boa_02 19 1980t_ 7'
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
FEBRUARY 19, 1980
2: 00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present, being seven in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the January meeting were amended and
approved unanimously as amended.
III. Members Present:
City Attorneys:
Jim Summerlin, Chairman
Samuel Anderson
Jerry Wilcox:
Marcelline.Czroir
William Ketcher
Ellis Walton
Richard Yada
Robert Taylor
Lester McKinley
February 19, 1980
Item No. 1 - Z-3441
Owner: Joe Cunningham
Address: 415 E. 9th Street
Description: W 66 Feet of Lots 10, 11 and 12,
Block 59, Original City
Zoned: "H-R" High Density Residential
variance: Request permission under the provisions
of Section 43-35 (2) (j) to locate a
professional office in the "H-R"
District.
Present Use of
Property: Rooming House
Proposed Use of
Property: Professional Offices
Staff Recommendation:
The structure under consideration is presently used as a
boarding house. The proposal would shift the use to
professional offices. A continuing problem in this area of
the City is a shortage of parking. While certain space
within the boundaries of this property is available for this
purpose, staff is doubtful that parking in accordance with
the Ordinance can be provided (one space per 300 square feet
of office use).
In many other cases, part of the parking has been waived to
accommodate the rehabilitation of this area. The applicant
has suggested that only a portion of this property would be
used for office space while the remainder would remain as
residential.
Staff recommends that the application be approved with the
condition that the owner provides properly constructed and
maintained parking spaces in proportion to the amount of
square footage converted to office use, i.e., allow the
available parking space to control the amount of space
within the structure devoted to office and waive additional
parking that might be required for the residential use of
the property.
February 19, 1980
Item No. 1 - Continued
Board Action:
After a lengthy discussion on the staff comments relative to
the proposed use of parking, the Board moved to defer
consideration of this matter to March in order to gain more
information from the applicant. The motion was passed:
7 ayes, 0 noes, no absent.
February 19, 1980
Item No. 2 - Z-3428
Owner: Thorton and Associates
by: Michael Mitchell
Address: 5609 Mabelvale Pike
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance: Request variance from Section 8-101
Paragraph I to permit certain parking
areas (used for temporary storage of
repossessed vehicles) to remain
unpaved.
Present Use of
Property:
Proposed Use of
Property:
Repossession Agent
Same
Staff Recommendation:
Thorton and Associates is involved in repossessing cars and
trucks for various financial institutions. The activity
involves the temporary storage of varying numbers of
vehicles for short periods of time.
While admitting that the requirement for space is large, the
applicant considers the paving requirement to be excessive
because the bulk of the property is not used in typical
parking lot fashion. There is not the usual in and out
movement associated with most parking areas. The applicant
requests relief from strict application of the paving
requirements within the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff accepts the arguments raised by the applicant and
recommends approval of the request. However, there is one
area on the front of the property which either must be paved
or landscaped and not used for parking.
Board Action:
The applicant was present and briefly explained the reason
his client was asking for the waiver of paving requirements.
He also stated that the owner was willing to pave the gravel
area mentioned by the staff and that they would do so.
After a brief discussion, the Board moved to approve the
application with the comments raised by the staff,
specifically that the one gravel area either be paved and
used for parking or, if it is not to be used for parking, be
landscaped. The motion was passed: 7 ayes, 0 noes, no
absent.
February 19, 1980
Item No. 3 - Z-3235-A
Owner: Alfred and Carol Williams
by: Richard Steinkamp
Address: #5 Beverly Place
Description: Lot 1, Walthour and Willbourn's Replat
of Block 3, Newton Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance: Request variance from Section 7-101.2
Paragraph D, Subparagraph 3 Rear Yard
Setback
Present Use of
Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of
Property: Same
Staff Recommendation:
This is a continuation of a case begun nearly two years ago.
Just last month it became necessary for the Board of
Adjustment to reconfirm its action of July 1978, which
permitted the applicant to construct the addition along the
side property line.
Neighboring property owners argue that the structure was
built in violation of the variance granted in that the staff
prepared drawing had indicated a structural length of
48 feet while the building constructed measures more nearly
56 feet in length (including a storage building attached).
Both side and rear yard variances were granted in 1978. The
amount of variance granted for the rear yard was not
specified at the time.
Subsequent to the completion of the addition, the applicants
constructed a deck overlooking the rear yard remaining,
projecting outward an additional 4' 9 1/2" from the second
floor of the building. The applicant said that a second
building permit was not sought when the deck was constructed
and states that it was thought (in good faith, however
erroneously) that the earlier permit was sufficient for the
additional work.
Essentially the issue is this: Neighbors are very upset
about the addition (the two story building) and were further
upset by the addition of the deck. The deck is a further
February 19, 1980
Item No. 3 - Continued
encroachment into the rear yard space. Compounding the
problem is the fact that the applicant maintains that no
rear yard waiver was necessary from the beginning because of
the unique design of the subdivision which gives all
property owners an undivided interest in a common open space
which abuts each rear yard. The applicant argues that this
is, in fact, an extension of each owner's rear yard even
though all owners are prohibited from declaring exclusive
use of any part of that open space.
Because this issue rests with the interpretation of the
Ordinance relatively to the rear yard, staff does not make a
recommendation.
Board Action:
In answer to the applicant's discussion of the possibility
of the private recreation area being considered in the same
manner as a public alley, the City Attorney told the Board
that the ordinance had, indeed, permitted use of one half of
the public alley for rear yard purposes, but that it was his
opinion that this case did not fit that definition and that
a rear yard variance would be required.
