Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_05 18 1953MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMEtIT The Board of Adjustment met in the Mayor's Conference Room, City Hall, Monday, May 182 1953, at 2:00 p.m., with the following members present: Asir. Bruce Andersom, chairman Mr. Warren Baldwin Mr. W. H. Marak Docket No. 23-53 - Mrs. Ida Owens, 808 East 9th Street, described as the east 35' of Lot 10, Block 12, Woodruff s Addition, zoned "C" Two -Family; requesting a waiver of side yard space as shown on the plot plan in order to construct a 4' x 8' washroom on property. Mrs. Owens explained that she plans to add a washroom on the side of her house which will be approximately 4' x 91. She did not have a plot plan showing the size of the room and just where it would be added on the house. Mrs. Owens stated that she also ownes the house next to the one in which she is now living. There are 12' between the two houses. This washroom will be constructed on the west side of the house numbered $08 East 9th Street. Mr. Baldwin pointed out that most of the lots on that block are less than 50' in width. There were no objections. Mrs. Owens explained that her purpose for building the washroom on the side df the house instead of the rear is the hot water and swage line are already established there and it would mean less expense on her part. Mr. Marak made a motion that the application be granted for a washroom to be constructed on the west side of the house provided it is not larger than 4' x 9' and does not extend out to the property line; seconded by Mr. Baldwin. The motion carried. Docket No. 24-53 - Harold W. Bragg, 4509 West 24th Street, described as Lot 3, Block 1, Kinworthy and Henderson Addition, zoned "B" Residence; requesting a waiver of side yard space as shown on the plot plan in order to add carport onto existing house. Mr. Bragg was present and stated that he plans to construct an open carport within 18" from the side property line. The garage which now exists on the rear of the lot is being used as a storage room and work shop. He plans to leave this structure on the lot. There were no objections. Mr. Bragg told the members that the adjoining house is built about 5 or 6 feet from the side property line. Mr. Marak asked if adding this carport within 18" of his property would effect the fire insurance of the two property owners. Mr. Bragg replied that he had not checked into that yet. Mr. Marak made a motion that the application be approved provided that the carport is an open one; seconded by Mr. Baldwin. The motion carried. (2) Docket No. 25-53 - Arkansas Paint and Roofing Co., 7500 Kingwood Road, described as Lot 2 of Lot "R", Kingwood Addition, zoned "A" One -Family; requesting a waiver of rear yard space as shown on the plot plan so as to con- struct a house. After some discussion on this application, Mr. Baldwin made a motion that it be approved; seconded by Mr. Baldwin. The motion carried. Docket No. 26-53 - N. P. Alessi, 2305 Blackwood Road, described as Lot 32, Queen Manor Addition, zoned "C" Two -Family; requesting a waiver of setback requirements for a carport (accessory building) as shown on the plot plan. Mr. Alessi was present and stated that he plans to construct a carport on his property. However, due to the lot, Mr. Alessi will be unable to attach the carport onto the house. It will be an open carport with the exception of a storage room on the back of it. Mr. Marak made a motion that the application be approved; seconded by Mr. Baldwin. The motion ccarried. Docket No. 27-53 - Magnolia Petrolium Co., 708 West 14th Street, described as Lot 7 & the south half of Lot 8, Block 221, Original City of Little Rock, zoned "F" Com- mercial; requesting a waiver of yard space as shown on the plot plan in order to remove service station and enlarge office. Mr. W. H. Coffman and Mr. Dodd were present to represent this application. Mr. Coffman showed a plot plan to the members and explained that the company proposes to tear down the existing service station. A district office also is located on the property. The company plans to extend this district office east within 141 of the property line. It will rim to the line on 14th Street. As the lot now exists, the struc- ture is within 61 of the property,- line and when this improvement is com- pleted, the building will be back 14' from the line. Mr. Coffman said that they do not plan to provide for off-street parking other than space for a few cars on the side of the building. There were no objections. Mr. Marak asked if perhaps a corner of the building could be rounded off in order to provide clearer vision as far as traffic is concerned. Mr. Dodd was of the opinion that actually there would not be as much of a hazard when the building is completed as now exists with cars being parked all over the service station which tend to cause a blind corner. Mr. Coffman pointed out that the houses in the block are not in line at all. The present building is on the property line. Mr. Dodd stated that there will be about 50 or 60 employees in the district office. Mr. Coffman explained that the office is expanding and will be hiring addi- tional employees and are planning to air condition the office. The com- pany will abide by the building code in their construction and plan to build a very nice office. Mr. Baldwin felt that if the company would not use the space on the side of the office for parking facilities then there would be ample vision on the corner as far as traffic is concerned. Mr. Coffman added that a stop sign is located on the corner of Gaines at 14th Street which would also aid the traffic situation there. He also stated that they would be willing to foreit the parking space on Gaines if the Board wished them to do so. Mr. Baldwin made a motion that the application be approved provided that the parking space be probi�ited on Gaines as shown on the plot plan; seconded by Mr. Marak. The motion carried. Docket No. 28-53 - Tom McDonnell, 3605 Lilac Cove, described as Lot 38, Riverside Addition, zoned "B" Residence; request- ing a waiver of front and side setback requirements for a carport and service room (accessory building) as shown on the plot plan. Mr. McDonnell was present and explained that he plans to con- struct an open carport with a storage room. There were no objections. Mr. Baldwin made a motion that the application be approved; seconded