boa_11 16 1970LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 16,1970,
MEMBERS PRESENT
Sim. Finley Williams,
Darrell Dover
S. Spencer Compton
Vice Chairman
MEMBERS ABSENT
L. Dickson Flake, Chairman
Dave Grundfest, Jr.
STAFF PRESENT
Don R. Venhaus
John L. Taylor
Louis E. Barber
Richard Wood
Jim Finch'
Dorothy Riffel
OTHERS
Perry Whitmore, Asst. City Attorney
There being a quorum present, the meeting was called to order by the Chairman at
2a0O P.M. A motion was made for approval of the minutes of the last meeting as
mailed, which was seconded and passed.
Action was taken as follows:
Tract No. 1 m Z-1666
Applicant: Associated Milk Producers, Inc.
Location: 3418`Polk Street
Description: Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, Ruebel and Leymer°s
Addition
Classification: "I" -Light Industrial District
Variance: Requests a Variance from the Front YArd
Setback Provisions of Section 43-16-(4) of
the Code of Ordinances to permit construction
of building in yard area
Staff recommendations were read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of
the application. The requested Variance is due to a residential district lying
adjacent to subject industrial tract which because of this a 25 foot front yard for
the industrial tract is required. Front yard space in industrial districts is not
required except under this circumstance.
The two houses adjacent on the north appear to have a front yard of approximately
Board of Adjustment Minutes -
November 16,1970
M
10 feet. Due to the fact that this area is gradually changing to industrial
character, and is so proposed on the Comprehensive Development Plana it is felt
that the requested Variance would not adversely affect the adjacent properties'.
Appropriate screening is required by the Zoning Ordinance.19
rX
0 Mr. Cecil Winberry, fleet manager of Associated Milk Producers, Inc., was present
Qin the interest of this application. He stated that if the proposed building
were set back 25 feet as is required by the ordinance, it would eliminate some
much ,needed parking area as their trucks and trailer rigs are 50 feet long. The
building will be constructed of wood and corrugated metal and will be used as a
warehouse, and they expect to use these facilities for a long time to come.
A motion was made for approval of the requested Variance, which was seconded and
passed. , _...,..
DEFERRED ITEM
Z-2399
Applicants Arthur F. Baldridge
Locations 316 North Plaza Drive
Descriptions Lot 789 Plaza Heights Addition
Classifications "A" -One -family District
Variances Requests a Variance from the Yard Area
Setback Provisions of Section 43-12 of
the Code of Ordinances to permit an addition to
existing non conforming structure
l
The Staff recommendation was read as follows -"(This application was deferred at
the last meeting because the applicant or his representative was not present.)
The Staff re -states its previous recommendation which was recommendation of
approval. "This residence was constructed when this area was outside the City
limits and constructed without &upervision of our Building Inspection Depart-
9) ment. The lot was platted with two 25 foot setback lines and a rear yard setback
< of 25 feet made initial construction difficult. The steep terrain of the lot and
9_ the present orientation of the structure is such that the proposed addition
Q] should not adversely affect adjacent properties."
Mr. Baldrige was present and stated that the proposed additions are to enlarge
Z) existing kitchen on one side and living room and dining area on the other. He
ry was told that any action that the Board of Adjustment took would in no way be
0 binding on the Bill of Assurance.
LJ A motion was made for approval of the application for Variance which was seconded
and passed.
OTHER MATTER
Discussion of Residential Development Plan Concept.
Mr. Venhaus, in some detail, discussed the use of development plans under the
-2-
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 16,1970
Zoning Ordinance in relationship to the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjust-
ment.
He said "about three months ago Mr. Taylor and I discussed with an applicant
the development of a piece of property located in Sheraton Heights just south
and east of Reservoir Park. The property was an isolated area that was zoned
"All -Single-family. The property was of the size, character and configuration
that in our judgment did not lend itself to single-family development, or in our
opinion the optimum development of the site would not have been single-family
development. The applicant had requested "D" zoning classification which we
thought was totally out of character, from the standpoint of zoning, density and
lack of development control and the kind of proposition that we could not support.
