Loading...
boa_02 28 1986LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD FEBRUARY 28, 1986 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 5 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Joe Norcross (Acting Chairman) Ronald Woods Richard Yada Thomas McGowan Herbert Rideout Members Absent: George Wells (3 Open Positions) City Attorney: Tom Carpenter February 28, 1986 Item No. 1 - Z-2566-A Owner: Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States Address: 7123 I-30 Description: Lot 2, Tucker's Commercial Acres Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial Variance Requested: From the height restrictions of Section 38-3 to permit construction of a 100-foot T.V. antenna Justification: The additional height will allow more remote broadcast to be received. The hill to the west is approximately 80 feet higher than this site. The appearance of the 100-foot tower is not significantly different than the 75-foot size and should be acceptable to the adjoiners. Present Use of Property: Office /Warehouses Proposed Use of Property: Television studio STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None have been reported as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis The request is to grant a height variance for a 100-foot antenna tower. The City Ordinance allows ground mounted towers up to 75 feet so the variance is for 25 feet. The property is located in southwest Little Rock, adjacent to I-30 and in primarily a light industrial area. Because of the site's location, the tower will not have an impact on the surrounding properties or other buildings in the immediate vicinity. In addition, there are similar towers in the general area, one being in excess of 300 feet, and it appears that those towers have not created any problems. Proper justification for the height variance has been provided and staff supports the request. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. February 28, 1986 Item No. 1 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Bill Ruck, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Ruck made several comments and there was some discussion about the proposal. A motion was made to approve the height variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions. February 28, 1986 Item No. 2 - Z-4611 Owner: Jim Barre Address: 15 Perdido Description: Lot 152, St. Charles Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the side yard provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit a new deck with a 3-foot setback Justification: 1. The no vehicular easement on St. Charles Street. 2. Private drive easement across the rear of the property. 3. Excessive slope to the property from St. Charles Street to Perdido and the slope from west to east. 4. Curvature of Perdido Street in front of the home. 5. The design of the home. Present Use of Property: Single Family (under construction) Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None have been reported. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to allow a 10' x 26' deck on the east side of the residence with a 3-foot setback at the closest point to the property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires an 8-foot side yard for this particular lot. Because of the design of the deck, only one corner will be encroaching into the necessary setback. The lot is unique because of several easements in the rear and the slope from east to west February 28, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued which causes the structure to be situated on the site closer to the east property line and creating the need for a variance. Staff feels that a hardship does exist and supports the request. The owner has provided adequate justifications for the variance. The reduced setback will not have an impact on the property to the east because the amount of encroachment is so small. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the side yard variance be granted. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The item was discussed briefly by the Board. A motion was made to grant the variance. The motion was approved by a vote of 2 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions. February 28, 1986 Item No. 3 - Z-4612 Owner: Howard Byers Address: 812 North Cleveland Description: Lot 54, Ridgecrest Manor Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the rear yard provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.3 to permit a new addition with an 18.5-foot setback. Justification: Lot size and building configuration prevent additions in other directions. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analvsis The issue before the Board is to permit a rear yard variance to allow a large addition. The new construction is to be 22' x 41' addition which would reduce the required rear yard setback from 25 feet to 18.5 feet and an encroachment of 6.5 feet. The applicant has listed lot size and building configuration as justification for the variance. The lot is only 120 feet deep, but has 8,400 square feet in area which is an average lot size so that does not appear to create a true hardship. The structure as it is situated on the property does restrict any addition to the rear or adding a second floor. This is justification for a variance, but staff is concerned that building configuration is being used in this case because of the size of the proposed addition, approximately 900 square feet as shown on the survey. The cover letter states that the new construction will be 682 square feet so the owner should explain the difference. Staff would also like the owner to February 28, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued describe what the addition is for and why it requires such a large amount of floor area. By meeting the setback requirement, a 635-foot addition could be constructed. Based on the information submitted, staff feels that a true hardship does not exist and is withholding a formal recommendation until various issues are addressed such as the addition's proposed size. C. Staff Recommendation Until additional information is provided, staff is not prepared to make a recommendation at this time. