boa_08 17 1987LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
AUGUST 17, 1987
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: Thomas McGowan, Chairman
Ronald Woods
Jim Mitchell
Ronald Pierce
Rex Crain
George Wells
John McDaniel
Cynthia Alderman
Members Absent: Joe Norcross
City Attorney: None
August 17, 1987
Item No. A - Z-4848
Owner: Timothy and Margaret Farrell
Address: 5715 Hawthorne Road
Description: Lot 27, Forest Heights Place
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/D.2 to permit a deck with a
reduced side yard setback.
Justification: (1) Because the structure solves the
problem of the excessive slope of
the property in a unique,
practical, and attractive way which
enhances the overall value of the
property.
(2) Because it has been in existence
for four years.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are no issues.
B. Staff Analysis
This issue is before the Board because of an
enforcement action. Recently, the Enforcement staff
received a complaint about a possible violation of a
setback provision for the "R-2" District. Upon
investigation, it was determined that a wood
structure/deck was built into the side yard and that it
needed to be removed or the necessary variance be
applied for. (The ordinance requirement for the side
yard setback is ten percent of the average width or six
feet for this lot. The house is constructed to the
setback line.) This request presents a somewhat unique
situation because the construction in question has been
in place for four years without any inquiries being
made until now. In 1982, a tornado passed through this
part of the City and heavily damaged many structures in
the neighborhood, including the one at 5715 Hawthorne.
August 17, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
At the time of rebuilding the house, the owners decided
that something needed to be done to provide access to a
back door because the lot slopes downward from the
Hawthorne side. To solve this problem, a wood
walkway/deck was constructed between the house and the
east property line connecting the front with a deck
which was built at the same time. All the necessary
permits for the major construction were obtained, but
the deck/walkway was not included in the original
permit application because it was an afterthought and
no inspection of the deck was done by the City. (This
was an oversight on the part of the various parties
involved.) The structure starts at grade in the front
and then is several feet above ground level at the rear
of the house. It is constructed right to the property
line, but there is separation betwen this lot and the
residence to the east because of the driveway. Also,
there is a masonry wall along the east property line
which appears to lessen the impact of the structure
being built to the line. The walkway/deck does address
a unique feature of the lot and appears to be the most
functional design solution for the property.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (6-15-87)
The Chairman reported that he had received a written request
for a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the
July 20, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-20-87)
Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred to the
August meeting. A motion was made to defer the request
to the August 17, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by
a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (8-17-87)
Neither the applicant or any objectors were present at the
meeting. Staff reported that Mr. Dana Carney of the Zoning
Enforcement staff had been out to review whether there still
was an enforcement issue due to the fact that the applicant
had lowered the deck in the area where the neigbhor was
objecting. Mr. Carney felt that there wasn't a need for the
applicant to pursue a variance. There was some discussion
among the Board as to whether they should just withdraw the
application without any official written notification from
August 17, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
the applicant. A motion was then made to defer the
application another month in order for staff to notify the
applicant that the application will be withdrawn unless the
Board receives some response indicating the applicant
desires further action. The motion was approved by a vote
of 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
August 17, 1987
Item No. B - Z-4867
Owner: Greater Second Baptist Church
Address: 2901 Pulaski Street
Description: The north 50 Feet of Lots 13 and 14
Block 16, Bowman's Addition
Zoned: "C-3"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-103.3/E to permit a building with
a reduced setback.
Justification: Only reasonable location available on
the lot.
