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