Ronald Woods
Steve Smith
B.L. Murphree
City Attorney: None
July 16, 1984
Item No. A - Z-4238
Owner: Jack Bennett
Address: 4724 Asher Avenue
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
variance
Requested: From the front yard setback provisions
of Section 7-104.2/E.1 to permit a
canopy cover with a 15-foot setback.
JUSTIFICATION:
None supplied as of this writing.
Present Use
of the Property: Tire service
Proposed Use
of the Property: Remain the same with physical
improvement
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None received as of this writing.
B. Staff Analvsis
A visit to this site reveals several issues which have
made conditions of this development approval may
produce a withdrawal of the request. This is not to
say that these issues are more significant than the
request at hand but that the owner may not be
financially committed to resolving the problems to be
introduced by staff. The first of these issues is a
lean-to type of structure adjacent to the building
which is, in our opinion, a danger to passersby. This
structure should be removed for safety. The second
item is the access to Asher Avenue. At present, this
is a 100-foot, plus or minus, opening with no traffic
access control to the pump islands. There should be a
maximum of two curb cuts with traffic safety islands
designed between and on each end. Three, there should
be an upgrading of the parking area within the lot. As
to the variance at hand, we do not find fault with the
proposal to cover the service area. The 15-foot
July 16, 1984
Item No. A - Continued
setback is about an average on Asher Avenue for such
canopies. This is a result of the prior City Zoning
Ordinance permitting canopies by right with a 15-foot
setback.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to resolution of the three items
noted in the Staff Analysis.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (5-21-84)
The applicant was not present. A motion to defer the
request to June 18, 1984, passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes
and 2 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (6-18-84)
The applicant was not present. A motion to defer the
request to July 16, 1984, passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent. The Board of Adjustment instructed the staff
to contact the applicant and determine if he wishes to
pursue the variance request.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-16-84)
The applicant was not present when this item came before the
Board. Staff recommended that the item be withdrawn from
the agenda because of the applicant's failure to notify the
property owners and lack of attendance at the hearings. A
motion was made to withdraw the request from the agenda.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
After this action was taken, the applicant, Willie Byrd,
arrived and staff informed the Board of Mr. Byrd's presence.
The members decided to discuss Mr. Byrd's request at the end
of the meeting. After a brief discussion with Mr. Byrd, a
motion was made to void the previous action and defer the
item to the August 20 meeting. The motion passed by a vote
of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
July 16, 1984
Item No. B - Z-4261
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance
Requested:
JUSTIFICATION:
Carroll and Frances Garner
Pleasant Forest Cove
Lot 6, Pleasant Forest Park Addition
"R-2" Single Family
From the side yard setback provisions of
Section 43/7-101.2.D.2 to permit a
40-inch encroachment.
The house is completed and has had all the required
inspections except for the final.
Present Use
of the Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of the Property: Same
STAFF REPORT:
A. Enqineerinq Issues
Engineering reports they have no adverse comments.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue at hand is the construction of a garage which
encroaches into the side yard setback. The garage and
residence are 90 percent completed, and that is the
applicant's justification for the variance. It is the
staff's understanding that the building plans that were
approved by the City showed the garage to be a little
over 8 feet from the property line which is in
conformance with the setback requirements for the "R-2"
District. The Zoning Ordinance requires an 8-foot side
yard maximum in the "R-2" District. During the
construction of this house, the outer wall of the
garage was constructed approximately 40 inches closer
to the north property line and creating an encroachment
into the side yard. This reduced the setback to
approximately 58 inches. Because of this encroachment,
there is poor separation between this new structure and
July 16, 1984
Item No. B - Continued
the residence immediately to the north and produces an
undesirable situation. The property in question is
higher than the adjacent lot and that makes the
intrusion into the setback more visible. Also because
of this lot being higher, the residents at #4 Pleasant
Forest Cove have experienced some flooding since the
construction of the house at #2 Pleasant Forest Cove.
They have indicated that there were no problems with
flooding prior to construction. Based on this runoff
problem and a visual inspection of the site, it appears
that the location of the garage has impacted the
neighborhood. It is unclear as to why the garage was
constructed in a configuration other than what was
approved by the Building Permits Office. Because there
are no apparent hardships, it appears that the garage
was enlarged just for that reason. The staff does not
support the request because there is no true hardship
and the variance has not been justified. (See
accompanying letters for additional information.)
C. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends denial of the variance request.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (6-18-84)
The applicant, Carroll Garner, was present. Mr. Garner's
attorney, Walt Murray, was also present. There was one
objector in attendance. Mr. Murray spoke and described the
issue at hand. He indicated that the residence had received
all the necessary inspections except for the final. He
stated that it would cost approximately $15,000 to remove
the garage wall and all of the utilities that enter the
structure at that point. Mr. Murray felt that this did
create a hardship for the owner. He then distributed photos
of the structure to the Board of Adjustment members.
Mr. Murray briefly discussed the flooding issue. Mr. Garner
then spoke and stated that he had depended on somebody else
and was not sure how the encroachment took place. He also
stated that he had experienced some problems with vandalism.
At this point, staff distributed a memo from Roy Beard,
Building Official, to the Board of Adjustment members. This
memo described the sequence of events and inspections that
were made by the City. Mr. Murray spoke again and stated
that the original plans were correct, but that those plans
had been lost. After that, a duplicate set of plans was
July 16, 1984
Item No. B - Continued
used. Mr. Garner informed the Board of Adjustment members
that he did not realize he had a problem until he was told
to file for a variance. He stated that he was aware of the
complaints from the neighboring property owners. He said
that he would try to address the drainage/flooding problem
but by being the highest point may present some
difficulties. Kenny Scott of the City Zoning Enforcement
Office addressed the Board of Adjustment. He stated that a
building permit was issued on June 21, 1983, and the plan
submitted had an 8' 2" setback and that additional
construction took place after the original inspection.
Bobby Gravett, #4 Pleasant Forest Cove, the property to the
north, objected to the variance. He stated that since the
construction of the structure in question, his property had
experienced water problems including flooding of the
kitchen. His biggest concern was encroachment and how it
would effect his property values because of #2 Pleasant
Forest Cove being the high point. Mr. Gravett said that the
garage with the encroachment was creating an impact on his
property and it should be moved back. Mr. Murray spoke
again and suggested that Mr. Gravett's property also had a
possible encroachment problem. He also indicated that an
addition that the Gravetts had constructed may be the source
of some of the flooding. Mr. Gravett responded to
Mr. Murray's comment and said the runoff is not coming from
their property. He again emphasized their concern with the
effects on property values and the desirability of the
neighborhood. Mr. Gravett had not received a professional
estimate to determine the monetary impact on his property.
Mr. Garner then suggested that he would retain an impartial
realtor to inspect the situation and make a determination on
the value question. A motion was made to approve the
variance with the condition that the water problem be
resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The vote
was: 4 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent. The motion failed for
lack of five positive votes and the variance was denied. A
second motion was made to defer the item, but it was
withdrawn. There was discussion about possible remedies and
that two parties should try to work together because there
appears to be room to negotiate. A question was raised
about the structure being occupied until the matter is
resolved and acted on. The possibility of issuing a
temporary certificate of occupancy was discussed. After
some discussion, a motion was made recommending that a
temporary certificate of occupancy be issued for the living
portion exclusively and that the owners assume all further
consequences. The motion failed for lack of a second. A
motion to defer the item to the July 16 meeting passed by a
vote of 6 ayes, 1 noe, 1 absent and 1 abstention
(B.L. Murphree). Mr. Murray questioned the various motions
and there was further discussion. The Board of Adjustment
asked that the building inspector directly involved with the
issue be present at the next meeting.
