Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_11 18 1985LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD NOVEMBER 18, 1985 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 6 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: B.L. Murphree George Wells Ellis Walton Herbert Rideout Thomas McGowan Joe Norcross Members Absent: Ronald Woods Richard Yada Steve Smith City Attorney: Pat Benton November 18, 1985 Item No. 1 - Z- 4571 -A Owner: Richard A. Hinkle By: Fred Perkins Address: 810 West 2nd Street Description: West 50 feet of Lots 7, 8 and 9 Block 104, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: "C-4" ( "C-3" rezoning request has been filed) Variance Requested: From the front yard setback provisions of Section 7- 103.4/E.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit expansion of a building with a 17.5-foot setback. Justification: The intrusion will be 12 inches in order to add a second story to the existing building. The 12 inches is for a structural and aesthetic reasons. Present Use of Property: Office Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Revise parking plan. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to add a second floor with approximately 2,700 square feet to the existing building at 810 West Second. The addition will increase the size of the structure to 4,800 square feet. The building is currently encroaching into the required setback for a commercial district. This was created by the old "G" commercial district which required only a 15-foot setback. With the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance in 1980, the "G" district converted to "C-4" and increased the required front yard setback. Also, the "C-4" classification caused the office use to become nonconforming and the Zoning Ordinance does not permit expansion of a nonconforming use, so the owners have requested a rezoning to "C-3." (The "C-3" district requires a 25-foot front yard.) November 18, 1985 Item No. 1 - Continued The existing setback is approximately 18.5 feet, and with the addition, it will be reduced to 17.5 feet. The structural involvement with this additional encroachment will be minimal because it will be primarily created by columns for support. Staff believes that the expansion and new setback will have no impact on the surrounding properties and supports the request. One additional item that needs to be mentioned is the parking. Currently, the drive from West 2nd is utilized by this property and the lot to the east. 810 West 2nd uses it to provide necessary parking and provide access to the parking spaces in the rear. There is a written agreement between the two property owners to continue to use the drive for parking, maneuvering and access. Finally, two spaces at the northwest corner identified as 3 and 4 will be utilized by employees so there location will not be a problem and make them unusable. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance request as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Fred Perkins, was present. There were no objectors. A brief discussion was held by the Board. A motion was made to grant the variance with the condition that the parking plan be approved by the Traffic Engineer. The vote 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. November 18, 1985 Item No. 2 - Z-4576 Owner: Robert N. and Bobby G. Anderson Address: 8702 Pea Ridge Circle Description: Lot 39, Shiloh Subdivision Zoned: "R -2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the rear yard setback provisions of Section 7-101.2.D of the Zoning Ordinance to permit an addition with a 20-foot setback. Justification: The site contains large drainage ditches plus this is the only way to expand this room. Present Use of Property: Single family residence Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to permit a 5 -foot encroachment into the rear yard for a 12' x 12' addition. The "R-2" district requires a 25-foot setback for the rear yard. The location of the new construction appears to be dictated by the internal configuration of the structure so a hardship does exist. Because of the size and the shape of the lot, the addition will not impact the adjoining properties. There will continue to be adequate separation to the east because of an easement and a ditch. Also, the new addition will not dramatically reduce the amount of rear yard area because of the lot size. Staff believes that adequate justification has been provided and supports the request. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. November 18, 1985 Item No. 2 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. November 18, 1985 Item No. 3 - Z-4552-A Owner: Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #17 By: Robert Newcomb Address: 1702 -1714 East Second Description: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block B Fletcher and Clark Addition Zoned: "R -4" Two Family ( "C-3" rezoning request has been filed) Variance Requested: 1. From the parking provisions of Section 8 -101.B of the Zoning Ordinance to permit less than required number of spaces. 