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner, Howard Byers, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Byers addressed the Board and said that the actual north /south dimension will be 31 feet and not 41 feet as represented on the survey. There was a long discussion about the proposal and the need for the encroachment of 6.5 feet. John Ward, an architect representing Mr. Byers, also discussed the request and described the addition in some detail. The issue of a hardship was discussed at length and Mr. Byers indicated that a true hardship did not exist. After several additional comments, a motion was made to approve the variance for a 22 x 31' addition with a 6.5 foot encroachment. The motion was passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 ones, 1 absent and 3 open positions. February 28, 1986 Item No. 4 - Z-4613 Owner: David Grunfest, Jr. and Arnold Mayerson Address: 6423 Forbing Road Description: Long Legal Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial Variance Requested: From the pavement requirements of Section 8-101/I to permit an unpaved parking lot. Justification: 1. The activity at this location is "post secondary education." The college is new to the location and is undergoing curriculum and program changes which makes it very difficult to determine at this time the number of students who will be in attendance and, therefore, the parking requirements. The college asks not for a complete waiver, but merely a postponement so as to better evaluate our parking needs and construct a more appropriate facility. 2. The lot in current use has been rocked and sufficient time is requested to let the rock settle. 3. Postponement until October 1, 1986, would also allow fair weather construction of lot after the size has been determined. Present Use of Property: Gravel parking area for school Proposed Use of Property: Paved parking for school STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues The entrance from Forbing Road and the angle parking configuration must be redesigned and approved by the Traffic Engineer. Contact the Traffic Engineer and get his approval before any parking lot construction or paving is started. February 28, 1986 Item No. 4 - Continued B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit the postponement of paving to City standards parking area that is currently in use. The Zoning Ordinance states that "the minimum pavement requirement shall be 1 1/2 inches of asphaltic concrete hot mix with a 5-inch compacted base or a double surface treatment with a 5-inch compacted base or a 4 -inch concrete slab." The property is occupied by a health vocation school which has been in operation less than a year. Because the school is still going through some changes, the applicant is requesting just a postponement of meeting the paving requirements to better determine the size of enrollment and the number of parking spaces. In addition, delay would allow the lot to be constructed during better weather conditions. Staff feels that adequate justification for a temporary variance has been provided, but not until October 1, 1986, as requested. Staff suggests that a deferral of six months as being reasonable. This would give the school over one year at the Forbing Road location which should be more than enough time to determine enrollment and the amount of parking required. Based on the survey, it appears that the parking design needs to be modified because the parking layout as shown will not function properly. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends granting a temporary variance for a period of six months from the date of approval. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Teresa Bour, was present. There were no objectors. Staff recommended that Traffic Engineering approval of the parking lot design be attached as a condition to the variance if granted. Ms. Bour indicated that she agreed with the six month time period and the condition. A motion was made to grant the variance for a period of six months from the date of approval, February 28, 1986, and that the parking lot design be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions. February 28, 1986 Item No. 5 - Other Matters Owner: Jim McClanahan Address: 6500 Mabelvale Pike Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Request: To determine whether an addition to the principal building constitute expansion of a nonconforming use/structure. STAFF REPORT: Jim McClanahan, the owner of 6500 Mabelvale Pike, has submitted a letter to the staff asking that this item be brought before the Board of Adjustment. The request was made after the McClanahans received a courtesy notice from the City's