Present Use of
Property: Parking
Proposed Use
of Property: Parking and Bus Storage
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None reported as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to grant a variance to allow a reduced
setback for an accessory type structure, a storage shed
for a church bus. A portion of the lot is zoned "C-3"
where the building is proposed, and for a corner lot
the setback requirements are 25 feet for the two street
sides and for the rear yard with a 15 -foot setback for
the side yard on the south. In the "C-3" District the
same setbacks apply to both principal and accessory
structures. The property is currently paved and used
for church parking, so the proposed structure will
change the use of the site. Decreasing the setbacks
for this type of building and use should not have an
impact on other properties in the neighborhood and
staff supports the proposal. West 29th Street is not a
through street and primarily provides access to the
parking areas for the church which is located to the
northwest of the site under consideration. To the
west, there is a large building with residential and
nonresidential uses and it has a reasonable rear yard
August 17, 1987
Item No. B - Continued
area, so a reduced setback for this lot will not create
any problems.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the setback variances for
a bus garage/storage structure only.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-20-87)
Staff informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred
because of several deficiencies in the file. A motion was
made to defer the request to the August 17, 1987, meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and
3 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (8-17-87)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Charles Harris,
chairman of the Building Committee for this request. There
were no objectors present at the meeting. Mr. Harris agreed
to meeting the requirements set out in the staff
recommendation. A motion was made to approve the variance
as recommended by staff. The motion was approved by a vote
of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
August 17, 1987
Item No. 1 - Z -3184-A
Owner: F. Kramer Darragh, III
Address: 4322 Country Club Boulevard
Description: Lots 23 and 24, Block 11, Country
Club Heights Addition
Zoned: "R-2"
Variance
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/D.1 to permit an addition with
a reduced front yard setback.
Justification: Based on the configuration of the lot
and the location of the house, it is
necessary to widen the garage area to
capture the space required and to
compliment the overall remodeling
plan.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REVIEW
A. Engineering Issues
None to report.
B. Staff Analysis
The request before the Board of Adjustment is the
granting of a variance to allow an encroachment of 6
feet into the required 25 -foot front yard setback on
Beechwood Avenue. The overall remodeling proposal is
for the widening of the garage and the construction of
a one and two-story addition to the rear of the
property, which is not an issue before the Board of
Adjustment because the required setbacks will be met.
Due to the fact of this being a corner lot, the
applicant is required to meet the requirements set out
in the ordinance, which states that in the case of a
double frontage lot or a corner lot, each line
separating such lot from the street shall be considered
a front lot line; therefore, the need for the variance
is necessary.
August 17, 1987
Item No. 1 - Continued
In order to accomplish the intent of the applicant, the
Board of Adjustment's concerns are that the applicant
has a justified hardship because of the corner lot on
Beechwood being the frontage of a platted building
line. The encroachment is 6 feet into the frontage of
a lot of 100 feet and the widening of the garage will
maintain the existing structural alignment of 18.7 feet
and does not extend the intrusion or nonconformities.
There is a large amount of mature landscaping to screen
the rear of the property. At issue also is the
placement of an accessory structure of which is an open
gazebo on the property. The requirement in the
ordinance states that an accessory structure has to be
6 feet from the principal structure. The gazebo at its
present location does not meet this separation
requirement, it appears to be about 4 feet. If this
variance is granted, it will be necessary for the Board
of Adjustment to waive the requirement and allow the
gazebo to remain at the present location or recommend
that the location be changed in order to meet the
requirement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance and the
waiver of the accessory structure not being 6 feet from the
principal structure.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (8-17-87)
The applicant was represented by Walsa Turner, who agreed
with staff's recommendation. There were no objectors
present at the meeting. A motion was then made to grant the
variance as recommended by staff. The motion was approved
by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
August 17, 1987
Item No. 2 - Z-4873
Owner: Stevenson Family Trust
Address: 1012 West Second Street
Description: The East 50 feet of Lots 4, 5, and 6
Block 257, Original City of Little Rock
Zoned: "C-4"
Variance
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-103.4/E.1 to permit a new porch with
a reduced front setback.
