boa_06 19 1978LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 19, 1978
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a quorum.
There was a quorum present being six in number.
II. Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting.
Minutes of previous meeting were approved as mailed.
Members Present: JerryiWilcox
James Summerlin
Samuel Anderson
Winifred Whitfield
Ray Fu re i g h
M.R. Godwin
Members Absent: Kirby Smith
City Attorney: Riddick Riffel and Jack Magruder
June 19, 1978
Item No. 1
File No.: Z-3223
Owner: Carlee Porter
Address: 4601 W. llth Street
Description: Lot 8, Block 30, Cunningham's
Addition
Currently Zoned: "B" Residence
Variance: Request permission under the
provisions of Section 43-22-4
(-d) to locate a day-care center
in a residential zone.
Present Use of the
Property: Day-care center.
Proposed Use of the
Property: Maintain existing center with
conforming zoning classification.
Staff Recommendation:
This request is the result of a zoning violation investigation. The
day-care center now in operation has grown to its present size in
number of children over some period of time we cannot determine.
The owner started small with six or less children and was considered
a babysitter until recently when the number of children increased
to a point involving state and City codes.
The Board of Adjustment procedure was recommended by staff rather
than rezoning as the required "D" Apartment zone would be out of
character with this neighborhood.
The neighborhood north of the West 12th commercial strip is developed
Single Family with a scattering of duplexes and a church.
The staff feels that given the use being in place for some time, generally
well screened from the neighborhood, and backing to the 12th Street
commercial uses, the request should be granted.
We would recommend that:some consideration be given by the owner to
provision of employee parking and a pickup and drop-off of children.
Board Action
There were no objectors present and no letters of objection were submitted.
The applicant was present. After a brief discussion, the Board voted to
approve the request as filed. The vote was 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
June 19, 1978
Item No.-2
File No.: Z-3222
Owner: John Collins Estate and Others by
Bernard Clark, Agent
Address: 4905 W. 12th Street
Description: Property at the southwest corner
of West 12th and Monroe Street
Currently Zoned: "F" Commercial District
Variance: Request permission under the
provisions of Section 43-22-4 (-e)
of the Code of Ordinances to permit
a public garage in a commercial zone.
Present Use of the
Property: Vacant service station
Proposed Use of the
Property: A transmission exchange shop. No
repair. Installation of new and
removal of old unit only
Staff Recommendation:
This request is before the Board as a result of the prospective tenant
not being issued a privilege license for a garage.
The subject property is now occupied by an abandoned service station
which has apparently suffered some difficulty in maintaining an
operator. The adjacent neighborhood to the south is a public housing
complex operated by the Little Rock Housing Authority. North of
the site are several retail uses facing 12th Street with Single Family
and portions of War Memorial Park.
There are, within several blocks of this lot, commercial buildings along
West 12th Street which are constantly being vacated and reoccupied.
However, to date, there are no industrial or light industrial uses
or automobile garage service type uses in the immediate area.
The staff feels that given the land use relationships abutting and
the creation of a new light industrial type use in the area, the
request should be denied. Further, we feel that the property is
better used for retail type uses serving a neighborhood purpose.
Board Action
There were no objectors present and no letters of objection. The request
was represented by Fred I. Morriss. After a brief discussion, the Board
voted to approve the request as filed. The vote was 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
June 19, 1978
Item No. 3
File No.: Z-3228
Owner: Brasco Corporation by Olan
Asbury
Address: 7600 Block Enmar Drive east side
of street
Description: Long Legal
Currently Zoned: "I" Light Industrial District
Variance: Request a variance from the
off-street parking provisions of
Section 43-21 (-A) (-6) (-b) of
the Code of Ordinances to allow
178 parking spaces rather than 238
as required.
Present Use of the
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of the
Property: Wholesale type retail food sales
market
Staff Recommendation:
This request is the result of introduction of a type of business to
Little Rock with which we have had little experience. The use is a
food store, retail type, that sells in carton or bulk units.
Although the use is obviously retail, the applicant presents supporting
documentation as follows:
1. The use is a membership type of operation.
2. Bulk sales only.
3. Customer marks price on each item; customer loads
merchandise and unloads merchandise on vehicle.
4. No fresh meat and frozen food or extensive dairy products.
5. Parking provided for stores of this general size
33,000 square feet in five cities are approximately
25 percent below our ordinance requirement. The
request here is for approximately a 25 percent reduction
in total number of spaces.