Enforcement Office indicating that they were in violation of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The primary issue is the expansion of a nonconforming use /structure. The property is zoned "R-2," but has been a nonresidential use since before coming into the City, thus, creating the nonconforming status. Several attempts to rezone the site to a commercial classification have failed in the past. There is one principal structure on the site, and the McClanahans made a 16' x 16' addition to it. It is staff's understanding that the new construction is to be used for storage only. After the addition was made, two accessory buildings being used for storage were removed from the lot. Because of this removal, the owners feel that an illegal expansion did not take place and that they are not in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The following paragraphs from the Zoning Ordinance 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 effective date of this ordinance, or any amendment hereto which causes such use to become nonconforming. February 28, 1986 Item No. 5 - Continued 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 existing nonconformity of all or any part of such structure. (Attached is a letter of request and a survey with the described modifications.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owners, Jim and Liz McClanahan, were present. Liz McClanahan addressed the Board of Adjustment about the issue. She said that they have not increased the use or have not extended the nonconforming use. There were a number of other comments made. A motion was then made that stated the addition in question was not an expansion of a nonconforming use because of the Enlargement, Repair or Alterations provision in the Zoning Ordinance which states that "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 existing nonconformity of all or any part of such structure." The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions. The Board of Adjustment indicated that the action taken was for this particular piece of property only. 6500 Mabelvale Pike Little Rock, Arkansas January 27, 1986 Board of Adjustment City Hall, Room 311 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 We have received a courtesy notice from the city stating that we have violated.a city zoning ordinance. We have enclosed a plot plan showing the 16 ft. X 16 ft. addition to the building. The two storage buildings have been removed from the property. We do not believe that we have violated a zoning or- dinance and respectfully request that you place this matter on your February 18th agenda. Sincerely, v,--- Jim McClanahan February 28, 1986 Item No. 6 - Other Matters Name: Fay Granger Request: To review the "C-3" district and to render an opinion as to whether a retail shop with some boarding of animals, but no sale of the animals can be placed in the "C-3" district. STAFF REPORT: The request is being made by Fay Granger after discussing the matter with several members of the City's Zoning Enforcement and Planning Offices. After those conversations, it was suggested that the issue be taken to the Board of Adjustment for a decision. Ms. Granger is planning to open a shop selling cat related items in the West Chase Plaza which is zoned "C-3." In addition to the retail aspects, Ms. Granger also would like to board cats for short periods of time with 250 square feet devoted to the boarding and 800 square feet for the retail space. Ms. Granger states that the boarding service will be for clients and customers with 8 to 16 stainless steel cages. The "C-3" district does permit some animal related uses, animal clinic and pet shop. The Zoning Ordinance provides the following definitions for those uses. 1. Animal Clinic (Enclosed): A facility without outside runs. The diagnosis and treatment of pets and other animals including but not limited to dogs, cats, birds and horses. No outdoor boarding of these animals shall be allowed overnight. 2. Pet Shop: A facility for display and sale of animals, fish and birds as pets, such as dogs, cats, parakeets, goldfish, tropical fish or canaries without involving commercial boarding or treating of any animal, fish or bird. Boarding of animals is specifically addressed in the definition of an animal pound or kennel. Animal pound or kennel: A public or private facility including outside runs for enclosure or animals, especially stray or unlicensed pets or for pets being boarded for short periods of time. This particular use is not listed in the "C-3" district but rather as a conditional use in "C-4" and a permitted use in "I-2." February 28, 1986 Item No. 6 - Continued Ms. Granger's position is that there is only a very fine line between what she is proposing to do and a pet shop. She's contending that the only real difference is the selling of the animals in the pet shop. (Attached is a copy of Ms. Granger's request.