Loading...
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