June 19, 1978
Item No. 3 continued...
The staff has reviewed the proposal, as well as the proposed
subdivision plat, which will provide a new platted lot in full
compliance with ordinance.
We feel the number of spaces involved in this request for a variance
(60) relative to the total number provided are not significant enough
to create a problem.
This use, if developed and operated as outlined by the applicant,
will most likely not use all of the 178 spaces to be provided.
The staff would recommend approval of the request subject to:
1. Completion of the subdivision plat through the
final platting process.
2. Provision of additional green space and planting
within the parking area - trees preferably.
The applicant is to work with staff in a layout
of this planting and green space.
3. We would suggest that as many as ten additional spaces
be allowed to be removed if necessary to provide the
space for a green area. The parking in front of the
building, we feel, should be angle parking to allow
for additional green space along the property line.
4. Remove one curb cut, preferably the middle cut, and
combine this with the service or truck access.
Board Action
There were no objectors present and no letters of objection. The
request was represented by Olan Asbury. After a brief discussion, the
Board voted to approve the request as recommended by staff. The vote
was 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
June 19, 1978
Item No. 4
File No.: Z-3226
Owner: Reproco, Inc. by G.R. Vroman
Address: 1001 South University Avenue
Description: Lot 1, University Commercial
Subdivision
Currently Zoned: "F" Commercial District
Variance: Request a variance from the rear
yard setback provisions of
Section 43-15 of the Code of
Ordinances to permit a 1 ft. rear
yard rather than 25 ft. as required
by Ordinance.
Present Use of the
Property: Unused service station
Proposed Use of the
Property: New retail store
Staff Recommendation:
This applicant's proposal is to replace a former service station building
which has been heavily impacted by the construction of West loth Street.
The only issue before the Board is the one foot rear yard. However, the
proposal as drawn provides only five feet of setback on the south interior
line, thereby thrusting this new structure against the adjacent owners
on the east and south.
The staff would like to point out that for purposes of commercial development,
this 13,000 square foot lot is barely minimum size. The size of the lot,
coupled with the 4,800 square foot building, presents problems we feel
are not needed at an intersection such as is being created at loth and
University Avenue.
A basic test of whether a setback is excessive is to attempt to place
the building on the lot without regard to terrain or usual hardship
circumstances. In this case, the building and required parking can be
placed on the lot in conformance; however, the resulting layout is
not good.
There is, in the broad scope of the future of University Avenue, the
need to maintain a character of development which will be conducive
to development of uses which have an interrelationship.
June 19, 1978
Item No. 4 continued...
These uses should complement and support each other rather than create
a mix that eventually brings about decline of the neighborhood. The
kind of development proposed here adds little in the way of aesthetic
value to the intersection as everything is to be placed in such a fashion
that pavement or building is all that is exposed.
We would recommend denial of the request and suggest that the applicant
look to a design which will reduce the building and paving and provide
for a better neighbor property to what is being developed adjacent.
Board Action
There were no objectors present. There were no letters of objection. The
Board voted to approve the request as filed. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1
absent, 1 abstention (Sam Anderson).
June 19, 1978
Item No. 5
File No.: Z-3227
Owner:
Richard and Billie DeLay
Address:
1512 Tarrytown Road
Description:
Lot 10, Sturbridge Subdivision
Variance:
Request a variance from the rear
yard setback provisions of Section
43-12 of the Code of Ordinances to
permit a rear yard of 18 ft. rather
than 25 ft. as required.
Present Use of the
Property:
Single Family Residence
Proposed Use of the
Property:
Remain the same with addition of
a den with 480 sq. ft. plus or minus
Staff Recommendation:
This request is simple in nature and proposes to involve only seven feet
of rear yard setback. The adjacent residences are well removed from
the construction area (60 to 80 feet).
The apartment complex lying to the south, Sturbridge Apartments, is
well screened by a board fence as well as the open space of Grassy
Flat Creek and the foliage -along its banks.
The staff feels, in this case, the exception should be made and the
applicant allowed the requested variance.
Board Action
There were no objectors present and no letters of objection. The request
was represented by the owner. The Board voted to approve the request as
filed.