Justification: Reconstruction and restoration of the
front and side porch to the original
design.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant Building
Proposed Use
of Property: Lease Space
STAFF REVIEW
A. Engineering Issues
None to be reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal before the Board of Adjustment is the
construction of an open porch on the front and east
side of the existing two-story structure. The
applicant's reasons for requesting this variance are to
achieve the original design of the porch, to restore
and replace any exterior woodworking that has
deteriorated through the years, and to meet the
requirements in order for the historic structure to be
placed on the Historical National Register. This
request pertains to an existing older two-story
structure located in the central area of the City. The
present "C-4" zoning for the structure is not
appropriate, but if the property was downzoned to "R-2"
Single Family, the requested variance would still be
necessary.
At issue before the Board of Adjustment is the fact
that this property is situated on a corner lot. The
requested 45 feet front yard setback from West 2nd
Street cannot be met; therefore the applicant has
requested that a variance be granted with an 11 foot
August 17, 1987
Item No. 2 - Continued
setback for the proposed addition of a porch.
Presently, there is a constructed concrete walk that
the newly constructed porch will align against. The
fact of the porch being open will not impact the view
of the structure from West 2nd Street and the
surrounding property owners. The uses centered around
this site are mostly commercial. The hardship
demonstrated by this request is the fact of the
property being on a corner lot and the requirement to
have two 45-foot front yard setbacks.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Bill Sneed was present to represent the applicant. No
one was present in opposition of the requested variance.
Staff stated a correction to the write-up in the agenda
under staff analysis, which was that the requested variance
was not on a corner lot. The correction in no way affected
staff's recommendation. Mr. Sneed agreed to staff's
recommendation and a motion for approval was made and passed
by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
August 17, 1987
Item No. 3 - Z-4877-A
Owner: I-30 Industrial Park Rentals
Address: 6900 Block of Allied Way
Description: Lots 4, 5, and 6, I-30 Industrial Park
Zoned: "I-2"
Variance
Requested: From the floodplain restrictions of
Paragraph A of Section B of Article 5,
Ordinance No. 14,534 to permit
construction of new buildings in the
floodway.
Justification: Due to the shape, size, and
configuration of the lot.
Present Use of
Property:
Proposed Use
of Property:
STAFF REVIEW
A. Engineering Issues
Issues reported by Engineering will be discussed in the
staff analysis.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is a variance
to allow for the construction of new buildings within
the floodway. The ordinance states that (a) within the
floodplain (100 -year flood elevation), there exists an
area of the channel or stream bed called the floodway
and so designated on the Type 15 flood insurance study.
No building or structure shall be allowed within said
floodway; (b) in order to build or operate any
structure or use, it must be an allowable use among
those specified as allowable uses in the base or
principal zoning classification, provided further so
such use shall adversely affect the capacity of the
channels or floodway of any designated creek, stream,
tributary to the main stream, drainage ditch, or other
drainage facility or system; and provided still
further, no such use or combination of uses shall raise
the level of the one hundred (100) year flood a
distance of one (1) foot.
August 17, 1987
Item No. 3 - Continued
The site in question is located in the I-30 Industrial
Park, and the applicant has filed with the Planning
Commission for consideration of a Planned Unit
Development. In January of this year, the Army Corps
of Engineers redesigned the boundaries for the floodway
in this area of the City, which placed the entire site
in the floodway. Prior to the redesign by the Corps,
the applicant had taken steps to put in place the
existing fill on the property to raise it out of the
then floodway boundaries. The applicant purchased the
property in October 1986, for development as a small
business Industrial Park prior to the revisions of the
floodway maps.
Engineering reports that the applicant has demonstrated
a hardship due to the fact of the revision of the
floodway map in January of this year by the Army Corps
of Engineers and the existing fill on the property
being done prior to the revision. Engineering's
recommendation of approval is conditioned upon the
following: (1) The floor elevations being at least 2
to 3 feet above that which is required by the 100 year
flood level. (2) That any further filling of the site
must come from the boundaries along the bank of Fourche
Creek. Engineering's intent is for there to be no fill
brought on-site from outside of the property.