We bagan re -reading that section of the Zoning Ordinance - 43-24 called-"Resim
dential Development Plan". We had looked at it in the past with the thought of
using this in the same fashion as you might use a Planned Unit Development Ordi-
nance. In effect it allows a Board of Adjustment after a hearing and recommenda-
tion by the Planning Commission to vary the use, height, setbacks, etc. In other
words, it gives us on a development plan basis, control of nearly every aspect
of a residential proposal. Our thinking is that we could use this to accommodate
a planned unit development, density development, open space development® or what-
ever nomenclature you want to apply m the concept being that you could take a
piece of property that was zoned 1tA" it would not be useful from a "D" category
only the first three categories A, B, and C. If we would view those Districts
not as requiring certain development types on the property, but as establishing
a certain density of development, and then allowing the approvalof the Board
of Adjustment variations of building types on a particular tract of ground, we
could accomplish what is termed as planned unit development, open space develop-
ment, density development, etc.
The way this would work out in an "A" -Single-family District, you could put 6.2
units per acre on the property net- once you pull out dedicated streets you would
come out something less than that; "B"-Single-family you are talking about 8.7
units per acre; "C"-Duplex would be about 17 units per acre. These are the kinds
of density yields that these Districts would accommodate through this kind of
procedure. The thing that it would obviously do on the tract of ground that had.
topography problems, that perhaps had such a shape, size and configuration that
it would not lend itself to single-family platting, it would enable a developer
to select those prime building sites on the property, to develop his density
at those locations and to provide as a result greater amounts of open space on
the site and greater setbacks from existing development. It should also serve
to cut down on the amount of utilities required and in many cases the length of
the utility runs. We have a lot of "passed -over" tracts in this City, like many
cities do, small tracts from 3 acres to 15 to 20 acres that have been passed
over for one reason or another in the development process. These are extremely
difficult tracts to use. Our options now are pretty much limited to single-
family_development which in many cases it is simply not possible, or "D"®
Apartment development which is equally inappropriate in many cases for the
location of these sites and the kind of access that they have.
We think this could be an extremely useful device to hold these properties to a
reasonable kind of density that would be commensurate with low density resi-
dential zoning and at the same time provide all kinds of development flexibility.
We think there is also substantial protection of procedural rights. Before a
piece of property could be used in this fashion a development plan would have
-3-
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 16, 1970
to be submitted to the Staff for review. We would take it to the Planning
Commission for review who would make a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment.
A hearing would have to be advertised with notices sent to adjacent property
owners, and the Board of Adjustment would hold a hearing to consider this residen-
tial development plan.
I think your authority and your ability to review this site from almost any aspect
that you would want to would be almost unlimited. We would be talking about a
privileged use of the land. Rather than being a variance in the pure sense of
a variance, I think it would operate as a kind of exception that is given to
the Board of Adjustment under our ordinance. We discussed this with the City
Attorney's office. We received an opinion from them to the effect that if the
proposal afforded protection to adjacent property owners m if it were done in
such a way that it have no greater impact on the area m if it were done in such a
way that the probable impact on the surrounding property would be no greater than
if it were developed with a single-family use, it would be possible for the Board
of Adjustment to utilize this procedure. We don't know for sure whether it could
be done. A court could take it under advisement and render a judgment which is the
only way that would tell us finally whether or not this was the proper kind of
procedure under our ordinances as written. But we think there is an extremely
reasonable case to be made on the basis of the way our ordinance is written to
utilize it. We have another piece of property that is coming before the Planning
Commission next month, and I believe it is the intention of the applicant to follow
that up with a development plan proposal before the Board of Adjustment. The first
one that was proposed to be used in this fashion had requested a change from "A"
to "B ", changing the density from 6.2 to 8.7 units per acre. The zoning was denied
by the Planning Commission. They could at this time have used the "A" -Single-
family density and bring a development plan before the Board of Adjustment and
put some 60 units on the tract. There would have had to be notice of the public
hearing given to the adjacent property owners, but I don't believe they intend
to do that.
That is where we are to date. Again this is an extremely important thing. It is
a very liberal reading of our zoning ordinance. I think it represents great
opportunities for development in the City. I think it very clearly raises all
kinds of very sticky problems for the Board of Adjustment. Under this procedure
you are going to deal with some extremely hot issues."
(Questions from Board members ensued to clarify the issue.)
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3.,00 P.M.
Jim. inley Williams; Vice Chairman
-4-
��, &14J4,0�
Don R. Venhaus,
Secretary