boa_02 28 1977K
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 1977
2:00 P.M.
There was a quorum present and minutes of the
previous meeting were approved.
Members present: Robert Shell, Chairman
Samuel W. Anderson
Cl M. R. Godwin
Riddick Riffel, City Attorney
Members absent: Jerry C. Wilcox
1 vacant position
2-28-77
Item No. 1 - NEW MATTERS
Case Number:
Applicant:
Location:
Description:
Present Classification:
Z-3101
Youth Home, Inc. by Ned Wright
820 North Spruce Street
Lot 3, Block 54, Pulaski Heights
Addition
"D" Apartment District
Variance: Requests a variance from the use
provisions of Sec. 43 of the Little
Rock Code of Ordinances to permit
a philanthropic use in the "D" Apt.
District
Proposed Use:
Tea Room
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE
APPLICANT BY LETTER PRIOR TO THE MEETING. Notices to adjacent
owners were not mailed and the sign was not posted.
MW
2-28-77
Item No. 2 - NEW MATTERS
Case Number: Z-3106
Applicant: Dr. Charles W. Fowler by
W. R. Meeks
Location: 5326 "A" Street
Description: Lot 19, Block 14, Pfeifer's
Addition
Present Classification: "B" Residence District
Variance: Requests a -variance from the
use provisions of Sec. 43 of
the Code of Ord. to permit
parking in the "B" Residence
District
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: THE BOARD VOTED ON A MOTION TO
DENY THE REQUEST. THE MOTION PASSED BY VOTE OF(3 ayes -
0 noes - 1 absent - 1 open position). THE REQUEST WAS DENIED.
Staff Recommendation: This request is filed for the purpose
of obtaining use of the lot as off-street parking. This
applicant/owner has office property in the immediate area
and minimum parking as required by ordinance. This neigh-
borhood has for a number of years been experiencing encroach-
ment of parking and office uses from Markham Street. Generally
this encroachment has been contained south of "A" Street. The
only recent attempt to introduce other than residential across
"A" Street was.in the block east of Harrison when 3 lots were
proposed to be rezoned 11E-1". These lots were to provide park-
ing to offices on Markham. That request was denied by the
Planning Commission.
This block as well as blocks east, north and west are resi-
dential uses. This residential character.h.as been maintained
primarily by a general land -use plan developed several years
ago.
The staff feels that even though this one lot use may not
adversely affect the residences within thiq block, the intro-
duction'of additional uses would b e.difficult to prevent. The
field check by staff revealed that the parking lots in this
area are poorly maintained and some in violation of ordinance.
(Continued)
- 2 -
2-28-77
Item No. 2 •. G--3106 (continued
The staff would recommend the denial of the request as we
feel the proposal will only lead to further decline in livability
in the area.
There were 3 objectors present who spoke against the request.
There was presented one petition of objection with 8 signatures
and 1 letter of objection.
The applicant and owner were present. Five letters of support
for the request were noted.
- 3 -
2-28-77
Item No. 3 - NEW MATTERS
Case Number:
Applicant:
Location:
Description:
z-3110
Thomas E. Williams
4600 Foster Avenue
Lots 1 and 2, Block 14,
Euclid Place Addition
Present Classification: "A" One -family District
Variance: Requests a variance from the
use provisions of Sec. 43 of
the Code of Ordinances to
permit expansion of a non-
conforming use
Proposed Use: Machine shop, auto parts and
repairs
BOARD OF AD3USTMENT ACTION: THE BOARD VOTED ON A MOTION TO,
DENY THE REQUEST. THE MOTION PASSED BY VOTE OF (3 ayes -
0 noes --1 absent - 1---open position). THE REQUEST IS DENIED.
Staff Recommendation: This application is the result of a
rezoning action before the Planning Commission. The rezoning
application was deferred by the Commission for further study
and the earliest that zoning action could result in his being
able to expand his building and use is April 19th. The Plan-
ning Commission is dealing with more than this lot and looking
at a neighborhood rezoning plan: The applicant desires to
begin work on -his expansion at the earliest time possible and
requests -the Board of Adjustment deal with his site proposal as
expansion of a nonconforming use-. This 2-lot request is the
indirect result of a zoning violation investigation. The
present use, an auto repair establishment- occupied this building
a number.of years.ago and has been under investigation for several
violations:. The area is zoned residential in all directions with
the nearest developed and zoned commercial or industrial property
to the south at Col. Glenn Rd. (2 blocks).
Given the existing relationships, land use and zoning, the fact
of nonconformity existing,. an approval to expand by the Board
could enhance the applicant's rezoning.petition. The staff feels
that at this point there are 3 alternatives available.