2. From the front and rear yard setback provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a 4-foot canopy in the front yard and a 4 -foot building intrusion into the rear yard (as a 25-foot setback from the floodway of the Arkansas River is required). Justification: 1. The "C-3" rezoning if used for business purposes only would not require even 43 slots for this size building. The building that is being built calls for 72 parking spaces based on the heated and cooled square footage. The square footage is going to be divided in half with one portion being a basketball court. It is doubtful that even the 43 places will be a regular use. 2. The front yard setback deals with a 4-foot canopy that will be 40 feet in length which will come within 10 feet of the building corner. This will need a variance that does not encroach the permanent structure too close to the building line. November 18, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued 3. The rear yard setback requirement that needs the variances on the property line that faces the Arkansas River. There will be an encroachment of approximately 4 feet too close to the back property line, but there is no building nor possibility of a building on that side of the property and this variance should not cause any problems. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Construction of a police lodge STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Revise parking plan. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a new lodge for the Fraternal Order of Police on the eastern end of East 2nd. In addition to the various variance requests, a rezoning to "C-3" has been filed to permit the use. There are two issues involved with this application, and they are permitting a reduction in the number of parking spaces and allowing setback intrusions for the front and rear yards. Ordinance No. 14,534 also establishes a 25-foot setback from the floodway of the Arkansas River in this situation. Both yard encroachments are onlv four feet and the structural involvement will be very minimal. In the rear, only the very nortwest corner of the building will be located in the 25-foot area, and the front yard setback involves a 4-foot canopy. The staff feels that the setback variances will not cause any problems and supports them. The primary issue involved with this property is the parking variance. The proposed lodge will have 7,200 square feet, and the Zoning Ordinance requirement for parking is one space per 100 square feet or 72 spaces for this particular building. The Fraternal Order of Police is proposing 43 spaces or a reduction of 29 from the ordinance standards. The FOP November 18, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued has indicated that because of the design of the structure, it will not be all in use at one time and the 43 spaces will adequately meet their needs. A significant portion of the building will be utilized for a basketball court and that is all it will be used for. In addition to the off street spaces, there is some on street parking available, because there is no other development in the immediate area. Under the circumstances, staff feels that proper justification exists for granting the parking variance and supports the request. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of both the parking and setback variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was not present. A motion was made to defer the item to the December 16, 1985, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. November 18, 1985 Item No. 4 - Z-4389-A Owner: Theresa S. Lee Address: 10900 Block of Shackleford Court Description: Lot 7, Hooper-Bond Addition Phase II Zoned: "C -3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the height provisions of Section 7-103.3.C. Justification: To conform to the height requirements would not yield the desired visual character. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Lodging STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to grant a height variance for a motel type project northwest of the intersection of West Markham and Shackleford Road. In the "C-3" district, the Zoning Ordinance permits a height of 35 feet. The variance is to permit a height of 36.6 feet or slightly less than two feet over the maximum. The applicant has stated that to meet the height requirement, a redesign of the roof would be required and that would change the desired visual character of the project. That does not necessarily suggest a true hardship, but it is proper justification for the variance. Because of the project's location and the amount of height variance, staff supports the request. (The Planning Commission will have to approve a site plan for the project because of the multiple buildings.) C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the height variance as filed. November 18, 1985 Item No. 4 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner was represented by Robert Brown. There were no objectors in attendance. A motion was made to approve the heights variance as filed. The vote 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. November 18, 1985 Item No. 5 - Z -4568 Owner: U.S. Government /Navigable Waterway (Arkansas River) Address: Murray Lock and Dam north end Description: NE 1/4, Section 23, and NW 1/4, Section 24, T-2-N, R-13-W Zoned: No zoning Variance Requested: From the floodplain regulations/ provisions of paragraph A, paragraph 4, Section B, Article V of Little Rock Ordinance No. 14,534. Justification: The erection of a cofferdam in connection with the construction of the North Little Rock hydroelectric project. There is no other alternative and approval by the City of Little Rock is a Corps of Engineer requirement. Present Use of Property: Arkansas River Proposed Use of Property: Modified to accommodate hydroelectric generating plant STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Review is a Corps of Engineers' requirement. B. Staff Analysis This issue is before the Board of Adjustment because the Corps of Engineers requiring the City of North Little Rock to obtain a floodplain variance for the construction of the hydroelectric plant in the floodway of the Arkansas River. To construct the plant, a cofferdam will be required to permit excavation of the plant site. This construction will increase the flood elevation approximately 0.5 feet upstream during a 2 -year period that the cofferdam is in place. (Please see attached letter from Ronnie Hall of Garver and Garver for specifics about the project.) The Planning November 18, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued staff supports the variance for the project and hopes that the permit structures will not add to the flooding potential upstream in the future. On October 29, 1985, the Pulaski County Planning Commission approved a waiver for the cofferdam. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the necessary approval by the City of Little Rock be granted. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Ronnie Hall, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Hall addressed the Board briefly about the issue. A motion was made to approve the necessary floodplain variance. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. Garver+ Garver Garver & Garver Incorporated Engineers and Planners P.O. Box C-50 Eleventh and Battery Streets Little Rock. Arkansas 72203-0050 501-376-3633 October 17, 1985 Mr. Tony Bozynski Office of Comprehensive Planning City Hall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Murray Lock and Dam Hydro Electric Project North Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Tony: In accordance with the Corps of Engineers permit requirements, we are re- questing, on behalf of the City of North Little Rock, that the Board of Adjustment grant a variance from the floodplain ordinance to allow the construction of a cofferdam and other facilities in the floodway of the Arkansas River. The proposed construction requires that a cofferdam be constructed upstream of Murray Lock and Dam to allow the necessary excavation of the hydro- electric generating site. The cofferdam will cause an increase in the 100 year frequency flood elevation of approximately 0.5 feet upstream of the construction site during the estimated, two year period that the cofferdam is needed. The completed structure will not extend above the top of the existing dike connecting the dam with the high bank of the river and thus will not signi- ficantly increase the 100 year flood elevation for the permanent facilities. The estimated 0.5 foot increase in 100 year flood elevation for the two year construction period is less than a one foot allowable increase, due to filling of the floodplain fringe (the portion of floodplain outside the floodway). Since the floodplain fringe in this area and immediately upstream of this area have not been filled extensively or any large fill project anticipated, the one foot allowable increase has not been utilized. Thus, the 0.5 foot increase caused by this project should not be considered a significant risk. Mr. Tony Bozynski Office of Comprehensive Planning October 17, 1985 Page two The cofferdam would be removed from the flooway at the earliest possible date. I have enclosed a check in the amount of $52.00 for your review fee, along with three prints showing the construction site for this project. Please call if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely yours, GARVER +CARVER, INC. Ronnie Hall, P.E. RH:mf /M1 -t2 Encls. a/s (85-1510-000) November 18, 1985 Item No. 6 - Z-4575 Owner: David R. Martinsen Address: 1002 South Commerce Street Description: Part of Lots 10 and 11, Block 58 Original City of Little Rock Zoned: "HR" High Density Residential Variance Requested: From the height and area provisions of Section 43/7A-104 to permit a 1.3 foot side yard (required is 5 feet) and a 0.9-foot rear yard (required is 25 feet) Justification: Replacement of an unsafe and unstable building rendered so by removal of a companion structure on the lot to the south. Lot size imposes severe limitations. Present Use of Property: Single family residential Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The request was filed after construction was initiated and prior to obtaining the necessary building permit. The owner was instructed to cease construction and apply for the building permit. At that point, he was informed that a variance for the structure would be required. In the Central Little Rock Zoning Ordinance, an accessory structure must meet the same setback requirements as a principal structure which would be five feet for the side yard and 25 feet for the rear yard. The owner has stated that he and his neighbor to the south (1004 South Commerce) shared a garage/storage building that was situated on both lots. The structure was in very poor condition and the neighbor removed his half (BOA Case Z-4198), thus making the remaining portion unusable and unsafe. Replacing a substandard November 18, 1985 Item No. 6 - Continued structure and improving the situation is reasonable justification, and staff supports the request. The size and shape of the lot also creates a hardship because the two place restrictions on locating an accessory building. With the structure being located on the property line, staff cautions the owner to properly handle the runoff from the garage so that it does not create a drainage problem for the lot to the south. Finally, because of the new construction, the owner will have to have Historic District review and staff recommends that contact be made with the Planning Office as soon as possible. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner, David Martinsen, was represented by James Larrison. There were three persons in attendance who expressed an interest in the issue. Mr. Larrison spoke and discussed the requested variance. Bob Lowry, representing Ralph Coppess, then addressed the Board. He said Mr. Coppess was objecting to the variance for a number of reasons. Mr. Lowry gave a history of the previous variance that Mr. Coppess had applied for on his lot directly to the south, which Mr. Martinsen had opposed. Mr. Lowry said that all the property owners of the condominium project at East 10th and Commerce Streets had not been notified. Richard C. Butler, Jr., spoke to the notification issue. He said that he was an adjacent property owner, but his name was not on the abstract list. There was a long discussion about the abstract list and notification of the property owners. Mr. Butler said that he had no objection to the proposed structure, but was concerned that proper notice had not been given. At this point, staff reviewed the abstract list and said all the property owners had been notified based on the information provided. Ralph Coppess then spoke briefly about the variance. Mr. Larrison discussed the notification issue. Additional comments were made by Mr. Lowry and Mr. Coppess. A motion was made to grant the variance subject to Historic District Commission review and that the new garage not create any runoff /drainage problems for the lot directly to the south. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. November 18, 1985 Item No. 7 - Z-4567-A Owner: Central Baptist Church By: Lee Clements Address: Between West 10th and West 12th Streets West of Fillmore Street Description: Long Legal Zoned: "R-2" Single Family (being considered for conditional use permit by Planning Commission) Variance Requested: From the floodplain provisions of paragraph a, paragraph 4, Section B, Article 5 of the Little Rock Ordinance No. 14,534 to permit construction of additional drives and parking in the floodway Justification: Preexisting conditions plus no alternative parking nearby Present Use of Property: Church and parking Proposed Use of Property: Remain same with expanded parking to accommodate a larger church facility STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues (See comments in the staff analysis.) B. Staff Analysis The church is proposing to construct a 22,000 square foot addition to provide 81 additional parking spaces. The new parking areas and driveways are to be constructed in the floodway of Coleman Creek thus creating the need for a variance. In addition to the Board of Adjustment issue, the church has also applied for a conditional use permit. In reviewing the conditional use permit, engineering provided the following comments: November 18, 1985 Item No. 7 - Continued 1. No increase in the existing ground surface within the floodway and no fill to accommodate parking. 2. That the church is made aware that the proposed parking spaces are at an elevation of approximately 322 to 323 feet MSL. The 100-year flood elevation in this area is approximately 328 to 329 feet MSL. The church has stated that they have no other options to provide the necessary parking and that some of the floodway is currently being used for a driveway and parking. With the new construction, additional parking will be needed, so staff feels that adequate justification for the variance has been provided. Coleman Creek has experienced flooding, especially downstream from this location, but the City is proposing an $800,000 project to solve some of those problems. C. Staff Recommendation As recommended by the Engineering staff. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Lee Clements, was present. There were two interested residents in attendance. Mr. Clements addressed the Board briefly about the request. Mrs. John Davidson, a resident south of West 12th Street discussed Coleman Creek and all the flooding problems. She was concerned that the proposal would add more water to the creek and increase the existing problems. There was a long discussion about the floodway and floodplain. Mr. John Davidson also discussed flooding along Coleman Creek. A motion was made to approve the requested variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. November 18, 1985 Item No. 8 - Z -4580 - Interpretation Issue Owner: Roy Burks' Family Address: 126 White Oak Lane Description: Lots 28 and 29, Wilton Heights Addn. Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Request: Interpretation requested relative to determination of structural status. That is, is the structure in question a permanent building or a trailer of mix thereof? Justification: The owner uses the structure for certain off -site retail sales operations. At this time, he does not have an axle and cannot qualify as a trailer for licensing. However, a permanent foundation is inappropriate. Present Use of Property: The structure serves as a playhouse for the owners children on a vacant lot next door to the lot to the homesite. Proposed Use of Property: Remain the same STAFF REPORT: This issue is before the Board of Adjustment because the Zoning Ordinance does not address temporary buildings of this nature. The question being can the owner have a portable building for both a commercial and residential use. Also, there is a neighbor who has complained about the appearance of the unit. The existing building is situated on a lot next to 126 White Oak Lane and both lots are owned by Mr. Roy Burks and his family. The structure currently serves two functions and that is why it is not