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