July 16, 1984
Item No. B - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-16-84)
The applicant, Carr(
attorney, Walt Murry
objector present. r
solutions for screei
problem. He descrif
include trees and sr
of drainage structui
that he had obtainec
improvements. Mr. D
Mr. Garner indicate
with the Gravetts',
directed by the Boat
tried to contact the
unable to reach then
described the market
Rainey Realty. The
question would incrE
that it would not in
Kim Gravett, propert
that she was still c
11 Garner, was present. Mr. Garner's
y, was also present. There was one
r. Garner discussed some possible
ing the wall and addressing the drainage
ed the landscaping plan which would
rubs planted along the wall and the type
e to be utilized. Mr. Garner stated
a cost estimate for doing the necessary
urray also discussed the drainage issue.
to the Board that he was unable to meet
the property owners to the north, as
d of Adjustment. He stated that he
Gravetts on several occasions, but was
Both Mr. Garner and Mr. Murray
analysis that had been undertaken by
analysis suggested that the structure in
ase the value for the neighborhood and
pact the residence to the north.
y owner to the north, spoke and stated
Doosed to the reauest. The wall was to
close and she felt that nothing could be done to solve that
problem. Again, Mr. Garner stated that he was unable to
contact the Gravetts. Ms. Gravett indicated that they were
usually home in the evenings. Roy Beard, Chief of
Protective Inspections, then spoke. Mr. Beard described to
the Board members when footing inspections are made and how
they are made. The footings are open when inspected and the
property lines are marked. The various yards are measured
and Mr. Beard stated that mistakes of inches were not
uncommon. The footing inspection for the structure in
question was made on November 15, 1983, and adequate yard
spaces were provided at that time. No further verification
was made. At some later time, the encroachment was made and
Mr. Garner was notified that the structure was in violation.
Mr. Garner was informed of the situation after the sheetrock
had been installed. He was notified in person and by phone
conversations. Mr. Garner felt that there was a hardship
involved with the request and that he was willing to resolve
the situation. Mr. Murray stated that a temporary
certificate of occupancy was issued for the dwelling portion
of the structure. A temporary certificate of occupancy was
discussed by the various parties. Ms. Gravett spoke again
and stated that the Bill of Assurance also required
setbacks. She was questioned by various Board of Adjustment
members about possible compromises. Ms. Gravett indicated
that the overall appearance was still the problem and there
was no solution to that situation. There was additional
discussion about the proposed landscaping and other
improvements by the Board of Adjustment. A motion was made
to recommend that the variance be denied. The motion passed
by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention
(Ronald Woods). The variance request was denied.
July 16, 1984
Item No. 1 - Z-2450-A
Owner: Barbara Baber and Jean Cross
Address: 7811 Cantrell Road
Description: Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Block 20
Bellevue Addition
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial District
Variance
Requested: From the front yard setback provisions
of Section 7-103.3.D.1 to permit front
yard setback of 8' 5".
JUSTIFICATION:
1. Proposed use will be nighttime use only.
2. "E" Street is primarily a low usage street and is
closed on the opposite side of Cantrell Road.
3. Cantrell Road restricts expansion potential of the site
in the area of Glover Street.
Present Use
of the Property: Restaurant, Offices
Proposed Use
of the Property: Remain the same with additional floor
space.
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported at this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
The applicant has not presented substantial evidence of
a hardship circumstance as required by the Zoning
Ordinance. The points made in the application are no
doubt valid; however, they do not support a 17-foot +
intrusion into a required setback. The area of the
variance is presently occupied by a couple of parking
spaces which are in short supply if a restaurant is to
continue occupying this site and the adjacent expansion
area. The mini -mall covers a substantial portion of
this ownership which requires all of the existing
parking to back into public right-of-way, either "E"
July 16, 1984
Item No. 1 - Continued
Street on the north or the alley on the south. It
appears to staff that the best option if possible would
be for the proposed expansion to occur within the
existing established building.
C. Staff Recommendation
Denial of the request.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Gary Dean, was present. There were no
objectors present. Mr. Dean discussed the variance request
at length. He stated that the proposed addition is very
small and that expansion within the building was restricted.
He felt that a hardship did exist because the existing space
was too small. Mr. Dean went on to point out that the
location is below grade and the visual impact would be
minimal. He stated that the restaurant would only operate
in the evening and the bank to the west would allow their
parking lot to be utilized by the restaurant because of the
evening hours. There was some discussion by the Board
members about the parking and the number of spaces.
Mr. Dean indicated that the restaurant needed more dining
area and that expansion potential was limited.
Barbara Baber, one of the owners of the property, discussed
the exposure of the proposed addition and other items. She
stated that there was no opposition to the proposal. After
additional discussion, a motion was made to approve the
variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,
1 noe and 1 absent.