permanent. First, Mr. Burks uses it for his business, screen printing, by transporting it to different functions such as the State Fair. Secondly, when the unit is located on the lot, it serves as a playhouse form Mr. Burks' children and is placed on cement blocks. Currently, Mr. Burks transports the building on a flatbed trailer, but in the future he plans tc put an axle under it. (See attached letter for additional details.) November 18, 1985 Item No. 8 - Continued Staff feels that the unit is really no different from a utility or small recreational trailer and creates no adverse problems. The owner has placed the building as far as possible from the street, but it is still very visible because of material that was used to fabricate the unit. Because of this, staff suggests that a fence be placed around two sides, the west and south. This would still make the structure readily accessible, and at the same time, screen it from White Oak Lane. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner was not present. A motion was made to defer the item to the December 16, 1985, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. Little Rock Board of Adjustment Little Rock City Hall Little Rock, AR 72201 B.L. Murphree Chairman Sir: We are requesting from you an opinion on a trailer we have. We had the trailer built in September of this year. It is eight feet wide, twelve feet long, and approximately seven feet high. It has a steel undercarriage and an aluminium skin. I had it built with the intent of putting an axle under it. I still plan to do so in the future. At this time, when I need to transport it, I pull it up on a flat-bed trailer and haul it to the intended site I am in the screen printing business. Every year for the last eleven years I have sold shirts at the Arkansas State Fair. We used the trailer this year at the Fair and plan to use it for years to come, at the State Fair, and possibly some smaller area fairs. When being used for this purpose, we put running lights on the outside and a sign on the top. I install metal drawer units to hold merchandise and heat presses set on top of these. We set the trailer on blocks and put an eight by seven foot stage in front of it. One side of the trailer opens to provide a roof over the stage area. This makes the total area fifteen feet deep. This side closes and latches for moving. The entire set-up takes about two hours. When this trailer is not in use, I have it on a lot next to my home. The terrain in our neighborhood is very hilly and our back yard is a very steep grade down to a creek. Our children can not play in the back yard so we purchased the ajoining lot as a play yard . I have placed the trailer as far off the street as possible, on this lot. It sets on eight inch blocks. Everything has been moved out of the inside, and outside lights and signs have also been removed. This has been done so that my children can use it as a playhouse. There is a two by six foot door in the end of the trailer that the children use to go in and out. The stage has been used inside to make different levels in the floor for the children to set things on. The side door can be locked and it appears as just any other box trailer, except that it makes a super playhouse for my ten and two year old daughters. We hope you will decide that this trailer Talld into the temporary classifica- tion and can occupy this space. We want to thank you for your time and consideration. The Roy Burks Family, enc: photos plot plans November 18, 1985 Item No. 9 - Z-3903-B (Reconsideration Issue) Owner: CYH Development Company By: Boyce Hawk Address: 3625 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lots 1 and 2, Block 51, Pulaski Heights Addition Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Request: That the Board allow a refiling of the application in this matter for purposes of hearing a report on change circumstances, and in the event that a rehearing is granted approval of a modified use, parking and access plan is being requested. Present Use of Property: Retail sales center Proposed Use of Property: Remain the same with a change in use mix STAFF REPORT: The owners of 3625 Kavanaugh Blvd. are requesting a reconsideration of a previously filed variance based on Article V, Section 4 of the Bylaws which states: "no additional application to the Board of Adjustment shall be allowed unless there shall have been a substantial change in circumstances effecting such properties since the prior decision on the same property." Boyce Hawk, one of the owners, has indicated that circumstances have changed because the status of two uses in the center. If the rehearing is granted, a variance from the parking provisions is being requested. This is the third time that this issue is before the Board of Adjustment. In October 1982, the Board granted variances for exterior yard encroachments and reduction in the number of parking spaces. With that approval, the center was restricted to using only the upper floor for commercial uses and the lower level for storage only. Because of an enforcement issue, utilizing some of the lower level for other uses, another variance request was filed in August 1985 to permit expansion of a previously approved November 18, 1985 Item No. 9 - Continued variance. This request was made to allow more use of the lower level and recognize an existing use on the lower floor. Staff recommended denial of the variance primarily because of the parking situation and the impact on the residences that are on the Harrison Street side of the center. The Board of Adjustment basically denied the request, but provided for an existing exercise studio on the lower level as it currently operates and remain as is until the studio vacates the space. The Board also said by their action that the balance of the basement area was to remain as previously approved for storage or ancillary activity to the uses on the upper level. The first issue the Board must address is granting the rehearing. If that is agreed to, then a public hearing will be held on the parking variance and staff will provide additional information at the meeting. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The first issue that was discussed was the rehearing or reconsideration request. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to grant the rehearing for a parking variance and a change in the use mix. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. The Board of Adjustment then proceeded with the hearing for the parking variance. Boyce Hawk, one of the owners of the project, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Hawk then spoke at length about the issue. He said that a substantial change will occur because the exercise studio will be leaving the center on December 20, 1985. He went on to say that the studio was a primary cause of the parking problem and the situation along Harrison Street. Mr. Hawk then described all the previous actions that had taken place on the property. There was a long discussion about the building itself and the mix of uses. Mr. Hawk said that some of the upper uses needed to be able to utilize floor space on the lower level. He went on to say that no project in the Heights/Hillcrest area can provide the necessary parking. He also said that other uses in the immediate area were using the centers parking lot and again pointed out that the exercise studio had created the problem. Mr. Hawk then presented his request which asked that the tenants on the upper level be allowed to use the lower level for retail and the remaining area be used for storage only (see Exhibit E in the file). This would add approximately 2155 square feet of additional floor area and there would be no new tenants. There was a long discussion about parking and the mix of uses. Kenny Scott of the Zoning Office then addressed the Board about possible enforcement problems. November 18, 1985 Item No. 9 - Continued Mr. Hawk made some additonal comments about the various issues. Two tenants of the center, Tina Cosgrove and Dana Bennett, said that adding the additional space will not create any new problems and placing severe restrictions on the lower level would hurt the tenants. Kenny Scott spoke again and requested some clarification of the various issues. A motion was then presented to the Board which stated that the request be granted to permit the parking variance as shown in Exhibit E of the staff's report. Also included, is a single restaurant on the upper level with no expansion to the lower level and the space total no more than 1400 square feet with the primary use being at night or evening. The owner is to display signs showing the location of additional parking spaces in the rear in order to accommodate any overflow parking from the upper level with directions as to ingress and egress into the area. Finally, the owner is to display partitions showing retail space as depicted in Exhibit E of the staff's report versus the small business/storage space for enforcement purposes. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. November 18, 1985 Item No. 10 -Adoption of the 1986 Board of Adjustment Calendar BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: A motion was made to approve the 1986 calendar as presented. The vote 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. November 18, 1985 Item No. 11 -Other Ma tters A Resoultion from the City Board of Directors was presented to the Board of Adjustment (see attached Resolution). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ·18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 RESOLUTION NO. 7,499 ENCOURAGING ALL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK TO USE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR LEGAL SERVICES. WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock employs a legal staff to provide legal advice and services for various boards, commissions and city departments; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article III, § 2-28 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances, the City Attorney is required to advise all committees, officers and officials of the City on any and all legal questions affecting the City's interest; and WHEREAS, during the years 1983 and 1984, over $430,000 was paid by various City boards and commissions for outside legal services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKA NSAS: SECTION 1. The Board of Directors wishes to express its intent and desire to reduce the expenditure of taxpayers dollars on outside legal fees, by encouraging and requesting that all City boards and commissions use the services of the City's legal department whenever possible and practicable. v"°SECTION 2. The Board of Directors requests each city Board and Commission to read this resolution at its next regularly scheduled meeting and have said reading reflected in their minutes. ADOPTED: November 5, 1985 ATTEST: APPROVED: Q .u g � MAYOR THOMAS A. PRINCE APPROVED AS TO FORM: MARK STODOLA, CITY ATTORNEY November 18, 1985 There being no further business before the Board of Adjustment, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Chairman Secretary Date