boa_06 18 1984LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 18, 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
B.L. Murphree
Richard Yada
Joe Nor cross
Steve Smith
Herb Rideout
Thomas McGowan
Ronald Woods
Ellis Walton
City Attorney: Hugh Brown
June 18, 1984
Item No. A - Z-4222-A
Owner: Union Rescue Mission, Inc.
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance
Requested:
JUSTIFICATION:
3001 Confederate Boulevard
Lot 8, Block 10, Watkin's Addition
"C-3" General Commercial District
From the street side yard provisions of
Section 43/7-103.3/D.2 to permit an
8-foot side yard on the East 30th Street
side.
The shape of the lot is a triangle, and under the present
restrictions, the type of building necessary could not be
constructed without a variance.
Present Use
of the Property: Vacant
Proposed Use
of the Property: A family shelter home for the Union
Rescue Mission
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported at this writing.
B. The Issue History Is As Follows:
The owner of this site is the Board of the Union Rescue
Mission which operates facilities immediately across
Confederate Boulevard and to the north. Their
attorney, Mr. Blackmon, approached the City for needed
permits to construct a building. Permit was rejected,
Mr. Blackmon being advised that he needed a variance
for setback. It developed in the course of discussion
with this office staff, that the property also required
a rezoning. Mr. Blackmon has filed both actions for
public hearing. The site is now zoned "I-2" Light
Industrial. The requested rezoning is "C-3" General
Commercial. The proposed project involves a simple
proposal which presents some serious questions about
off -site improvements. Additionally, there are
concerns as to the desirability of requiring a
significant parking requirement, landscaping of the
June 18, 1984
Item No. A - Continued
lot and other such allied Ordinance requirements for
building permit issuance. The variance requested is of
little consequence when viewed against the background
of a railroad yard and a commercial industrial
neighborhood. The real issue in this case will be
whether the owners can and will be able to provide
street improvements on two boundary streets, one of
which is a minor arterial. We cannot deal with that
specifically. However, the parking and access to those
streets is within the Board's jurisdiction. Inasmuch
as this owner has requested a waiver of the filing fee,
it is obvious that funds are limited. He has also made
a request for waiver of the rezoning filing fee. The
staff feels that in order to serve the Mission's needs
and the public interest, that some middle ground be
reached on improvements, both on -site and off. It is
our impression that a use of this nature will generate
very little traffic, and the tenants will undoubtedly
not have automobiles. A present Ordinance requires one
parking space per sleeping accommodation, and this
could be a design problem, as well as a financial
burden, within this restricted site. We feel that four
spaces would be a maximum on -site need and could be
designed into this restricted site. Although the Board
of Adjustment does not have jurisdiction over street
improvements, we would encourage the Board to go on
record as supporting a waiver of the physical
improvement of both boundary streets. We base this on
the existing Confederate Boulevard being built up with
little or no opportunity for private development of the
thoroughfare. The widening of Confederate Boulevard to
four lanes or 48 feet will undoubtedly be a public
project. We do feel that this owner could dedicate the
needed right-of-way for the 80-foot minor arterial.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the requested variance, subject to
resolution of the items noted in our analysis.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (5-21-84)
The applicant was not present. A motion to defer the item
to June 18, 1984, passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2
absent.
June 18, 1984
Item No. A - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (6-18-84)
The applicant, Shelby Blackmon, was present. There were no
objectors present. Mr. Blackmon stated he was Chairman of
the Union Rescue Mission Board of Trustees and spoke in
support of the request. After a brief discussion, a motion
was made to approve the variance request as filed. The
motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 18, 1984
Item No. B - Z-4238
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
variance
Requested:
.TTTSTIFICATION:
Jack Bennett
4724 Asher Avenue
Long Legal
11I-2" Light Industrial
From the front yard setback provisions
of Section 7-104.2/E.1 to permit a
canopy cover with a 15-foot setback.
None supplied as of this writing.
Present Use
of the Property:
Proposed Use
of the Property:
STAFF REPORT:
Tire service
Remain the same with physical
improvement
A. Engineering Issues
None received as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
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
June 18, 1984
Item No. B - 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.
June 18, 1984
Item No. 1 -- 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. Engineering Issues
Engineering reports they have no adverse comments.
B. Staff Analvsis
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
June 18, 1984
Item No. 1 - 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
June 18, 1984
Item No. 1 - 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.
June 18, 1984
Item No. 2 - Z-4262
Owner: J.C. and Blanch Avants
Address: 5805 Woodlawn
Description: West 1/3 of Lots 12, 13 and 14
Block 27, Lincolm Park Addition and
the East 1/2 of a closed alley lying
west and adjacent to.
Zoned: "R-3" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the rear yard setback provisions of
Section 43/7-101.3.D.3 to permit new
construction with a 19.5-foot rear yard.
JUSTIFICATION:
1. Lot is only 90 feet deep instead of the standard
100 feet.
2. The house is an older structure with small rooms, and
with a large family, additional room is needed to make
the house more livable. To accomplish this, the new
addition will extend the rear of the house 10 feet and
encroach into the rear yard by 5.5 feet.
Present Use
of the Property:
Proposed Use
of the Property:
STAFF REPORT:
Single Family
Same
A. Enqineerinq Issues
No adverse comments have been reported by Engineering.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal is to construct an addition to the rear of
the residence that will reduce the rear yard to
19.5 feet; the Zoning Ordinance requires a rear yard of
25 feet. The new addition will extend the rear of the
structure 10 feet and encroach into the rear yard
approximately 5.5 feet. It appears that the room
addition will not create any adverse impacts on the
June 18, 1984
Item No. 2 - Continued
adjacent properties, but staff does have one minor
concern and that is very little rear yard will remain
with the construction of the proposed addition. There
currently is an 18' x 26' building that has
substantially decreased the size of the rear yard, and
the proposed addition will reduce it further. Because
of the depth of the lot, 90 feet, a hardship does
exist, and staff does support the request. If the lot
had a depth of 100 feet, a variance would not be
required.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
The item was discussed 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.
June 18, 1984
Item No. 3 - Z-4194 - (Modification Review)
Owner: Phil Gillette
Address: 2422 West loth Street
Description: Lot 6, Block 12, Capitol Hill Ext.
Request: Modify a previous approval of a side
yard variance.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
In March of this year, the Board of Adjustment granted a
variance for a five-foot side yard on the north side. The
Ordinance requires a 15-foot side yard for the "I-2"
District. Because of new circumstances, the owner would
like to shift the proposed building 5 feet to the south.
The modification request, if granted, would create a 10-foot
side yard on both the north and south sides. This would
increase one side yard and decrease the other. The owner
has indicated that there are two large elm trees on the
north side of the property and would prefer to relocate the
building and save the trees. (See attached letter.) It
does not appear that the request and modification will
substantially alter the previous approval and staff supports
the change. The building has also been reduced in size to a
30' x 60' structure.
CTAFR RRrnMMRMnATTnw-
Staff recommends approval of the modified request.
RnARn nF An.THSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the
modified request. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
June 18, 1984
There being no further business before the Board, the
Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.
Date
Secretar
21
ZVI
�'J
Chairman