Loading...
boa_05 19 1986LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD MAY 19, 1986 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being eight in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Joe Norcross, Chairman George Wells John McDaniel Ronald Woods Richard Yada Jim Mitchell Ronald Pierce Herbert Rideout Members Absent: Thomas McGowan, Vice - Chairman City Attorney: None May 19, 1986 Item No. A - 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 May 19, 1986 Item No. A - 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: (3-17-86) 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. POST MEETING ACTION: The applicant contacted the Planning staff and members of the Board of Adjustment for purposes of obtaining permission to address the Board for reconsideration. A polling of the members reflected a 6 to 1 vote for placement on this agenda. Six votes were required by the bylaws for this consideration. It will be necessary for the applicant to establish through presentation of his arguments the basis for the rehearing. The applicant's appeal, if granted, will be set by the Board of Adjustment for earliest public hearing possible which will be May 19, 1986. May 19, 1986 Item No. A - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (4-21-86) The staff presented the request. The applicant was present and offered justification for a rehearing. After a brief discussion, the Board voted to rehear the matter at its regular scheduled meeting on May 19, 1986. The vote: 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (5-19-86) Mike Mitchell, representing Stc Michael's, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Mitchell spoke in support of the variance and discussed various issues including parking. He said that everybody was concerned with the parking and presented a petition in support of the variance provided that the parking was not reduced. Reverend Peggy Bosmyer addressed the Board and explained the addition in some detail. Bob Grable, owner of the retail establishment across the street, also spoke and said that parking was very critical in the area. There were additional comments about the expansion and the church's future plans. A motion was made to approve the variance as requested and leave the parking as is. The vote - 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. (Henk Koornstra, City Traffic Engineer, spoke after the vote and requested that the church contact him about a possible franchise because of the parking situation.) May 19, 1986 Item No. B - Z-3125-B Owner: Rick's, Inc. /DBA /White Water Tavern Address: West 7th Street and Thayer Street Request: To review determination of City staff that subject site contains a nonconforming use /structure that cannot be expanded. Statement of Petitioner's Attorney: 1. Please be advised that our firm's representative, Rick's Inc., DBA White Water Tavern, contests the staff determination in this matter. On March 24, 1986, I was contacted by Mr. Ken Scott, head of the Enforcement Division of the City of Little Rock, regarding an alleged expansion of the nonconforming use at our client's business located at West 7th and Thayer Streets. Mr. Scott informed me that a notice to have the alleged building addition removed would be issued unless we took immediate steps to initiate an appeal of said interpretation or seek a variance. 2. Please accept this as notice of my client's intention to appeal. The alleged building addition involves a roofed screened in porch located on the south side of the building. The screened in area houses a bar-b-que smoker and was required by the State Health Department. The porch is located on part of the preexiting slab of the building and no new slab or concrete was poured for erection of the porch. All that was done was to erect a roof and a screen around an area that already existed. There was no outward expansion of the building slab in any manner. Ordinance Provisions at Issue: "Article V, Section 5-101.c.1 (c) NONCONFORMING USES: 1. Expansions A nonconforming use shall not be extended, expanded, enlarged or increased in intensity to any structure or land area other than that occupied by such nonconforming use on the effective date of this ordinance or any amendment hereto which causes such use to become nonconforming." May 19, 1986 Item No. B - Continued "Article V, Section 5-101.d.1 ENLARGEMENT, REPAIR OR ALTERATIONS: Any nonconforming structure may be enlarged, maintained, repaired or altered provided, however, that no such enlargement, maintenance, repair or alteration shall either create an additional nonconformity or increase the degree of the existing nonconformity for all or any part of such structure." STAFF REPORT: The Planning staff will develop the City staff position relative to this subject prior to the public hearing inasmuch as it is an involved issue. We will be prepared to address this issue at the public hearing. However, there is one point at this time that we would like to place in the record. The fact that the State Health Department required this smoker to be located at this point is not a concern that we have viewed in the past which abridges or modifies any of our regulations. It is our understanding from past opinions of the City Attorney that certain health regulations of the State of Arkansas did preempt the Zoning Ordinance. However, that was in instances where the addition or the proposal was required to meet certain health standards of an existing activity. The smoker and /or facility in place here is an expansion of the use was not formerly in place and is part of the issue at hand. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (4-21-86) The Chairman offered deferral to those applicants who felt that the attendance problem impacted their request. Inasmuch as there were only six members present and five votes are required for action on any matter, this applicant chose deferral to May 19, 1986. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (5-19-86) Larry Garrison of the Whitewater Tavern was present and discussed the request. He said that an old porch was removed and a new one was added that was screened in. Mr. Garrison then presented some photos and reviewed the issue at length. He pointed out that the new porch had utilized the existing slab which had been primarily used for a wash area. There had been no smoker there. Kenny Scott, Chief of Signs and Zoning, said that expansion of a nonconforming use had occurred because the smoker was new. May 19, 1986 Item No. B - Continued He pointed out that the State Health Department required the addition because the smoker was added. Mr. Scott went on to say that his office did receive a complaint about the addition <:and an investigation was initiated after that. Mr. Garrison spoke again and made some additional comments about the previous actions before the City and that the smoker had been in place for about three months. He also said that the removal of the smoker would cause some problems. There was a long discussion, and Mr. Scott spoke again about the parking and several issues. A motion was then offered which stated that--'the addition was an expansion of a nonconforming use which is prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 19, 1986 Item No. 1 - Z-4657 Owner: T.W.P., Inc. By. M.L. Gordon Address: 11612 Huron Lane Description: Lot 43R, Charles Valley Subdivision Zoned: "C -3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the off- street parking provisions of Chapter 43/8- 101 /2.F.1 of the Code of Ordinances to permit less than required number of spaces. (Ordinance - 21 spaces /request - 11 spaces) Justification: The experience of the identical children's center next -door to the east. Also, the children will not arrive at the same time and the employees' schedules are staggered. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Children's Day-Care Center STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues The applicant must show where the 10 additional required spaces would be if the proposed day-care use is suspended and another commercial use takes its place. Engineering suggests that the building be moved back so that at least partial numbers of parking spaces are provided in front of the building. Please contact the Traffic Engineer for approval of the internal parking plan. B. Staff Analysis The variance is to permit a decrease in the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance. For a day -care center, the parking requirements are one space per employee and one space per 100 children. The proposal for this facility is to have 11 employees and be licensed for 100 children which requires a total of 21 spaces. The request is to provide only 11 spaces May 19, 1986 Item No. 1 - Continued or a reduction of approximately 50 percent, which is a substantial variance. There is an existing day-care center directly to the east, and it is the staff's understanding that the proposed facility and the one currently in use will be operated by the same owners, T.W.P., Inc. As part of the justification for the variance, the applicant has used the experience of the existing center which has a similar parking arrangement. Staff is of the opinion that better justification is needed to support the variance and that a hardship is being created by the proposed building size. After reviewing the request, staff feels that additional information is needed before a recommendation can be formulated. Staff has requested the applicant to provide answers to several questions, including the need for two clay -care centers side by side, and if they are to be in operation at the same time, could a redesign of the parking area be accomplished? This could possibly provide additional parking and also address a potential problem of having the two exits adjacent to each other. The exit for the existing facility is on the west side of the lot, and the exit drive for the proposed center is on the east side of the site in question. This type of arrangement could disrupt traffic flow both on and off-site. C. Staff Recommendation No recommendation at this time. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, M.L. Gordon, and Bob Thompson, the owner, were both present. There were no objectors. Staff recommended approval of the variance subject to the Traffic Engineer's review of parking and access. Mr. Thompson spoke and said that there were no problems with the existing day -care to the east which will be duplicated on the site in question for the most part. He also said that the dropoff and pickup times would be spread out over two or three hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. Henk Koornstra, City Traffic Engineer, then addressed the Board. He indicated that the number of curb cuts should be reduced with a minimum of 40 feet between cuts. Mr. Koornstra asked that the City be able to review circulation and access for both lots. There was a long discussion about various issues. A motion was made to approve the parking variance for the day -care center only and any other use would have to come back to the Board of Adjustment for review. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 19, 1986 Item No. 2 - Z-4659 Owner: James B. Speed III Address: 5315 Stonewall Description: Lot 4, Block 24, Newton's Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the front yard setback provisions of Chapter +43/7- 101.2.D.1 of the Code of Ordinances to permit an addition of an entry porch with a 17'7" setback. Justification: 1. Space within the home is currently inadequate. 2. Additions onto side, rear or upward are constrained by proximity of other structures or previous expansions. 3. The current house has an open porch which it is hoped will be incorporated into the interior of the house and a new porch erected in its place. 4. An existing house in the block already has a porch closer to the street. Present Use of Property: Residence Proposed Use of Property: Remain the Same STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit a front yard setback of approximately 17.5 feet for a new porch addition. May 19, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued The "R-2" district requires a front yard of 25 feet so the proposed construction will have encroachment of 8 feet +. The existing porch has a 22-foot setback which does not meet ordinance requirements. This situation was probably created under the old ordinance which permitted carports and porches to have 15-foot setbacks. Stonewall has an 80 -foot right-of-way which is normally associated with a minor arterial and not a residential street such as Stonewall. The right-of-way standard for a residential street is 50 feet with 25 feet on each side of the centerline and not 40 feet as is the situation with this property. With a conventional right-of-way for a residential street, there would be no variance issue for the porch as proposed. Because of the excessive right-of-way, the setback from the street itself will be 45 feet. The staff feels that the street does create a unique circumstance for the lot and supports the request. The owner has provided adequate justification for the variance, and the front yard intrusion will not impact the adjacent residences for the remainder of the block. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to grant the variance as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 19, 1986 Item No. 3 - Z-2397-A Owner: Densil McCorkle Address: 4318 West Markham Description: Lot 8, Blankenship Resubdivision of Block 8, Glendale Addition Zoned: "O-3" General Office Variance Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of Chapter 43/7-102.3/D.2 of the Code of Ordinances to permit an addition with a setback of 5 feet and 5.7 feet. Justification: 1. Construction of the existing building was accomplished under the former ordinance with permitted 5-foot side yard. 2. The buildings on each side are longer than this building and even after this expansion. 3. Off-set in rear wall corners would affect appearance. Present Use of Property: Beauty Shop and Wedding Consultant Proposed Use of Property: Remain the same with additional storage space. STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The issue before the Board of Adjustment is to permit a 14' x 36' addition with the reduced side yard setbacks of 5' and 5.7" on the west and east sides. The "O-3" district requires side yards of 10 feet. The existing building has similar setbacks as the one being proposed, but under the old Zoning Ordinance, 5 feet was the requirement for the office district. The May 19, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued proposed addition with the requested setbacks does not seem to be a problem because of maintaining the existing building lines. The issue that the staff would like to raise is the exact use of the proposed addition. The reason for this concern is the existing uses within the building and the possible expansion of a nonconforming use. The present use of the site includes a beauty shop, a florist, a wedding consultant and possibly some other retail activity. The property is zoned "O-3" which allows the necessary office space for the consulting business and the beauty shop as a conditional use but no retail. There is an accessory use provision in "O-3" which allows a florist, but that has a 10 percent limit on the total floor area being used. Should the proposed addition be used as storage for the retail activity, that appears to be an expansion of a nonconforming use which is not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The following provisions from the Ordinance, Section 5-101 /C and D address nonconforming uses and structures. Expansions A nonconforming use shall not be extended, expanded, enlarged or increased in intensity to any structure or land area other than that occupied by such nonconforming use on the effective date of this ordinance or any other amendment hereto which causes such uses to become nonconforming. Enlargement, Repair or Alterations Any nonconforming structure may be enlarged, maintained, repaired or altered provided, however, that no such 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 Zoning Ordinance also states that "the Board of Adjustment will not allow as part of this process any use and any zone which is not allowed within that zone." It appears that the issue of the possible expansion of a nonconforming use should be addressed prior to taking action on the variance request. May 19, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Until the use of the addition is clarified and the other issues are resolved, staff is not prepared to make a recommendation at this time. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner was represented by Curt Dawson. There was no objectors. Staff said that the use of the addition still needed to be clarified. Mr. Dawson explained that the addition would be used only for storage of cabinets, tools and maintenance equipment. There would be no expansion of the existing retail businesses. A motion was made to approve the variance as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 19, 1986 Item No. 4 - Z-4665 Owner: John and Gwendolyn Turrentine Address: 1513 West 23rd Street Description: Lot 4, Block 17, Fleming and Bradford Addition Zoned: "R-4" Two Family Variance Requested: From the rear yard setback provisions of Chapter 43/7-101.4/D.3 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of an addition 22' x 33.6'. Justification: 1. Access problems due to age, failing health and loss of sight in one eye. 2. Security 3. Neighboring structures on rear property line. 4. The 23rd Street side of the lot is very steep with several easements. Present Use of Property: Residential Proposed Use of Property: Residential STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues No issues have been identified by Engineering. B. Staff Analysis The owner of 1513 West 23rd is requesting a setback variance for an addition attached to the back of the residence with a 20-foot rear yard. In an "R-4" district, a setback of 25 feet is required so the encroachment will be 5 feet. The proposal is to May 19, 1986 Item No. 4 - Continued construct a 22' x 34' addition that will provide space for a covered carport and a family room. The lot does have some features such as a grade difference which restricts the proposed construction to the rear of the property. The structure is utilized as duplex so that also limits the possibilities for adding on any additional floor area or carport. Along the south property line, there is a paved alley which provides adequate access for this lot and the other properties that have similar structures or accessory buildings. Because of the alley, there are a number of garages /carports in the rear yard so the proposal is consistent with the neighborhood. Staff feels that proper justification for the variance has been provided and supports the request. The location of the new construction appears to be reasonable, and the reduced setback will not affect the surrounding lots. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the rear yard variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was not present. The motion was made to defer the request to the June 16, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 19, 1986 Item No. _5 - Z-4490 - Request for Extension Owner: Jim Mitchell Address: 59 Tallyho Description: Lot 192, Foxcroft Addition Zoned: "R-2" Two Family Request: Review by the Board of the variance approval at this address on July 15, 1985, for Ftime extension as much as the six months has expired on obtaining permits. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT The issue is to grant an extension of a previously approved variance. In July 1985, the owner of 59 Tallyho received approval of the side yard variance for a new carport without any conditions. The Board of Adjustment bylaws state that "all permits necessary for prosecution of the work shall be obtained within six months unless extension of said time is granted by the Board." Because of the nature of the variance, staff feels that extending the time period is appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the requested extension be granted. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. A motion was made to grant the time extension as requested. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Jim Mitchell). ITEM NO. 6 - DISCUSSION ITEM OWNER Russell Matchett ADDRESS: 87 Broadmoor Drive REQUEST: To review and grant an extension of the 6 month time period for obtaining the necessary permits after receiving Board of Adjustment approval for two variances (Z-4407). STAFF REPORT: In April, 1985, the Board approved two variances for Mr. Matchett to allow him to construct an adition to the rear of his residence. The variance involved a reduced rear yard and separation.between the house and an accessory structure. The required building permit was not secured within the specified 6 month period and now, Mr. Matchett would like to initiate construction. To do so, an extension of the time period is required. May 19, 1986 Item No. 6 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner was present. A motion was made to approve the time extension as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. Nay 19, 1986 There being no further business before the Board, the Chairman the meeting adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m. Secretary Chairman Date