June 19, 1978
Item No. 6
File No.: Z-3089
Owner: Joe Schulte
Address: 2900 Kavanaugh Boulevard
Description: Part of Block 53, Pulaski Heights
Addition
Currently Zoned: "F" Commercial District
Variance: Request permission under the
provision of Section 43-33(-4)
(-e) to allow a garage in a retail
zone.
Present Use of the
Property: Unused service station structure.
The last use was a muffler shop by
Board of Adjustment variance.
Proposed Use of the
Property: General garage and auto repair.
Staff Recommendation:
This request is the result of the applicant being refused a permit to
operate a broad service auto repair facility in a former muffler shop
building.
The muffler shop was allowed by the Board of Adjustment in January, 1977,
with a condition that it be the only auto related use on the premises and
the Board of Adjustment review any expansion of usage.
This applicant proposes to operate an auto repair facility with general
repairs but no body work or salvage.
The staff has revisited the site and looked at abutting relationships.
We find no problem of significance with the request, especially in
light of the fact that the crankshaft shop remains next door to the west;
and all uses facing or abutting are commercial except the large apartment
house to the north.
We would recommend approval of the request as there appears to be a need
for service of this type in the Hillcrest area. We would recommend that
the approval be granted subject to compliance with all ordinance requirements
on parking, screening, etc.
Board Action
There was one objector present. There were no letters of objection. The
Board voted to approve the request as filed. The vote was 6 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent.
June 19, 1978
Item Nn_ 7
File No.: Z-3229
Owner: G.R. Vroman
Address: South end of Hogan Drive on east
side of street.
Description: Long Legal
Currently Zoned: "I" Light Industrial
Variance: Requests an interpretation of
the Zoning Ordinance relative to
the appropriate zoning district
for the use proposed as a recycling
facility.
Present Use of the
Property: Vacant land
Proposed Use of the
Property: New buildings for paper, aluminum,
and related recycling
Staff Recommendation:
This request is before the Board to gain a clarification of the ordinance
relative to whether the use proposed is, in fact, a "K" Heavy Industrial
use or "I" Light Industrial. The ordinance section dealing with this
use and which is questioned by the applicant is Section 43-8 of the code
dealing with "H", "I", and "J" Industrial. Item No. 35 on the list of
prohibited uses - junk, iron, or rag storage - is listed as prohibited,
as well as bailing operations.
The applicant maintains that the use proposed on his property is not
included in that listing since recycling as now accomplished was not
the same use when the ordinance was adopted.
The applicant has described his use as:
A 30,000 square foot facility for purposes of sorting,
grading, bailing paper, and non-ferrous metals - predominantly
aluminum. There will be no chemical treatment, smelting,
or melting of any material on the premises.
The applicant's first contact on this issue with City offices was
Building Permits. That office has been asked to render an opinion
on the proposal as whether a series of permits, building, privilege
license, etc., would be permitted.
June 19, 1978
Item No. 7 continued...
At this writing, this Office has not received a copy of that interpretation,
nor have we fully developed our opinion on the issue.
The staff's involvement in this issue to this point and the information
we have been able to develop suggest to us that perhaps within certain
guidelines, this use should be determined to be permitted as light industrial.
We would not propose at this point to deal with the issue until the determination
of the building permits office can be received.
We will furnish to the Board prior to public hearing any information which
we develop concerning this issue which may be of importance.
Board Action
The applicant submitted a request for withdrawal of this item due to his
having received a favorable letter of interpretation from the Building Codes
Division of the Community Services Department. The Board voted to withdraw
the matter.
June 19, 1978
Item No. 8 - DEFERRED MATTER
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Currently Zoned:
Variance:
Present Use of the
Property:
Proposed Use of the
Property:
Staff Recommendation:
Z-3219
Alvin Blake
#12 Keltwood Cove
All of Lot 6 of Phase 1, Brownwood
Terrace Subdivision
"A" One Family
Request a variance from the rear yard
setback provisions of Section 43-12
of the Code of Ordinances to allow
an addition to be made with a 162 ft.
encroachment into the required yard
setback of 25 ft.
Residence
To remain the same with the addition of
floor area
This request was deferred from the May 22 agenda, and the applicant was
advised at that time to meet with the staff and review alternatives. The
staff meeting with the owner has revealed no new evidence of significance
which changes our position or recommendation on this application. The
staff restates its previous recommendation which was:
This request is the result of unusual placement of the residence
on the lot. A 30-foot building line rather than the usual 25-foot
building line and an odd lot configuration creates the
present circumstance.
