Loading...
boa_03 17 1986LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD MARCH 17, 1986 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 7 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting (The minutes were not mailed.) III. Members Present: Joe Norcross (Acting Chairman) Ronald Woods George Wells Herbert Rideout Thomas McGowan Richard Yada John McDaniel Members Absent: None (2 Open Positions) City Attorney: Dub Elrod March 17, 1986 Item No. 1 - Z-3508-B Owner: Robert M. Goff and Associates Address: Shackleford Road (Holiday Inn West) Description: Lot 2, Robert M. Goff Subdivision Zoned: "PCD" Planned Commercial Development Variance Requested: From the satellite dish provisions of Section 5-101 /F.2.d to permit a satellite dish between the right-of-way and principal structure Justification: Present Use of Property: Hotel (under construction) Proposed Use of Property: Hotel STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No comments have been received. B. Staff Analvsis The issue before the Board is to permit a satellite receiving dish between a public right-of-way, I-430 in this situation, and the primary structure. The Zoning Ordinance states that "satellite receiving dishes in all office and commercial districts whether portable or permanently sited shall not be located on any lot between the principal structure and a street right-of -way line unless such location is approved by the Board of Adjustment." The property is the site of the new Holiday Inn located between I-430 and Shackleford and it is zoned "PCD." Based on a site visit, it appears that the proposed location is the most reasonable and staff supports the request. The placement of satellite dishes is somewhat restricted because of having to direct them primarily to the southwest so with this site, the building does create some problems. Any location on the east or west sides of the hotel would require a variance because of the right-of-way provision. With the south side being the March 17, 1986 Item No. 1 - Continued main entrance, it would be undesirable to place the dish there and to the north the satellite structure would have to be very tall because of the height of the hotel. Any location on this site would be visible so being adjacent to an interstate is the least objectionable. The dish is to be 16.5 feet high with a fence around it and staff would like to know the height of the fence. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Joe White, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. White addressed the Board briefly and said the fence would be as high as possible without obstructing the ditch. A motion was made to grant the variance with the condition that the fence be as high as possible. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. March 17, 1986 Item No. 2 - Z-4620 Owner: Emmett Head Address: 3804 Weldon Description: Lot 2, Block 1 West Heights Place Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the rear yard coverage provisions of Section 5-101 /F.2.c to permit an accessory building with yard coverage greater than 30 percent Justification: (A cover letter has not been provided as of this writing) Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to permit an accessory building with rear yard coverage in excess of 30 percent of the required rear yard. Because of the size of the structure, approximately 1,557 square feet, there is the issue of overbuilding the lot and staff is concerned with that. Another issue that must be addressed by the owner is the height of the structure. The survey indicates a one story building, but a visit to the site revealed what appears to be a two story structure under construction. If this is the case, then the potential for residential use of some of the floor area becomes a possibility. In addition to these concerns, the owner has not provided a cover letter explaining any justification or hardship for the variance. Without this information and the question about the size, staff cannot reasonably respond to the request. March 17, 1986 Itep No. 2 - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Until a cover letter is provided and the issues identified in the analysis are addressed, staff is not prepared to make a recommendation at this time. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Emmitt Head, was present. There was one objector in attendance. Staff stated that a cover letter had been submitted with a description of the proposal and the justifications for the variance. Based on that information, staff indicated that they could not support the variance because adequate justification had not been provided. Mr. Head then discussed the variance request. He said that the second story was initially constructed for apartments, but now will be used for storage. He also said that the building was framed as two stories with the highest point being 23 feet. There was a long discussion about the size and what the building would be used for. Mr. Head indicated that the primary use would be storage for construction equipment and also some cabinet work. Staff pointed out that the storage of construction equipment was not permitted in the "R-2" district and raised a zoning question. Willene Lensing then spoke in opposition to the building and variance. She said that it would devalue her property, obstruct views and disrupt any privacy that she currently had. There were several other comments about the various issues. A motion was made to deny the variance. The motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. The variance was denied. March 17, 1986 Item No. 3 - Z-4622 Owner: St. Michael's Episcopal Church Address: 2313 and 2317 Durwood Road Description: Lot 3, Queen Manor Addition Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the front yard provisions of Section 7-103.3/D.1 to permit an addition with a 15-foot setback Justification: The extension is for a vestibule so that the double front doors will not open directly into the sanctuary which during cold weather could be extremely uncomfortable as well as energy wasteful. There is a current overhang of at least five feet and the extension would be on an existing entrance walkway. Present Use of Property: Commercial Building Proposed Use of Property: Church STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to allow a 10-foot encroachment into the required front yard which is 25 feet in the "C-3" district. The proposal is to convert an existing commercial structure into a church and the proposed 10 x 20 addition is to be a vestibule. The church is currently located on the east side of Durwood, almost directly across the street, so the use is not new to the location. Currently there is a 10-foot walk in the 25-foot yard area and the plan's addition will not extend beyond the existing intrusion. Because of the area, staff feels that the setback encroachment will not have an impact and supports the request. The March 17, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued church has provided adequate justification and with the existing building's placement on the lot, the proposed modification appears to be the most reasonable. Staff recognizes that parking is a problem in the area and ask that the church make every effort to address this situation. Because of general traffic circulation in the neighborhood, staff recommends that the paved area in the front yard not be utilized for parking. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance with the condition that the curb along Durwood be extended in the front of this lot to prohibit parking. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: There was no representative of the church present. There were two objectors in attendance and the Board of Adjustment allowed those persons to speak. Joe Scerbo said that there was a serious parking problem and he was opposed to the church being in the neighborhood. He went on to say that by approving the variance, the problem would only get worse. Bob Grable reinforced what Mr. Scerbo said about the parking problem and indicated that Durwood Road was almost blocked at times because of parking on both sides. William Cheney, Pastor of St. Paul's Methodist Church, addressed the Board. He said that his church did not have adequate parking and discussed the two lots that were being used for parking. Mr. Cheney said he was not opposed to the variance, but was concerned about the parking situation. A motion was then made to deny the variance. The motion was approved by a vote of: 5 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. The setback variance was denied. March 17, 1986 Item No. 4 - Z-4626 Owner: Jack and Nancy C. Stephens Address: 1904 Shadow Lane Description: Lot 112 and the N 1/2 of Lot 111 Shadow Lawn Subdivision Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the side yard provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit a carport with a zero-foot setback Justification: 1. The awning structure has been in place for 3 1/2 years. 2. To provide protection from inclement weather and trees. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis This variance request is before the Board of Adjustment as a result of two actions by the City involving a carport structure, an awning, constructed to the north property line. The owner was notified by the City's Enforcement Office that the awning was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and was given several options including applying for a setback variance. This enforcement action was taken after a complaint was made by the adjacent property owner to the north. Because the awning has been in place for approximately 3 1/2 years, the Stephens requested that the issue be taken to the Board of Adjustment as an interpretive matter. On February 28, 1986, the Board of Adjustment determined that the awning meets the Zoning Ordinance definition of a structure and should meet the necessary March 17, 1986 Item No. 4 - Continued setback requirements. The structure is basically a metal frame with a canvas cover over it and functions as a carport. The awning is constructed to the north property line, but there is adequate separation between it and the residence to the north with an attractive landscaped area between the two. Because of this and the openness of the awning, staff supports the variance. It appears that this type of carport arrangement attached to the side of the house is typical of the neighborhood. Also, the awning location is the only reasonable one because of the way the residence is situated on the lot and the existing driveway. Staff is concerned that runoff from the awning could be a problem and, if so, should be addressed. One final item is the length of the awning and the reasons for it requiring to be 50 feet long. The 50-foot dimension is based on the information provided on the survey. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the setback variance subject to resolution of the runoff problem if one does exist. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner, Jack Stephens, was present. There were 5 to 6 objectors also in attendance. Mr. Stephens addressed the Board and said that the awning had been in place for approximately 3 1/2 years and it provided protection from the weather and trees. Mr. Stephens pointed out that the contractor informed him that no variance was required. He also said that the neighbor to the north initially had no objections to the awning, but now they were asking that it be removed. Mr. Stephens said that the awning covered an area for two cars and the electric meter. Wade Bratton, 1914 Shadow Lane, spoke against the variance and said six other neighbors were present who also opposed the request. Mr. Bratton also presented a petition with ten signatures and some photos. He went on to discuss the objections to the awning and said that he assumed that it met all requirements. Mr. Bratton said that he measured the awning and it was 13' x 65' not the 10' x 50' size as indicated on the survey, and that there was no hardship involved. He said that runoff into his yard was a primary concern and creating a significant problem. There was a long discussion about several issues including whether the awning could be considered a temporary structure. Mr. Bratton continued to March 17, 1986 Item No. 4 - Continued speak to the issue and said that the awning was not an essential structure. He then addressed the staff report and said that the carport was not typical of the neighborhood. Mr. Bratton again asked that the variance be denied. Mr. Stephens then spoke. He said the contractor told him the awning was 50 feet and that carports were the norm for the area. He also said that he would be willing to move the awning back. Staff discussed the other side yard issues in the neighborhood and why this item was before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Stephens made several additional comments and responded to the hardship issue. Janet Sears said that the Stephens had bought the house without the awning and somebody else would buy it if the residence was put on the market. She also pointed out that the awning was not very attractive. Mr. Stephens said that he would be willing to gutter it, if possible. Mr. Bratton made several other comments and discussed the hardship issue again. A motion was made to deny the variance. The motion failed to receive a second. Another motion was presented to the Board. It stated that the variance be granted with the condition that the awning be reduced to 9.2 feet as shown on the survey or whatever the true dimension was between the residence and the north property line. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 noe, 0 absent and 2 open positions. March 17, 1986 Item No. 5 - Other Matters - Interpretation Issue: A request from Planning staff for review and interpretation of Section 5-101, paragraph D.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which deals with nonconforming structures and their expansion. The issue at hand is a property occupied by a single mobile home. The owner has contracted with a builder to construct a shed roof type of structure which will provide the mobile home with an all weather cover of wood frame with composition shingles. The supporting structure will be one of poles set in concrete against the side of the mobile home. This type of cover provides not only a damping action for the rumble noises of mobile home roofs, but will avoid the continuous roof maintenance required. The Zoning Ordinance provision at issue reads as follows: D.1 ENLARGEMENT, REPAIR OR ALTERATIONS "Any nonconforming structure may be enlarged, maintained, repaired or altered provided, however, that no enlargement, maintenance, repair or alteration shall either create an additional nonconformity or increase the degree of the existing nonconformity of all or any part of such structure." The basic issue to be determined is whether this added roof element is in fact an expansion of the nonconforming structure. The structure in this instance is only nonconforming with respect to structural composition and not bulk and area requirements. The definition of structure within the Zoning Ordinance is synonymous with building and reads as follows: 73. Structure: Anything constructed or erected or installed by man the use of which requires more or less permanent location on the ground or attached to something or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground including but not limited to buildings, towers and smoke stacks." March 17, 1986 Item No. 5 - Continued The definition . of structural alteration within the Zoning Or finance rea S as follows: 72. Structural Alteration: Any external change in either the supporting members of a building such as bearing wall, column, beam or girder or in the dimension or configuration of the roof or other exterior wall. The definition which is a key to this issue is "mobile home" and as constructed within the ordinance, identifies a structural design and not a land use. The omission of this structural design from "R-2" Single Family District and the requirement for placement within the "R-7" district only is the source of nonconformity. The mobile home definition within the Zoning Ordinance reads as follows: 2. Mobile Home: A detached single family dwelling unit with all the following characteristics: (a) designed for full -time occupancy and containing sleeping accommodations, flush toilet, tub or shower bath and kitchen facilities with plumbing and electrical connections provided for attachment to outside systems; (b) designed to be transported after fabrication on its own wheels or on flatbed or other trailers of detachable wheels; or by other means; (c) arriving at the site where it is to be occupied as a dwelling complete and ready for occupancy except for minor or incidental unpacking and assembly operations, location on and connection to foundation supports, connection to utilities and the like. Anchorage must comply with design load requirements of the Building Code of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. The Planning staff continues to review this matter and will provide supporting information and commentary at the meeting as required. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-28-86) Arle Barger was present and representing the owner of the property in question. Mr. Barger discussed the issue and said that an existing carport and porch were attached to the mobile home unit in a permanent fashion. Staff then reviewed the primary issues and addressed nonconforming uses and structures. There was a long discussion about nonconforming structures. Mr. Barger then described the March 17, 1986 Item No. 5 - Continued proposed structure, a roof placed on top of the mobile home, and staff indicated that the roof was the issue. After several additional comments, a motion was made that stated the addition of the roof should not be allowed under the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. Prior to a vote on the motion, Tom Carpenter of the City Attorney's Office addressed the Board. He said he was concerned with the proposed Board of Adjustment action and asked for a possible delay to allow the City Attorney's Office to research the issue. There was a long discussion, and no vote was taken on the initial motion. A second motion was made to defer the item to the March 17, 1986, meeting and that no construction take place until a final decision is made by the Board of Adjustment. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (3-17-86) Dub Elrod of the City Attorney's Office discussed the issue before the Board of Adjustment. He said if the proposal was not routine repair or maintenance, then the request could be denied. Mr. Elrod then reviewed Section 5-101.a of the Zoning Ordinance which addresses nonconformities and exceptions. Staff made several comments about mobile homes being nonconforming structures and uses, and because of that status, any type of addition creates a problem. Mr. Elrod said that an objective of the Zoning Ordinance was to phase out all nonconforming uses. Arle Barger then addressed the Board and said that a hardship did exist. There was a long discussion about several issues. A motion was made that stated the proposed roof structure was an,extension of the nonconforming structure which the Zoning Ordinance does not permit. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. (It was recommended to Mr. Barger that he see Roy Beard for some possible alternative means to provide a roof. March 17, 1986 There being no further business before the Board, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m. Chairman Secretary Date