Before the Planning Commission can take action on the
proposed Planned Unit Development, the Board of
Adjustment has to determine whether relief to the
applicant can be allowed for the proposed construction
in question, and if the variance is granted, the
applicant will be required to deed that property which
is in the floodway to the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval subject to and pursuant of the
conditions as reported in the staff analysis and recommended
by Engineering. Also meeting of the necessary requirements
of deeding to the City of Little Rock that property located
in the floodway.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (8-17-87)
The Board of Adjustment deferred this item until the
September 21, 1987, meeting due to the fact that neither the
applicant nor a representative was present at the meeting.
Also, the applicant had not returned to staff copies of the
notification requirements. There were objectors present at
the meeting. A motion for deferral was made and passed by a
vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
August 17, 1987
Item No. 4 - Z-4881
Owner: Vincent Harris
Address: 725 Kimball
Description: Lot 7, Block 2, McLean Addition
Zoned: "R-4"
Variance
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.4/d.1 to permit a room addition
with a reduced front setback.
Justification: The addition is needed to provide space
for a disabled relative.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
No issues to report at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is the
granting of a variance of 10 feet from the provisions
set out in the ordinance requiring a 25 -foot front yard
setback. The property is located on a 50 -foot lot and
is small in size. The addition, if granted, will
maintain the present building line and not place any
impact to the surrounding property owners, nor will it
increase the traffic flow on 8th Street. The purpose
of the requested variance is to construct a new
addition. Due to the fact that this property is
located on a corner lot and requires 25 feet for the
front yards that abut two streets, the applicant does,
in fact, have a hardship. The variance of 10 feet will
still allow for a considerable amount of setback to the
frontage on 8th Street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The recommendation of staff is approval of the variance as
filed.
August 17, 1987
Item No. 4 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Vincent Harris, was present and responded
that he was in agreement with staff's recommendation. No
one was present in opposition to the variance. A motion was
made to approve the variance as filed. The motion was
approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
August 17, 1987
Item No. 5 - Z-4882
Owner: Bennie and Linda Malone
Address: 2200 Schiller Street
Description: Lot 1, Block 7, Sheldon's Addition
Zoned: "R-4"
Variance
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/d to permit a carport with a
setback of 2.6 feet from a front
property line.
Justification: The proposed two -car carport is needed
to protect the cars from the weather.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None. to report.
B. Staff Analysis
The applicant is coming before the Board of Adjustment
requesting a variance to allow a 2.6 feet front yard
setback for the construction of a two -car carport. In
1975, a building permit was issued for the above
requested construction, but due to an economic
hardship, the applicant wasn't able to have the
construction done. In September 1986, a new
interpretation of the ordinance was made regarding the
definition of a lot line front which states that: The
property boundary line that runs common with and
adjacent to any street frontage or right-of-way
separating such lot from such street; in the case of a
double frontage lot or a corner lot, each line
separating such lot from the street shall be considered
a front lot line.
The structure is a one-story frame house that is
located on a 62 foot lot. Because of the location of
the house on the property, there is a considerable
amount of side yard of 20 feet on the south side of the
property which is not common for this area of the City.
August 17, 1987
Item No. 5 - Continued
On the west of the property, there is an older frame
structure that is used to store an antique car.
Staff feels that the hardship in question is that of
the new interpretation of the definition of a lot
frontage which requires two front yard setbacks. The
property is zoned "R-4" which requires a 25-foot front
yard setback, and the applicant's request of 2.6 feet
frontage does not place any undue hardship on the
neighboring property owners, and with the construction
of the carport, the present building line will be
maintained. The curb cut and concrete drives are
already in place; therefore, the need has been
justified.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval subject to the newly
constructed two-car carport never being enclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Bennie Malone, was present at the
meeting. No one was present to oppose the variance. The
chairman asked if there was any problem with the applicant
meeting the conditions stated in staff's recommendation.