The addition proposed would occupy approximately 360 square feet
of the required rear yard area or approximately 10 percent.
The adjacent structures are all setback from lot lines the minimum
allowed. One of these has recently been permitted to replat for
reduction of the 30-foot building line to 25 feet and was further
allowed construction of an addition.
The land area to the west of this lot is a large tract running to
Barrow Road. It is our understanding that the owner is holding
that parcel for non-residential development. That development
could and may very well locate uses in close proximity to this
rear yard which would have an adverse relationship.
June 19, 1978
Item No. 8 continued...
The staff's view of this request is that an addition such as
proposed compromises the rear yard requirement to the point
of negating its value.
Should that occur, it is clear the 25-foot rear yard has not
served its intended purposed for separation. We feel the applicant
has other options available to him in this proposal. The staff
recommends denial of the request.
Board Action
There were no objectors and no letters of objection. The variance was
represented by the owner's contractor. After a brief discussion, the Board
voted to approve the request as filed. The vote was 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
June 19, 1978
Item No. 9 - DEFERRED MATTER
File No.: Z-3074-A
Owner: Larry Storthz
Address: #2 Shackleford Court
Description: All of Lot 1 of Burnett Subdivision
Currently Zoned: "E-l" Quiet Business District
Variance: 1. Request a variance from the rear
yard setback provisions of Section
43-14 of the Code of Ordinances
to allow a 14 ft. encroachment
into the required 25 ft. rear yard.
2. Request a variance from the side
yard setback provisions of Section
43-14 of the Code of Ordinances
to allow a 7.5 ft. encroachment
into the side yard. Required
side yard is 12.5 ft.
3. Request a variance from the
front yard open space provisions
of Section 43-21 of the Code of
Ordinances to allow parking in
the front yard setback.
Present Use of the
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of the
Property: Construct new office building
Staff Recommendation:
This request was deferred at the May 22 meeting in order to allow the
applicant time to review his request with staff and develop any new
evidence. At this writing, the staff has not met with the applicant
nor has developed any new evidence of any signficance which would suggest
that the application is appropriate.
The staff will develop any information we feel necessary that the
Board of Adjustment should be made aware of and present such evidence
at the hearing.
Board Action
There were no objectors present. There were no letters of objection. There
were two letters of support from the owners on the north and on the west. The
request was represented by Larry Townley, architect for the project. The
applicant in presenting his case, asked the Board Chairman if a straw vote
could be obtained to determine those members who would vote no on the request.
A vote was taken and 3 members indicated they would not support the request
as filed. After discussing the objections of these 3 members, the applicant
amended his request to delete variances no. 1 and 3 in order to answer the
concerns of the "no" votes. A vote was then taken on the amended application.
The request was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent.
June 19, 1978
Item No. 10 - DEFERRED MATTER
File No..
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Currently Zoned:
Variance:
Present Use of the
Property:
Proposed Use of the
Property:
Staff Recommendation:
Z-3192
Samuel Smith
5409 "L" Street
All of the east z of Lots 1 and
2 of Block 2, Hollenberg Addition.
"A" One Family District
Request a variance from the side yard
setback provisions of Section 43-12 of
the Code of Ordinances to permit a
room addition with 0 ft. setback.
(Structure located on property line.)
Single Family Residence
Remain the same with additional floor
space
This applicant feels that a full and detailed view of his request was
not presented at the May meeting. A letter from the owner requests
reconsideration of the variance in a new hearing. The bylaws of the
Board are constructed in a fashion as to require the Board to hold
a meeting in order to vote on a reconsideration within ten days of
the denial date. Past procedure has been to ask the applicant to
submit his request within ten days in order to place it on the next
regular agenda. This brings the applicant to a public hearing to
ask for a reconsideration. The Board's bylaws state, "On a positive
motion by a member of the Board, three concurring votes must be received
in order to rehear any previously denied action."
The staff will not present a written comment on this issue but respond
to questions or issues raised at the meeting.
Board Action
There were no objectors present nor persons representing the request. The
Board voted on a motion to rehear the case. The request for a rehearing passed
by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
EDITOR'S NOTE
The owner will be advised of the proper time and place for a rehearing and
given instructions on renotifying property owners as before.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
Date
Chairman
SeG ry