1-) The Board could deny the request and leave the issue to be
resolved by the Commission's rezoning action and/or pursue resolu-
tion of the violations.
- 4 - (Continued)
2-28-77
Item No. 3 - Z-3110 (Continued
2) The Board could approve the request as filed and require
some extensive screening, paving, etc. to soften this expansion's
affect on the neighborhood.
3) The Board could deny the request and leave as is.
There were objectors present at the meeting. Two persons addressed
the Board, The applicant/owner was present.
MM
2-28-77
Item No. 4 - NEW MATTERS
Case Number: Z-533-A
Applicant: E. H. Risser, Sr. by Morgan
Steel Building Co.
Location: 1403 West 12th Street
Description: Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1,
Centennial Addition
Present Classification: "F" Commercial District
Variance: Requests a variance from the use
provisions of Sec. 43 of the L.R.
Code of Ord. to permit expansion of
an existing nonconforming garage in
the "F" Commercial District
Proposed Use;
Shop and garage
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: THE BOARD VOTED ON A MOTION TO APPROVE
THE REQUEST AS FILED. THE MOTION PASSED BY VOTE OF (3 ayes - 0 noes -
1 absent - 1 open position). THE REQUEST IS APPROVED WITHOUT
CONDITION.
Staff Recommendation: This application represents an attempt on the
pa--t of the owner to expand this garage use. The present use was
g� nted approval at this location by the Board of Adjustment in May
1962 and at that time was brought about by the Housing Authority High
Street Plan (Urban Renewal). The Housing Authority has been consulted
on this expansion. They see no problem and would recommend approval.
The staff feels it can recommend the approval of the addition but
would suggest the following be made conditions of that approval.
1) The existing screening requirement along the east line of the
parking lot be complied with. We would recommend it be 6 ft..rather
than 4 ft. as required by Ordinance.
2) The alley and service area on the south of the building be
improved to ordinance requirement.
There were no objectors present at the meeting. The owner was
present. The adjacent owner on the east was present and asked for
clarification of some points. When asked her feelings concerning
the staff fence requirement, she replied that she did not.want a
fence on this line. Additional discussion occurred concerning the
alley improvement recommended by staff.
M=
2-28-77
Item No. 5 - DEFERRED MATTERS
Case Number: Z-3091
Applicant: Allen D. Green
Location: 814 Wright Avenue
Description: Long legal
Present Classification: "C" Two-family District
Variance: Requests a variance from fence
height provisions of Sec. 43-
21 (j) of the Code of Ord. to
permit a 6 ft. fence in the
front setback rather than 4 ft.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: THE BOARD VOTED ON A MOTION TO APPROVE
THE REQUEST FOR 6 FT. FENCE HEIGHT BUT DENY THE RETENTION OF
OPAQUE SURFACE. THE FENCE IS TO BE OPEN MESH CHAIN LINK WITHIN
FRONT YARD SETBACK, OFF IZARD STREET. THE MOTION PASSED BY VOTE
OF (3 ayes -_O noes - 1 absent - 1 open position).
Staff Recommendation: This item was deferred at the January 1977
meeting due to incomplete notice to adjacent owners as specified
by ordinance. Due to the recent amendment to the notice ordi-
nance, this applicant is now in conformance and this issue can be
dealt with. The staff restates the previous recommendation which
was:
This item is before the Borad as the result of enforcement
proceedings. The owner has erected a board and chain link fence
6 ft. in height within the required front yard setback. A fence
height of 4 ft. is the maximum allowed in this setback. Although
this is physically a side yard of the house on the lot, it is the
required front yard of this lot as well as the lots to the north.
The fence as now located almost completely blocks from view the
house on the second lot and may, in fact, provide that owner with
visibility problems for access to his lot.
Stop signs control this intersection and there is not a high
volume of traffic on either street. The staff feels that a 6 ft.
fence height is not a problem here but the opaque surface is. The
Traffic Code Section dealing with blind corners prohibits this
type of fence.
The staff would recommend approval of the fence height waiver
but recommends that the board fence be moved to the north property
line and the chain link fence there be placed on the corner. It
has been suggested that Community Services Dept. would look
favorably on this fence plan change
- 7 - (Continued)
2-28-77
Item No. 5 - DEFERRED MATTERS - Z-3091 Continued
There were no objectors present. The owner was present. The
owner presented a statement to the Board suggesting that he
was willing to replace the 6 ft. board fence with an open
mesh chain link fence but did not desire to move the board
fence to the -rear property line.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
2:45 p.m.
Robert Shell, Chairman
Nat aniel M.- Grx _
Secretary