by Mr. Marak. The motion carried. Docket No. 29-53 - Mrs. W. B. Walker, 1110 East 13th Street, described as Lot 7, Block 16, Masonic Addition, zoned "C" Two -Family; requesting a waiver of yard space in order to construct a breezeway as shown on plot plan. Mrs. Walker told the members that she plans to construct a screened in preezway at the rear of the house. The breezway will be built about 5 or 7 feet from his side property line. There was only one objection. Mrs. Walker said that she had not had the lot surveyed which she brought at the rear of her property She does have the plot plan which came with the lot when she purchased it. Mr. Baldwin made a motion that the application be approved; seconded by Mr. Marak. The motion carried. Docket No. 30-53 - Mrs. L. S. Omohundro, 723 East 9th Street, described as Lots 1 & 2, Block 4, Masonic Addition, zoned "F" Commercial; requesting a waiver of rear yard space so as to permit addition to building. Mr. Baldwin made a motion that the application be approved; seconded by Mr. Marak. The motion carried. Docket No. 31-53 - Mr. Ben C. Ames. 2700 Scenic Drive, described as Lot "I", Block 3, East Palisades Addition, zoned "B" Residence; requesting a waiver of rear yard space in order to construct a house on the lot as shown on the plot plan. Mr. and Mrs. Ames were present and explained that since they do have such an irregular lot they need a waiver of rear yard space in order to construct their home. He stated that their lot is the hardest in that addition on which to build but that an architect said that a home can be built on it. Mr. Ames bought the lot because of its width. it (to) A sewage line runs at the back of his property. Mr. Marak made a motion that the application be approved; seconded by Mr. Baldwin. The motion carried. Mr Z. Bensk 's Case was then reviewed by the Board Mr. Parham and Mr. Bensky were present. Mr. Parham reminded the members of the Board that Mr. Bensky's application had come before them last month and the Board had denied the waiver. However, the archi- tect has drawn up a new set of plans which show the house located within 25' of the property line. He pointed out that this setback complies with the Bill of Assurance and wanted to know what objection the Board would have to these plans. Mr. Parham showed a plot plan of this new proposal. Mr. Baldwin reminded Mr. Parham that even though these plans comply with the Bill of Assurance, they must also comply with the Zon- ing Ordinance since the Zoning Ordinance si more restrictive than the Bill of Assurance. The Zoning Ordinance states that where lots comprising forty per cent or more of the frontage are developed with buildings hav- ing an average front yard with a variation in depth of not more than six feet, no building hereafter erected or structually altered shall project beyond the average front yard line so established, provided, further that in the "A" One -Family District this regulation shall nto be so interpreted as to require a front yard of more than seventy-five feet, and in the I'll" Residence District and the "C" Two-family District it shall n6t be so interpreted as to require a front yard of more than fifty feet. Mr. Parham was of the opinion that since the house will be setback 25' from the front and rear lot line and 8' from the side line then they would be able to secure a building pexmit. However, the city engineers office referred him to the mayor before issuing a per- mit for the structure. Mayor Remmel in turn referred him to the Board of Adjustment for wen reconsideration and to confirm approval, if given, on the plans. Mr. Mitchell asked if the property line referred to is in accordance to the plat which exists today or the orginal plat. Mr. Parham replied that it was made according to the original survey which exists today. Mr. Mitchell stated that it was the impression of the property owners that the original plat in the Bill of Assurance requires a setback of 40' from the building line. The wording of the Bill of Assurance suggests that a building must face the front building line and he felt this small lot should be in accordance with the other lots. Mr. Mitchell was of the opinion that if a building is put there, then it should comply to the building line of the addition. He went on to say that when a building line has been established by other houses in the block, then the house constructed after this established building line should conform to that line. This is a requirement of the zoning ordinance. He added that some of the homee are even setback 50' from the front building line in the addition. Mr. Bricker said that from the indication of the plat that a building was not intended to be built on the lot, since it is the only lot in the addition that a front building line is not shown on the plat. Mr. Parham said that he could answer the question of why the building line did not extend out on this let. He stated that if the building line were extended out on this lot then there just wouldn't be a lot there. It was brought out in the meeting at this time that the property had been sold because at one time, it got on the tax books. Mr. Phillips said that when he bought his lot he was told that S this property had been designated for public service. Mr. Owens brought out the fact that Mr. Bensky had purchased the property sign unseen. Mr. Bensky answered that he bought the pfo- perty from a reputable firm and it had the approval of his lawyer so he had complete trust in these people. The people in interest of this case were dismissed. Mr. Marak made a motion that the petition be denied since the zoning ordinance states on page 28, Section II, that where lots com- prising forty (40) per cent or more of the frontage are developed with buildings having an average front yard with a variation in depth of not more than six (6) feet, no building hereafter a xxxix erected or structually altered shall project beyond the average front yard line so established, provided, further that in the "A" One -Family District this regulation shall not be so interpreted as to require a front yard of more than seventy-five (75) feet, and in the "B" Residence District and the "C" Two -Family District it shall hot be so interpreted as to re- quire a front yard of more than fifty (50) feet; seconded by Mr. Baldwin. The motion carried. The meeting then adjourned. Board of Adjustment Little Rock, Arkansas