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: A motion was made to withdraw this item from the agenda. The motion pased by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions. 1-16-86 Attn: Tonv Bozynski 305 Little Rock City Hall Little Rock, Ar 72201 Dear Mr. Bozynski, I am writing this letter per the recommendation of Mr. Richard Wood; he informed me that the January agenda is fall and closed and if I get this request to voa by January 27th, then I should be able to present my case to the Board at the 2-18-85 meeting. I will try to state my request as briefly as possible. I am currently doing research on the possibility of my having a retail shop that will strictly be selling cat related items - from cat litter, toys, - to quality cat pictures, cat statutes, cat designs on all types of items - planters, offica accessories, etc; not only do I want to sell gift items, I want about Dart of the shop to have boarding for cats only. (250 so. ft Board; 800 sq ft shoe) I currently have a Privilege License now, but it is for office only; currently, I have decided to have my shop at one of the suites at the WestChase Plaza; in talking to Flake and Company, they feel there should not be a problem as far as they are concerne.d. ThE:ir representative sent me a copy of the Section 7-103.3 "C-3 "; it lists animals Clinic & Pet Shop as permitted uses of a zoned C-3 building. When I called Kenny Scott of the Zoining Dept (371-4844), he said West Chase Plaza was zoned C-3 Commercial and he said that meant I could not keep animals overrnite; he suggested I try a a place zoned Industrial R-2; after telling me this, he did say, to be zoned C-3, I would have to be a pet shop; the fine line being, that the cats would be available for sell and not nmcessarily boarded overnite; I told him I did not see the difference; that I did not want to sell cats because you have control over the kittens you get and there are too many health problems involved and I do not want to sell cats; my boarding will be a service for my clients and. customers; there will be approximately 8 to 16 stainless steel, large cages; all inclosed separatnly from the main shop, with viewing windows for the in-store customer; no one other then employees will be allowed in the area. Mr. Scott was very nice but he was very sit in what he told me; b asked him if I could talk to someone else and he gave me the name of Richard Wood (371-4790); Mr. Scott did tell me that Mr. Wood would tell me the same thing. Before I called Mr. Wood, I called Mr. Johnston with SCORE and he suggested I contact the City Manager, the Mayor or the Board of Commission. Mr. Johnston did not understand the difference as Mr. Scott had outline. he sugggested I call Mr. Scott back to verify that he was telling me that thn difference was the selling aspect I did. I called Richard Mood and he suggested I take an appeal step before.the Board of Adjustment. Thank you reading this letter; please let me know if I need to send you any more forms or additional information. I do not want to spend a lot of monev on the boarding facility of the shop and then find out later down the road, I have to take it out because of a zorin.g conflict. Sincerely, Fay Granger 14 Flintwood Dr. Little Rock, Ar 72207 225-7300 February 28, 1986 Item No. 7 - 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 svnonvmous with buildinu 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." February 28, 1986 Item No. 7 - Continued The definition of structural alteration within the Zoning Ordinance reads 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 defintion 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: Arli 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 February 28, 1986 Item No. 7 - 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. February 28, 1986 Item No. 8 - Rehearing Request Owner: Lynn and Sherry Harris Address: #2 Pleasant Forest Drive Request: To grant a rehearing for a previous denied setback variance STAFF REPORT: The rehearing provisions in the Board of Adjustment bylaws (Article V) are as follows: Section 1. No rehearing of any decision by the Board of Zoning Adjustment shall be had on except on motion by a member of the Board to reconsider the vote made and acted on within 10 days after the decision and carried by not less than five concurring votes. Section 2. No motion for a rehearing shall be entertained except upon request for a rehearing and then not unless new evidence is submitted which could not reasonably have been presented at the meeting at which the hearing was originally had. Section 3. If a rehearing is granted, the case shall be put on the calendar for a rehearing and the notices issued in accordance with the notice provisions of these rules. Section 4. No additional application to the Board of Adjustment shall be allowed unless there shall have been a substantial change in the circumstances effecting such property since the prior decision on the same piece of property. The primary reason for requesting a rehearing is that the Harrises are now the owners of #2 Pleasant Forest Drive and that is a substantial change in circumstances according to Walter Murray, the Harris' attorney. A copy of Mr. Murray's letter is provided. The letter goes into great detail about the various issues involved with this particular piece of property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Walter Murray was present and representing the Harrises. Mr. Murray gave a history of the previous request and described the City Attorney's involvement in the matter. He went on to discuss the court action and the reasons for the refiling. Mr. Murray said that the Harrises were the new owners of the lot and that was a change in circumstances. February 28, 1986 Item No. 8 - Continued A motion was made to grant the rehearing request. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions. WALTER A. MURRAY ATTORNEY AT LAW (501)372-7000 912 WEST FOURTH STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 WALTER A. MURRAY WILLIAM C. FRYE January 27, 1986 Board of Zoning Adjustment City of Little Rock Dear Sir: On behalf of Lynn and Sherry Harris, I respectfully request a rehearing on the matter described in your file BZ-4261. Very truly yours, Walter A. Murray WAM:dr WALTER A. MURRAY ATTORNEY AT LAW (501)372-7000 912 WEST FOURTH STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 January 27, 1986 WALTER A. MURRAY WILLIAM C. FRYE Board of Zoning Adjustment City of Little Rock, Arkansas Gentlemen: Your file number BZ-4261 contains board proceedings regarding an application for variance from a setback requirement filed by Mr. Caroll Garner. Proceedings on this matter are still pending. However, the parties in interest have changed. This letter accompanies a new application for variance in the names of the new parties in interest. Those parties are Lynn and Sherry Harris. Lynn and Sherry Harris are citizens and residents of Little Rock, Arkansas. They own property described as #2 Pleasant Forest Cove within the Pleasant Forest Park Addition. The former parties in interest, Caroll and Frances Garner, applied to the City of Little Rock Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA) for a variance from the side yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-101.2.D.2 of the City of Little Rock to permit said residence and garage to remain as constructed. On or about the 16th day of July, 1984, BOZA denied the Garners' request for variance. The Garners appealed from the BOZA denial in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County. Section 43/7-101.2.D.2 requires an eight-foot side yard maximum in the "R-2" district. The subject property which consists of a garage and residence is 90 percent complete and has received all the necessary inspections, except final City approval. Sometime during the construction of the subject property, the outer wall of the garage was constructed approximately 40 inches closer to the north fall property line creating an encroachment to the side yard. If this variance is not allowed, it will cost the new parties in interest approximately $15,000.00 to remove the garage wall and all the utilities that enter the structure at that point. BOZA's denial of the requested variance was improper for the following reasons: (a) A setback variance of 40 inches on the subject property is within the spirit and intent of the provisions of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance. (b) Strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance in this instance would cause undue hardship due to the circumstances unique to the property under consideration. (c) The denial of the variance severely impacts the property owned by the Harris'. (d) Strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance in this instance would cause undue financial hardship to the Harris'. (e) The variance would not interfere with the Harris' and those similarly situated quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their individual properties. (f) Denial of the variance will result in damage to the Harris' in diminution and property value and limitation of the available market for resale of their home. (g) The variance would not result in a blighting influence or a total incompatibility of the character of the neighborhood or the residential use of the Harris' property. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Walter A. Murray WAM:dr February 28, 1986 Item No. 9 - Other Matters Owner: Catholic Diocese of Little Rock by Dickson Flake Request: To review a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for a possible change in use BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Staff discussed the issue and recommended that the change in use requires a new conditional use permit because of the Zoning Ordinance provision addressing use changes. Dickson Flake was present and representing three owners. Mr. Flake said the new proposal would return the property to its original use, an elementary school and the day-care would only have twenty-five (25) children. Mr. Flake discussed the various issues at length. Staff responded by saying the original use became nonconforming and an ordinance was needed to change the initial ordinance approving the existing conditional use permit. Mr. Flake make several other comments and said that there was a time problem. A motion was presented to the baord which stated that the applicant must follow the procedures set out in the Zoning Ordinance for a new conditional use permit. A motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions. Barnes, Quinn, Flake & Anderson, Inc. REALTORS 2100 First Commercial Building • (501)372-8181 PO. Box 3548 / Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 February 11, 1986 Mr. Gary Greeson, Director Comprehensive Planning City of Little Rock City Hall Markham at Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Greeson: The purpose of this memorandum is to request an interpretation by the Little Rock Board of Adjustment for a zoning compliance issue concerning the St. Bartholomew Elementary School at 1601 Marshall Street in Little Rock. This property is owned by the Catholic Diocese of Little Rock and has been utilized by the vocational division of Capital City Junior College under a con- ditional use permit approved by the City Board of Directors on July 