July 16, 1984
Item No. 2 - Z-4263
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
variance
Requested:
JUSTIFICATION:
Robert and Diane Tucker
5225 Edgewood Road
Lot 53, Prospect Terrace Addition
"R-2" Single Family District
From the side yard setback provisions of
Section 43/7-101.2.D.3 to permit an
addition with a 4.3 foot side yard.
1. The existing residence is located 4.3 feet from the
property line and the proposed addition will not be
closer.
2. Because of the configuration of the lot and the
location of the existing house on the lot, the addition
to the house cannot be situated any greater distance
from the side yard.
Present Use
of the Property: Single Family Residence
Proposed Use
of the Property: Remain the same with additional floor
space.
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported at this writing.
B. Staff Analvsis
This applicant does not offer a substantial hardship;
however, the proposal is supported somewhat by the lot
configuration which is 14 feet out of square. This lot
shape is frequently observed in this neighborhood which
was developed with a curvalinear street system. The
one-story addition proposed will in no way create a
problem for the adjacent lots or structures inasmuch
as those lots have larger side yards. The house on
this lot is one of the few in the immediate area that
was constructed with a long east/west access thereby
reducing the side yards to small numbers. The house
July 16, 1984
Item No. 2 - Continued
to the west has a side yard of approximately 15 feet.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
The Board of Adjustment discussed the request briefly. A
motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The
motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
July 16, 1984
Item No. 3 - Z-4269-A
Owner: Don Capps
Address: New Benton Highway approximately
600 feet west of Production Drive
and immediately east of the
Munsey Products Plant
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family District
(An application for "I-2" Light
Industrial has been filed.)
Variance
Requested: From the rear yard setback provisions of
Section 43/7.104.2.E.3 to permit a
rear yard setback of 10 feet for a new
building.
JUSTIFICATION:
1. Provide for more parking convenience for customers.
2. Display product to be sold.
3. Existing structures on property lines on buildings
surrounding the property.
4. Considering the proposed site plan, I feel that display
of my product on asphalt paving in front of sales and
service facility will improve the general appearance of
the property.
5. In case of fire or other emergencies, several 14' x 14'
doors will allow access from the side of building. The
drives will be open to any and all such traffic.
Present Use
of the Property:
Proposed Use
of the Property:
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineeri
Vacant Land
Camper sales
Issues
None reported at this writing.
July 16, 1984
Item No. 3 - Continued
B. Staff Analysis
This application involves a vacant acreage tract which
has no physical or design problem that could be termed
a hardship. The primary concern offered is the
applicant's statement of visibility of his merchandise
and convenience of his customers. The staff feels that
the proposed building could be sited in a fashion that
would offer both visibility of merchandise and
conformance to the Ordinance. While it is true that
several neighboring buildings such as the Munsey
Products Building do intrude on setbacks, those
generally occurred prior to annexation. We do not
support acceptance of those standards in lieu of the
Zoning Ordinance requirements.
C. Staff Recommendation
Denial of the request.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Don Capps, was present. There were no
objectors present. Mr. Capps said that they had outgrown
there present location on South University and needed
additional space. He then went on to discuss the proposed
building and site plan. The plan provided adequate parking
for customers and good circulation. Mr. Capps said this was
important because of having to accommodate very large
vehicles such as motor homes. He described the proposed
building which would have office and warehousing in the
front with a service department located at the rear. There
was some discussion about the impact of a 10-foot rear yard.
There were additional comments made by Mr. Capps addressing
the variance and the hardship. A motion was made to
recommend denial of the request. The motion passed by a
vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The variance was
denied.
July 16, 1984
Item No. 4 - Z-4277
Owner: Glynn D. Adams
Address: 12324 Stagecoach Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family District
Variance
Requested: From the mobile home provisions of
Section 43/3-101.C.l.d to permit a
mobile home to be located on a
business site for security purposes.
JUSTIFICATION:
le The owner states that one vehicle and other items have
been stolen from these premises. Also, the business
has been broken into and vandalized.
2. The area is low and unsuitable for a permanent
structure.
3. The location is not visible from Stagecoach Road.
Surrounding properties will not be impacted by
placement of a mobile home because of the uses.
