Loading...
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