The applicant responded that there was none. A motion was
made to approve the variance as recommended and conditioned
by staff. The motion passed for approval by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
August 17, 1987
Item No. 6 - Z-4883
Owner: Horace P. Curry, Sr.
Address: 2323 High Street
Description: Lot 4, Block 18, Fleming and Bradford
Addition
Zoned: "C-3"
Variance
Requested: (1) From the area provisions of Section
7-103.3/e to permit expansion of
the building with a reduced front
yard setback.
(2) From the off-street parking
provision of Section 8-101/h.2 to
permit detached parking facility or
satellite parking.
Justification: (1) The existing structure is in
disrepair, and it would create an
unnecessary hardship for he
landowner to have to make
substantial repairs to the existing
structure without a reasonable
expansion of the current use of the
land.
(2) The applicant cannot use the
property for other than the current
use, and the requested improvements
herein will slow the overall
deterioration of the neighborhood.
Present Use of
Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
(1) A franchise agreement has to be signed with the
City for the continued encroachment into the
right-of-way.
August 17, 1987
Item No. 6 - Continued
(2) Parking requirements have to be met with the
entrance to be taken from the north end of High
Street.
(3) No permitted access or parking in the front
between the building and High Street.
B. Staff Analysis
The request before the Board of Adjustment is to allow
for the construction of a new addition with a zero
front yard setback to High Street and providing of
off-street parking. At some point during 1962, the
Urban Renewal Project conducted by the Little Rock
Housing Authority widened High Street to the present 80
feet width, which in turn made the applicant's front
building encroach in the right-of-way. The present
structure on the property is in need of repair, and the
applicant
feels that it would be more advantageous to have an
overall remodeling and construction in order to
modernize the present operation of a cleaners. With
the proposed addition, the present building line will
be maintained.
Upon review of the site, staff found that the survey
submitted was off considerably. The survey used in the
sketch indicates enough area that could be used for
additional parking, but, in fact, the building sets
farther back on the property; therefore, the applicant
needs to provide some means of meeting the additional
required parking spaces of which there are four. The
total amount of parking spaces needed is seven, but the
area in front of the present structure will provide for
only three spaces. The applicant was informed of this
problem and is supposed to provide an agreement at the
meeting indicating how the off-site parking will be
met. Another concern of staff was the design of the
proposed new addition and the amount of space being
requested. The applicant indicated that the reasons
were threefold: (a) the space will be used for
storage, (b) under the modernization plan, a new
conveyor machine will be installed that will run the
length of the floor, (c) not indicated on the survey is
a slope to the rear of the property.
August 17, 1987
Item No. 6 - Continued
Staff feels that a hardship does, in fact, exist
because of the requirement of two front yard setbacks.
Since the encroachment of the building line into High
Street existed prior to this request, and Engineering
doesn't feel that to continue the present building line
would interfere with any additional widening of High
Street, the proposed new addition will not present a
problem. If the variances requested are granted, it
will be necessary for the applicant to meet all the
requirements set out in the Landscape Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval subject to the applicant (a)
meeting all of the requirements set out by Engineering,
(b) all the requirements of the Landscaping Ordinance being
met, and (c) the applicant has to provide a written
agreement indicating that off-street parking can be provided
within 300 feet of the site.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Horace P. Curry, Jr. and Mr. Bennie O'Neil were present
to represent the applicant. There were no objectors present
at the hearing. Mr. O'Neil, attorney for the applicant,
spoke for the applicant before the Board. Mr. Thomas
McGowan, chairman of the Board, asked Mr. O'Neil if he had
any problems meeting all the conditions recommended by staff
and Engineering. He stated there were none. Mr. Ronald
Pierce, Board member, asked the Board if they felt that
granting of the variance for off-site parking was
contradictive to the denial of the same request on another
case last month. There was a considerable amount of
discussion about Mr. Pierce's concern. Staff stated the
applicant is required to provide for seven (7) parking
spaces and what the applicant was proposing was to have two
spaces for the two employees designated at Freeman's Funeral
Home across the street. The applicant provided a letter
indicating the two spaces could be provided at the funeral
home. The Board determined that the difference of this
requested variance from the one last month was the fact that
not only was the applicant deficient in the parking
requirements, but also the parking layout was in violation
because of the backing out of the automobiles onto a heavily
trafficked street. The applicant stated that the use for
the new addition would still be the same which is that of a
cleaners. The basis of the discussion of the Board was
whether a stipulation can be placed on the amount of time an
agreement has to contain before off-street parking can be
granted. Staff stated that in the past the Board has
August 17, 1987
Item No. 6 - Continued
required the applicant to provide a written agreement
indicating the number of years the use can appear. The
agent for the applicant was then asked by Mr. John
McDaniels, a Board member, what amount of time on the lease
agreement did he feel he could obtain. Mr. O'Neil stated
that a period of five (5) to ten (10) years could be
provided. Mr. Kenny Scott of the Enforcement Office stated
that the variance could be granted conditioned upon the
applicant providing a written lease agreement with a number
of years attached before the building permit is issued.