Present Use
of the Property:
Proposed Use
of the Property:
STAFF REPORT:
A.
Pest Control Company
Remain the same
Enqineerinq Issues
None reported at this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
This applicant has placed a conventional mobile home on
this site for security since burglary and vandalism are
problems. The lot is very deep, bordered by a large
cemetery, commercial uses and industrial uses. The
only question we pose is why is the mobile home located
so far north of the commercial use site. It would
appear to be a better deterrent to intruders if the
mobile home were located closer to the business
buildings served. There is at this time approximately
July 16, 1984
Item No. 4 - Continued
600 feet separation between the shop and the mobile
home site. The area between the two did not appear to
be one brightly lighted. The only other item of
concern to the staff relatively to this proposal is
that the property is at the present time classified
single family. We would recommend that he take steps
to receive the appropriate zoning classification for
the use and place.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to the separation of the structures
being adequately explained and resolution of the
zoning question.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Glynn Adams, was present. There were no
objectors in attendance. Mr. Adams discussed the location
of the mobile home and stated that there were some physical
constraints to moving it closer to the office. There were
only two locations that could accommodate the mobile home,
and Mr. Adams felt that the placement of the mobile home at
the rear of the property would satisfy the business' need
for security. A motion was made to approve the variance
subject to filing a rezoning application for the property.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
July 16, 1984
Item No. 5 - Z-4279
Owner: James B. Rasco
Address: East End of Scenic Drive cul-de-sac
Description: Lot #1, Rasco Subdivision being a replat
of Marcie Manor Subdivision
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family District
Variance
Requested: From the side yard setback provisions
of Section 43/7-101.2.D.2 to permit
reduction of the setback to 0 feet on
the west side.
JUSTIFICATION:
1. Construction on the least steep portion of Lot 1.
2. To allow for the retention of the site's most prominent
natural features being a 60-foot pine tree.
3. The side yard in question abuts an undeveloped park
which is a permanent preservation of a densely wooded
steeply sloping ravine so there will never be an
adjacent structure of any kind on this side of the
property.
Present Use
of the Property:
Proposed Use
of the Property:
STAFF REPORT:
Vacant
Construct Single Family Dwelling
A. Engineering Issues
None reported at this writing; however, we would like
to report that this applicant has received Planning
Commission approval to replat the former five -lot
subdivision into two large lots thereby creating a
better environment for lots with difficult access.
B. Staff Analvsis
The applicant presents in this case one of the few true
hardship circumstances, that is, steep slopes which
consist of 50 to 70 percent. The land to the west is
committed to permanent open space thereby eliminating
July 16, 1984
Item No. 5 - Continued
any potential objection. The next nearest residence is
approximately 200 feet to the west and south.
C. Staff Recommendation '
Approval as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the
variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
July 16, 1984
Item No. 6 - Other Matters - Bylaw Amendment
SUBJECT: Amendment of provision setting the
time limit on permits and construction.
PAGE 3 OF THE BYLAWS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT/FINAL
DISPOSITION OF CASES
ARTICLE 4, SECTION 2 SHALL BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
Section 2 - If an application is granted by the Board
of Adjustment, all permits necessary for the
prosecution of the work shall be obtained within six
(6) months from the date of approval by the Board. An
extension of the time restriction shall be permitted
only when requested in writing prior to expiration and
authorized by the Board at a public hearing.
THE PROVISION PROPOSED FOR AMENDMENT NOW READS:
Section 2 - "If an application is granted by the Board,
all permits necessary for the prosecution of the work
shall be obtained within ninety (90) days and
construction completed within six (6) months from the
date of permission by the Board unless extension of
said time is granted by the Board. Otherwise such
permission shall be considered void."
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The Board discussed this matter at length, and there was
some concern expressed about the open endedness of the
proposed amendment. Various Board members felt that some
type of specific time element that construction be completed
within should be included in the amendment. After
additional discussion, a motion was made to change the time
provisions of the existing bylaws from 90 days to 6 months
and from 6 months to 36 months. The motion passed by a vote
of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
July 16, 1984
There being no further business before the Board, the
Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m.
2Da e
Sec,-etary
67'� q
1
Ch i man