Richard Steinkamp, representing the Williams, made a
presentation and introduced the Williams to the Board of
Adjustment. During his presentation, he argued that the use
of an alley by the old ordinance, even though it did not
specifically apply in this case, did set a precedent for
consideration of other open areas in the same manner. He
further stated his opinion that the deck, being off the
master bedroom, was not an abuse of the privacy of
neighbors, because it faces the very rear end of the
property and the open space that is there for everyone to
enjoy. He stated that the Williams had no intention of
using it in a manner that would invade the privacy of
neighboring property owners. He further stated that normal
tree cover during the summer months when the deck would be
in use would tend to mitigate any detrimental effects of the
deck.
In opposition to the request, David Henry, Attorney
representing neighbors in opposition to the variance,
addressed many of the comments that Mr. Steinkamp had made.
He discussed his feeling that this particular request
demonstrated no hardship and that the hardship was the only
reason for asking for a variance and his opinion that the
ordinance would not permit this variance because no hardship
did exist. He also introduced the neighbors who were there
in support of his position in opposition to the
February 19, 1980
Item No. 3 - Continued
application. There were approximately 8 people present.
After a lengthy discussion, the Board moved to grant the
variance as filed. It was seconded and the motion was
passed: 4 ayes, 2 noes, 1 abstention. There were no
absences. Ellis Walton abstained, citing conflict of
interest.
February 19, 1980
Item No. 4 - Interpretative Issue
ORDINANCE: "Any nonconforming use, structure or lot
which legally existed prior to the
effective date of this Ordinance or any
use, structure or lot which has been
rendered nonconforming by the provisions
of this Ordinance may continue to be
utilized in the same fashion as existed
prior to the adoption of these
regulations." (5-101B)
ISSUE: The owner claims to have utilized this
property for the purpose of
manufacturing concrete ornamental
castings (bird baths, statuary items,
etc.) further claiming to have performed
the casting operations within an out
building while maintaining an office for
the business within the single family
dwelling on the front of the lot.
A few months ago, the owner sought to
lease the house to a nonprofit
organization for the purpose of
establishing a satellite counseling
service for western Pulaski County. The
nonprofit organization was subsequently
denied a permit to use this location by
the zoning enforcement staff.
The enforcement staff claims that the
owner abandoned the nonconforming use of
the dwelling and that said use cannot be
reestablished. The Planning staff
claims that the nonconformity remains,
and that the permit should have been
granted.
QUESTION: The central question is to determine if
it is possible to eliminate a
nonconformity from a property
incrementally from structure to
structure. Also, it is necessary to
determine what constitutes abandonment
under our Ordinance.
February 19, 1980
Item No. 4 - Continued
Board Action.
The staff made a brief presentation of the problem and tied
the general question relative to nonconforming use of
structures and lots to a specific case that is in process at
the present time relative to the Highway 10 Corridor. There
was a lengthy discussion by the Board, the staff and a
couple of neighbors near the Highway 10 case, specifically
Eugene Pfieffer, who is a neighboring resident and Mrs.
Grace Miller. Both spoke against the approval of this
particular nonconformity. Staff made the attempt to point
out that the question at hand did not necessarily relate
only to the specific case at hand, but that it was a general
question which needed to be cleared up.
Relative to the case in hand, Mr. McKelleps, owner of the
property in question, gave a brief presentation stating his
facts relative to the business use of the property in
question and cited some supporting documentation that he had
provided the City Attorney's Office earlier.
After a lengthy period of time, the Board moved to defer
consideration of this question until such time as they could
have more information and a better opportunity to review not
only the facts involved but the ordinance itself. The
motion was passed: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
February 19, 1980
Item No. 5 - Interpretative Issue
ORDINANCE: . . No parking shall be allowed in
front yard required for any MF-6,
MF-12, MF-18, MF-24, R-5, R-6, or 01
District. Where more than one exterior
yard is required, all but the front yard
may be used in its (sic) entirety for
required off-street parking provided
that the remaining yard is planted and
maintained as a landscaped area.
." (8-101B)
ISSUE: An owner bought a commercial lot (zoned
11C-4" to be down zoned to 11C-3" under
the conversion strategy procedures in
Section 1-106.1B) which contains
23,698.57 square feet and as a
commercial corner lot has a platted
setback of 45 feet on two sides (those
abutting streets). He plans to build a
one story office building containing
7,000 square feet. Such development
would require 18 parking spaces which
would require the use of both exterior
yards.
There is a claim that if it were the
intention to eliminate front yard
parking from the other districts, the
Ordinance should have stated so more
clearly. In addition, there is the
further contention that the intent of
the second sentence is to permit some
relief properties within those districts
where front yard parking is specifically
prohibited, i.e., is to ensure that
those properties are not treated as
having two front yards even though the
yards have identical setback lines.
QUESTION: Does the second sentence (beginning
"Where more than one. . .") apply to all
zoning districts within the City or does
it apply only to those districts
specifically listed in the proceeding
sentence?
February 19, 1980
Item No. 5 - Continued
Board Action:
After a brief discussion, the Board moved to approve a
recommendation that the second sentence in the paragraph,
dealing specifically with where more than one exterior yard
is required, would in fact be declared to be merely a
clarification of the earlier statement wherein it prohibits
parking in the front yard of specific districts named within
the statement. The effect of the interpretation is that
only in "MF-6", "MF-12", "MF-18", and "MF-24" or "R-5" or
"R-6" and 110-1" districts one exterior yard will be declared
to be the front yard and that the front yard will not be
used for parking, but the other exterior yard on corner lots
will be permitted to be paved and used for parking.
The motion on the interpretation was passed: 7 ayes, 0 noes
and no absent.
February 19, 1980
Other Business
The Board briefly discussed amendments proposed for their
bylaws and discussed the necessity of electing a new Vice
Chairman to replace Ray Fureigh, who had not been
reappointed to the Board. In both instances, the Board
stated that it would deal with those issues at the March
meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned
�cretary