Mr. O'Neil was then asked if he preferred a deferral until
he obtained the agreement or approval conditioned upon the
lease agreement containing at least a 10-year period for the
use of the two spaces. The agent for the applicant stated
he would prefer the conditions attached to the approval. A
motion was then made to approve both variances conditioned
upon the applicant meeting all of staff's recommendation,
Engineering requirements, and providing a lease agreement
stating a period of least ten (10) years would run with the
use of the off-street parking. The motion was approved with
a vote of 7 ayes, 1 no (Wells), and 1 absent.
August 17, 1987
Item No. 7 - Z-4884
Owner: Jyothi McMinn
Address: West Markham and Polk, NE Corner
Description: Lot 12, Block 10, Pfeifer's Addition
Zoned: "O-3"
Variance
Requested: (1) From the area provisions of
Section 7-102.3/d.1 to permit an
addition with a reduced front
yard setback.
(2) From the parking provisions of
Section 8-101/B.2 to permit less
parking spaces than required by
the ordinance.
Justification: (1) The attempt to conform to the
existing structure, which fails
outside the setback requirement.
(2) The proposed use not being
addressed in the ordinance for the
required number of parking spaces.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant Building
Proposed Use
of Property: Dance Studio
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
(1) Applicant will be required to make street
improvements on Polk Street.
(2) The requirements under the Landscaping Ordinance
will need to be met.
(3) The applicant needs to provide a parking layout
that shows the required number of spaces and the
flow of the traffic for the spaces.
August 17, 1987
Item No. 7 - Continued
B. Staff Analysis
There are two issues before the Board of Adjustment.
First the applicant is asking for a front yard variance
of six feet in order to construct a new two-story
addition that will be attached to an existing frame
structure already on-site. The purpose is to have the
additional space for a dance studio. Secondly, the
applicant is requesting a waiver from the parking
provisions to permit less spaces than required by the
ordinance. The ordinance does not specifically address
the type of use in question; therefore, the applicant
based the number of spaces required to that of a trade
school or like institution which requires one space for
300 gross square feet of building area. Under the
criteria used by the applicant for the proposed amount
of square footage, which will be approximately 2,989
with 3 parking spaces provided for underneath the
two-story structure, the number of required parking
spaces will be 9.9 spaces. In the letter submitted to
staff, the applicant stated that the plan maximized the
potential for parking at 9 spaces, therefore, the
request for the waiver.
The site in question is on one of two lots where a
montessori shool used to be located. In the front of
the building on Markham Street, there is an entrance to
the site with a gravel drive that circles both lots and
exits on to Polk Street. To the north side of the
property, there is an apartment complex, to the west is
an office building, to the south there is a golf course
and to the east there is an office use. The proposed
variance is on a 50-foot lot which is zoned "O-3" with
a front yard requirement of 25 feet for both the Polk
and Markham Streets frontage. Although the issues
before the Board of Adjustment are for Lot 12 only, the
applicant is the owner of Lot 11 also.