5, 1983. Representatives of Capital City Junior College and the Montessori School have requested that the Diocese approve the transfer of the premises from Capital City to Montessori for use as a pre-school center. The leadership of the Diocese welcomes this request and thinks that the proposed use will provide a real service to the immediate neighborhood rather than simply being a utilization of church-owned facilities. Montessori School management, repre- sented by Dr. A. Earl Wilkinson, anticipate a total enrollment of approximately 125 children. The property is zoned R-4. It has been utilized as an elementary school, a vocational training school by UIC, and last, a vocational school by Capital City Junior College under a conditional use per- mit favorably recommended by the staff and Planning Commission, then approved by the City Board of Directors. We are requesting an interpretation by the Little Rock board of Adjustment that the proposed daycare center use is similar enough to both the previous C.V. BARNES. CRE, CCIM INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE MEMBERSHIPS L DICKSON FLAKE, CRE, CCIM, SIR SAMUEL W ANDERSON, CPM American Institute of Reel Estate Appraisers NOLAN L RUSHING RONALD E. BRAGG. MAI American Society of Reel Estate Counselors PHYLLIS LASER GLAZE, CPM JIM MITCHELL, CCIM Institute of Real Estate Management DALE L. COOK, CPM DIANA G SMITH DRU E. SPINKS, CPM International Council of Shopping Centers RAMSAY BALL ANNE E. PADGETT Little Rock Board of Realtors, Inc LEO E OLBERTS. JR, CIC MELINDA B THOMAS National Association of Realtors OF COUNSEL JACK FARRIS, CPM. MAI Society of Industrial Realtors Mr. Gary Greeson February 11, 1986 Page Two uses and the obtain a new We understand of Adjustment 1986. most recent approved use that it is not necessary to conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. that this is short notice but request that the Board consider this issue at its meeting of February 18, Sincerely, L. Dickson Flake LDF/lgg Barnes, Quinn, Flake 6 Anderson, Inc. 8 REALTORS 2100 First Commercial Building • [501) 372-6181 P O Box 3546 / Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 February 28, 1986 Item No. 10 Other Matters Owner: Nancy C. Stephens Address: 1904 Shadow Lane Request: To interpret the Zoning Ordinance and determine whether the placement of an awning structure on the property line is in violation of the setback requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. STAFF REPORT: This request is being made as a result of a violation notice from the City's Enforcement Office because of a complaint from an adjoining neighbor. The primary issue is whether an awning which is attached to the residence and constructed to the side property line must meet the setback requirements for a structure. The awning covers part of a driveway and functions as a carport. The Zoning Ordinance provides the following definition for a structure: Anything constructed or erected or installed by man for 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 smokestacks. The side yard setback in the "R-2" District is not less than 10 percent of the average width of the lot not to exceed 8 feet. The structure in question is constructed to the north property line with a 0 foot setback. Attached are two letters from Nancy Stephens addressing the issue and her concerns. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Nancy Stephens, the owner of 1904 Shadow Lane was present. Staff briefly reviewed the issue before the Board. Ms. Stephens discussed the matter and asked how could a permanent structure be cleaned. She said that the maximum width of the awning was ten feet and there was a neighborhood complaint involved with the matter. There was a long discussion about the various issues. A motion was made that stated the awning /carport meets the ordinance definition of a structure and should meet all the necessary requirements. A motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions. NANCY C. STEPHENS LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 12, 1986 Mr. Gary L. Greeson Board of Adjustment City Hall Markham at Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Greeson: Per our conversation today on the phone, I am hereby requesting an interpretation from the Board of Adjustment of the ordinance involved with regard to my awning. As I mentioned in my letter and on the phone, the awning has been in place for three and one -half years (3 1/2) without any complaints. We removed the canvas this month to have it re- paired and cleaned, as it decays with wear and must be maintained. At this time, we received notice from the City to remove it. When we originally purchased the awning, I called City Hall and was told that the awning would be acceptable under the existing City regulations. The contractor who installed it (Little Rock Tent & Awning) also informed me that the awning was legal. Had we been told at the time it was not permissible, we would not have invested several thousand dollars, nor would we have removed the canvas to have it cleaned and repaired at this time. I would like to ask the Board to examine the time the canvas awning has been in place without complaint, and also the issue of equity involved. I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, NANCY C. STEPHENS NCS/yt February 28, 1986 Item No. 11 Discussion Item (Z-1937-B) Owner: Greater Paradise Missionary Baptist Church Address: 3023 West 12th Street (West 12th and Johnson Street) Request: To grant a six month extension for a previously approved variance. STAFF REPORT: The Greater Paradise Missionary Baptist Church was granted a variance in August 1984 to delay the necessary paving and landscaping of a parking lot. The lot is located at the northwest corner of West 13th and Johnson Streets. The variance was for a period of 18 months with the church to report back to the Board of Adjustment on the status of the parking area at the end of that time. They initially had requested a six year postponement of the ordinance requirements. The church is now requesting an additional six months to comply with the paving section of the ordinance. (Attached is the church's letter of request). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Sam Shackleford was present and representing the church. Mr. Shackleford said that the church was requesting a 6 month extension to secure a loan and complete all the necessary parking lot improvements. The Board then discussed the matter at length. A motion was made granting a 6 month extension from February 28, 1986. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions. The Board also indicated that this action would be the last extension. Greater Paradise Missionary Baptist Church 3023 WEST TWELFTH STREET, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204 666-1982 REVEREND JERRY D. BLACK, PASTOR February 18, 1986 Mr. Richard Wood Mr. Tony Bozynski Office of Comprehensive Planning City Hall /3rd Floor 500 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Greater Paradise Missionary Baptist Church Parking Lot /3023 W. Twelfth Dear Mr. Wood or Mr. Bozynski: It has been brought to the attention of the newly elected board of trustees of Greater Paradise Missionary Baptist Church, that through an over-sight we have failed to comply with the directive issued through your office -18 month ago- to pave and landscape our church parking lot. We sincerely apologize for this over-sight. The board has initiated steps to iumiediately rectify this situation and bring our church parking lot into full compliance with the City of Little Rock zoning codes. We are in the process of selecting a design for the layout of the lot and landscaping. After this is completed, we will begin assembling bids from compaines to pave and landscape the parking lot. Since the period for compliance has already passed, we request an additional extension of (6) six months in order to complete the proposal. We would appreciate the opportunity to attend your next Board Meeting and answer any questions you may have. Again, we apologize for not complying with your directive on time, but with a (6) six month extension we are confident that the church will be able to comply with the City's zoning codes. Thanking you in advance for your consideration. Respectfully yours, Clifton Wilson Church Trustee Board Member CW:scm cc: church file copy February 28, 1986 Item No. 12 Other Matters Owner: Tab Powell Address: 12,110 Stagecoach Road Request: To determine if a landfill is a permitted use in the "I-2" District. STAFF REPORT: The owner of the landfill has been directed by the Environmental Protection Agency to place a building on the site to control the type of materials that are brought to the location. The landfill is to be used for only clean type materials and no garbage or chemicals will be premitted. Mr. Powell has received all the necessary approvals to operate the landfill and the only requirement he has left to fulfill is the attendants office. Some filling has already occurred on a restricted basis and the property is zoned "I-2." With the office and opening the site to the public, there is a question of the status of the landfill and how it conforms to the Zoning Ordinance. In the Ordinance only sanitary landfills are listed as a premitted use in "I-3" Heavy Industrial. The definition of a sanitary landfill is: A site for the accumulation of refuse or discarded materials. However, this use shall not be construed to be a junk or salvage yard which is maintained, used or operated for storing, keeping, dismanteling, salvaging, buying or selling inoperable, wrecked, scrapped, ruined or discarded automobiles, automobile parts, machinery or appliances. There is no other type of landfill mentioned in the ordinance. The City's concern is with the office which is required by EPA and how that affects the use. Does the site with the office then become a conventional sanitary landfill operation and require "I-3?" BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Tab Powell, the owner, was present. Mr. Powell said that the office will not be a permanent structure, but indicated he was uncertain about the length of time that it would be up. He went on to say that because of State requirements, he had to provide some type of control and that was the primary purpose of the office. February 28, 1986 Item No. 12 Continued There were some additional comments made by Mr. Powell and the Board members. A motion was made to allow the office structure for a period of 30 months with a written report submitted to the Staff after 18 months on the status of the landfill operation. The Board also stated that the use was not a sanitary landfill. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions. February 28, 1986 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Chairman Secretary Date