The applicant has on one hand demonstrated a hardship
because of the corner lot provisions set out in the
ordinance; but due to the facts: (1) The applicant has
not adequately provided for the amount of parking
spaces necessary to meet the required amount for the
square footage proposed, nor does staff agree with the
comparison to a trade school or institution. (2) The
over building of the site, which the new structure will
increase some 200 percent. (3) The concern of staff
that a precedence would be set by the waivering of the
parking requirements inasmuch as the property is
already zoned for an office use and the possibility of
August 17, 1987
Item No. 7 - Continued
a more intense use some day being placed on the site.
Staff feels that the applicant has not justified the
need. At this time, we cannot support the requested
variance as submitted.
A more suitable use of the property would be for the
applicant to combine both lots and use one for the
required parking that will be needed.
If the Board of Adjustment sees fit to grant the
requested variances, it will be necessary for the Board
to taken action and determine the number of parking
spaces that would be required. The applicant will also
be required to meet all of the issues reported by
Engineering.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Antonio Mesa, and his agent, Mr. Clint
Boshears, were present at the hearing. Mr. Boshears spoke
for the applicant before the Board. There were no objectors
to the variance present. One letter in opposition had been
received in the office. Mr. Boshears stated that the
applicant wished to withdraw the requested variance for the
waivering of parking spaces and depending upon what the
improvements on Polk Street would be, the applicant may want
to withdraw both variances. Richard Wood of the staff
stated that the improvements would be inclusive of curb and
gutter along Polk Street except where new drives will be
placed and the possible reconstruction of the sidewalk.
Mr. Boshears then asked if the sidewalk was required, and
Mr. Wood stated that it may be. Mr. Wood also informed
Mr. Boshears that the requirement of curb and gutter was
more entailed than simply putting them in place.
Mr. Boshears stated that the applicant will proceed with the
front yard variance. The size of the new addition to the
present structure will be reduced to 30 x 43 square feet
thus placing the nine (9) parking spaces within the
ordinance. Since the ordinance does not address the
requirements for parking spaces, the applicant used the
requirements of one space per 300 feet for less than 2700
square feet for a dance studio under the "O-3" zoning.
Staff reminded the Board of Adjustment that because the
ordinance does not directly address what the required number
of parking spaces should be for the use of a dance studio,
it would be necessary for the Board to make a determination.
The Board then discussed the concerns of staff and after the
August 17, 1987
Item No. 7 - Continued
applicant assured the Board that he could adequately meet
the nine spaces he had proposed, it was determined that the
nine parking spaces would be adequate for the use and keep
the structure in compliance with the ordinance.
Mr. Boshears stated that the top floor of the new addition
would have a total of 1,290 square feet and the bottom floor
a total of 645 square feet. Mr. Boshears also offered to
increase the variance requested for the front yard setback
on Polk Street from 6 feet to 10 feet. There was some
discussion among the Board and applicant as to whether the
lining up of the buildings would be necessary or not.
Mr. Boshears stated that the applicant's intent was to
adhere to the ordinance. Mrs. Cynthia Alderman, Board
member, stated that she did not feel that whether the
encroachment of six (6) feet, if the buildings were aligned
or ten (10) feet if they were not, really made any
difference. She then offered a motion stating that the
variance be granted subject to: (a) the applicant meeting
the requirements of Engineering, (b) the applicant meeting
the requirements of the Landscaping Ordinance, (c) the
withdrawal of the parking variance (d) the reduction of the
size of the new structure to 30' x 43', and (e) the
applicant providing for nine (9) parking spaces in a parking
layout that is to be reviewed and approved by staff.
Approval of the motion passed by a vote 8 ayes, 0 noes, and
1 absent.
August 17, 1987
There being no further business before the Board, the
Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.
Secretary Chairman
Date