Loading...
Z-8634 Staff AnalysisFEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-8634 Owner/Applicant: William S. Warren, Jr. Address: 808 Carywood Lane Description: Southwest Corner of Carywood Lane and "H" Street Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested of the Planning staff's determination that vehicles parked at the residence are classified as commercial vehicles and prohibited by Section 36-512. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT The R-2 zoned property at 808 Carywood Lane is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence, which is currently being remodeled. The property is located at the southwest corner of Carywood Lane and "H" Street. The Hall High School campus is located across "H" Street to the north. Single family residences are located to the east (across Carywood Lane), west and south. There is a one (1) car wide driveway from Carywood Lane at the southeast corner of the lot. The driveway runs along the south side of the residence to a large parking pad area in the rear yard. A large garage addition was recently constructed on the west end of the residence within the rear yard area. On December 10, 2010 the City's Zoning Enforcement staff received a complaint alleging that two (2) commercial vehicles were being parked at a residence at 808 Carywood Lane. Inspection of the site revealed two (2) commercial box -type trucks parked at the residence. As a result of the inspection, a Courtesy Notice was issued on December 15, 2010 to William S. Warren, Jr. to cease parking/storing the two (2) commercial trucks on the property at 808 Carywood Lane. On December 16, 2010 Mr. Warren submitted a letter requesting an administrative appeal of the Courtesy Notice issued by the enforcement staff. The letter was submitted to Tony Bozynski, Director of Planning and Development. After thorough review; a letter was sent to Mr. Warren on January 5, 2011 denying the requested administrative appeal. Mr. Warren is now appealing that decision to the Board of Adjustment. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T. Section 36-2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance defines a "commercial vehicle" as follows: "Commercial vehicle means any bus, trailer, van, truck, tractor other vehicle and/or trailer which has a current license and safety inspection, the purposes of which are the transport of people, merchandise, the moving of furniture or other goods, hauling or towing of equipment or other vehicles. This definition shall include backhoes, bulldozers or other wheeled or tracked vehicles engaged in construction or land development occurring off -site, whether or not properly licensed." Section 36-512 of the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles in residential zonings as follows: "Sec. 36-512. Commercial vehicle parking (prohibited). (a) Except as provided herein, no portion of any lot, tract or parcel of land zoned for residential usage, including districts "R-1" through "R-7a" and "MF-6: through "MF-24", shall be utilized for the parking of commercial vehicles with a load carrying capacity of one (1) ton or greater. (b) For the purposes of this section, the following types of vehicles are expressly prohibited at any time: (1) All commercial tow vehicles or vehicle carriers. (2) Dump trucks, trash haulers, bulldozers and other earth haulers or excavation equipment. (3) Flatbed or stake bed trucks. (4) Trailers whose designed intent is storage or transport of material or equipment. (5) Trucks or buses used in inter- or intrastate commerce. (6) Vans, of one (1) ton or greater in load -carrying capacity. (7) School or church buses or vans of one (1) ton or greater in load - carrying capacity. (8) Street sweepers and vehicle -mounted vacuum devices intended for the cleaning of streets or parking lots." The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine if the two (2) vehicles in question should be classified as "commercial vehicles" as per the City's Zoning Ordinance, and if the City Enforcement staff's action in requiring the two (2) vehicles be removed from the residential property is correct and appropriate. Additional/supplemental information (letters and photos) will be provided to the Board members for review of this issue. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 NO.: 7 (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2011) William Warren, Jr. and Jack Browne were present, representing the application. Staff presented the appeal request to the Board. Jack Browne addressed the Board in support of the application. He stated that Mr. Warren's vehicles were not commercial vehicles. He explained that Mr. Warren did not have a business which used the trucks. He noted that the State licensed the trucks for private/personal use. He presented photos of other vehicles parked in the neighborhood. Chairman Winchester asked what the trucks were used for. Mr. Warren explained that he trucks were for his personal use, and for use by family members. Vice -Chair Smith asked about the carrying capacity of the trucks. Mr. Warren stated that the trucks had a one (1) ton capacity. Vice -Chair Smith discussed the ordinance definition of a commercial vehicle. He noted that the issue was not how a vehicle is used, but how it is manufactured to be used. Mr. Browne further discussed Mr. Warren's use of the trucks. The issue of the State's licensing of vehicles was discussed. Mr. Warren noted that there were other commercial vehicles parked in the neighborhood. Staff explained that the trailer on the site was being used by Mr. Warren's contractor in conjunction with the current remodeling project. There was a motion to approve the requested appeal, determining that the two (2) trucks owned by Mr. William S. Warren, Jr., and parked at 808 Carywood Lane, do not meet the ordinance definition of commercial vehicle. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position. The appeal was denied. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z-5978-B Owner: Felton Mattingly Applicant: Daniel Bartlett Address: 5023 Baseline Road Description; Southeast Corner of Baseline Road and Sunset Lane Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36- 502 to allow construction of a new retail building with reduced parking. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Retail Building Proposed Use of Property: Vacant Retail Building STAFF NOTE: Staff has determined that the proposed building is located too close to the floodway which runs through the east end of the property. The applicant has not requested a variance for the reduced floodway setback. Public Works has noted concern with the proposed setback. The applicant needs to meet with Public Works officials to discuss how this situation should be resolved. Therefore, staff requests the application be deferred to the March 28, 2011 agenda for resolution of this issue. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2011) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the March 28, 2011 agenda so that floodway setback and driveway location issues could be resolved. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 28, 2011 agenda with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: File No.: Z-8069-A Owner: Rod and Carrie Ford Applicant: Jim Yeary - Address: 5241 Edgewood Road Description: Lot 50-R, Prospect Terrace Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a building addition with reduced side and rear setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Driveway must be five (5) feet off the property line within the City Right -of -Way extending to the street. A five (5) foot radial turn out shall be provided at the driveway apron. Please refer to Public Works Standard Detail PW-30 for reference. 2. Retaining wall greater than two (2) feet tall must be certified by a Professional Engineer. Contact Nathan Charles (501-918-5348) for explanation of the certification. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5241 Edgewood Road is occupied by a two-story rock and stucco single family residence. The property is located on the southeast corner of Edgewood Road and N. Harrison Street. There is a two -car wide driveway from N. Harrison Street which serves as access. A tennis court is located within the east half of the property. There is a swimming pool at the southeast corner of the residence. There is also a 30 foot platted building line running along the north (Edgewood) and west (Harrison) property lines. On June 26, 2006 the FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 2 CON'T-) Board of Adjustment approved rear setback and side platted building line variances associated with an addition to the rear (south) of the residence. The property is comprised of two (2) large platted lots (approximately 20,300 square feet). The applicant is proposing to construct a new two-story addition to the east side (over existing tennis court) of the existing residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The bottom level of the addition will include a three -car garage and covered porch area. The second level will be additional living space. The addition will provide approximately 8,600 square feet of total floor area (including garage), with a footprint of approximately 4,500 square feet. The proposed addition will be located five (5) feet back from the east side property fine and 14.25 feet back from the rear (south) property line. It will be located approximately 36 feet back from the front (north) property line. A new circular driveway from Edgewood Road will access the proposed garage addition. The addition will be constructed to match the existing residence. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of eight (8) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances form these ordinance requirements to allow the proposed building addition with reduced east side and rear setbacks. Staff is supportive of the requested side and rear setback variances. Staff views the request as reasonable, given the overall lot coverage and massing for other properties in this neighborhood. As noted previously, this lot has over 20,000 square feet of area. The existing house with proposed addition will occupy approximately 42.5 percent of the lot area. This will be compatible with other lots in this residential area. The proposed addition will be located approximately 36 feet back from the front (north) property line in order to align with the existing house. This pushes the addition further back on the lot, creating a reduced rear setback. The side setback of five (5) feet as proposed should allow ample separation between the addition and existing house to the east. Staff believes the proposed addition to the existing residence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances associated with the building addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The addition must be constructed to match the existing residence (similar style and color). 2. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of the staff report. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2011) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested the application be deferred to the March 28, 2011 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 28, 2011 agenda with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-8388-A Owner: Roy Bullard Applicant: Stephen C. Davis Address: 5805 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 7, Mountain Park Addition Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-555 to allow a ground sign with reduced setback from property line. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Restaurant Building Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 5805 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by a one-story commercial building which previously housed a restaurant use (Brownings). The property is located on the south side of Kavanaugh Blvd., between N. Grant and N. Pierce Streets. There was a drive-thru window on the east side of the building. There are a total of eleven (11) off-street, striped parking spaces on the south and east sides of the building. There is also on -street parking in the area. The building is approximately 4,500 square feet in area. On September 29, 2008 the Board of Adjustment approved variances (awning setback and parking) associated with an outdoor seating area along the front (north) of the building. The building is currently being remodeled for revival of the Brownings restaurant use. As part of the remodeling project, the applicant proposes to attach a new sign to an existing sign pole on the west side of the front entry area. The proposed sign will replace a sign which was removed from the sign pole for the remodeling project. The proposed sign will be approximately the same size as the recently removed FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T sign. The proposed sign will be approximately 15 square feet in area and have a height of approximately 18 to 20 feet. The proposed sign will have a design which will resemble the original sign which was located on the property during the 1940's-1960's. The front edge of the sign will be near, or just over, the front (north) property line. Section 36-555(b) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum sign setback of five (5) feet from property lines. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the sign with no setback from the front (north) property line. Staff is supportive of the requested sign setback variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The new sign will replace a sign which was recently removed from an existing sign pole. The sign has existed as a component of this commercial building for a number of years. It will have more than adequate clearance above the outdoor dining/sidewalk area. Staff believes the proposed sign will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign setback variance, subject to a sign permit being obtained. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2011) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval, with conditions. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved, as recommended by staff with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-8635 Owner: Dr. Archie Hearne Applicant: Jeff Horton Address: 1015 Wright Avenue Description: Part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 25, Wright's Addition Zoned: R-4 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 256 and the parking provisions of Section 36-502 to allow construction of a new residence with reduced setbacks and reduced off-street parking. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant lot Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Parking is not allowed on Wright Avenue. 2. Garbage pick up is not allowed on Wright Avenue. B. Building Codes Comments: The required fire separation distance (building to property line) prescribed by the building code terminates at five (5) feet. Buildings are allowed to be closer than five (5) feet if they have properly constructed fire walls which provide the requisite one (1) hour fire resistance rating. When buildings are five (5) feet or more from the property line, the requirement no longer applies to the wall itself, only the projections such as eaves or overhangs. Openings such as doors and windows are limited when the exterior wall is three (3) feet from the property line, and are prohibited when the exterior wall is less than three (3) feet from the line. There is no restriction on openings when the exterior wall is more than three (3) feet from the property line. Contact the City of Little Rock Building Codes at 371-4832 for additional details. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 4 CON'T. C. Staff Analysis: The R-4 zoned property located at 1015 Wright Avenue is currently a vacant lot which is mostly gravel covered. The property is located on the south side of Wright Avenue, between Chester and Ringo Streets. The lot is comprised of part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 25, Wright's Addition. The lot is 2,640 square feet in area and is a legal lot of record, as it has existed in this configuration for a number of years. A house which previously occupied the lot has been removed. An existing overhead power line runs through the east portion of the property. The applicant proposes to construct a new two-story single family residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed residence will have approximately 4,000 square feet of floor area, with a footprint of 2,000 square feet. The proposed residence will have a front (north) setback of 2.7 feet, rear setback of 2.3 feet, east side setback of 4.2 to 4.5 feet, and a west side setback of 3.5 to 4.1 feet. The proposed residence will occupy approximately 76 percent of the overall lot. Section 36-256(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for this R-4 zoned lot. Section 36-256(d)(2) requires minimum side setbacks (east and west) of 4.8 feet. Section 36-256(d)(3) requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Section 36-502(b)(1) requires at least one (1) off-street parking space for the proposed residence. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements to allow the proposed residence with reduce setbacks form all property lines and no off-street parking. Staff is not supportive of the requested variances associated with the proposed residence. Although staff recognizes the fact that the lot of record has a very small substandard size, staff feels the proposed 76 percent lot coverage is too much in this instance. The proposed east and west side setbacks are within reason. However, the front and rear setbacks as proposed are somewhat less than desirable to provide even minimal yard areas. There is excess right-of-way along the south side of Wright Avenue adjacent to this lot, which will aid in the issue of reduced front setback, which staff feels should be more than 2.7 feet. The Building Codes regulations will allow no window or door openings on the front or rear walls, at the proposed setbacks. Staff also has concerns related to where the residents of the house will park and how garbage pick-up for the residence will be achieved. Additionally, the relocation of utilities which utilize the overhead power lines within the east portion of the property must be resolved. With additional front and rear setbacks, and resolution of the other concerns as stated, staff could possibly support construction of a new residence on this lot. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested setback and parking variances, as filed. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 4 CWT. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2011) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested the application be deferred to the March 28, 2011 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 28, 2011 agenda with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-8603-A Owner/Applicant: Ruthie West Address: 2406 W. 13th Street Description: North side of W. 13th Street, two (2) lots west of Rice Street Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested of the Planning staff's determination that the front porch of the residence was enclosed after the adoption of the Central High Design Overlay District Ordinance. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT The R-3 zoned property at 2406 W. 13th Street is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway at the southeast corner of the property leading to a small garage structure at the northeast corner of the residence. There is a second accessory building at the northwest corner of the property. The property owner, Ruthie West, recently enclosed the front porch of the residence. The enclosure is wood construction with vertical sheet siding. Three (3) windows and a front door were located on the front facade of the enclosure. As of this writing, the enclosed front porch has not been painted. The property is located within the Central High Neighborhood Design Overlay District. On July 27, 2010 the City's Zoning Enforcement staff issued a Courtesy Notice to Ruthie West for the front porch enclosure, as a result of a complaint being filed. The courtesy Notice granted seven (7) days to comply by removing the porch enclosure. Enclosing an existing front parch on a residential structure is a violation of the Central High Neighborhood Design Overlay District Ordinance. The applicant contacted staff and expressed interest in filing a PD-R rezoning for the property to allow the porch enclosure. On August 23, 2010 a court citation was issued to Ruthie West, as no PD-R application had been filed. The applicant then filed a PD-R application for the December 16, 2010 Planning Commission Agenda. The court case was suspended pending outcome of the PD-R application. At the December 16, 2010 Planning Commission meeting there was discussion of when Ms. West started the front porch FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 5 {CON'T enclosure construction in relation to when the Central High Neighborhood Design Overlay District Ordinance took effect. The Planning Commission deferred the PD-R application to March 10, 2011 so that this issue can be resolved. Therefore, Ruthie West is appealing staff's enforcement of the front porch enclosure to the Board of Adjustment, contending that the construction began prior to adoption of the Central High Neighborhood Design Overlay District Ordinance. The Central High Neighborhood Design Overlay District Ordinance No. 20,180 was adopted by the City Board of Directors on October 20, 2009, The Design Overlay ❑istrict provides criteria for new construction and additions/modifications to existing structures within the district. Section 36-EEE(i) of the Ordinance is as follows: "N Parches: Residential structures must have a front porch that is a passageway from the street to the front door of the unit(s) on new residential construction and additions/modifications to the front fapade of existing residential structures." The applicant, Ruthie West, has submitted documents such as building material receipts and petition from neighbors in support of her case. Again, Ms. West contends that she Megan construction of the porch enclosure prior t❑ the passage of the Design Overlay District Ordinance. The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine if construction of the porch enclosure began prior to the October 20, 2009 adoption of the Central High Neighborhood ❑esign Overlay District ordinance. Additional/supplemental information (ordinance, letters and photos) will be provided to the Board members for review of this issue. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2011) Ruthie West was present, representing the application. Staff presented the appeal request to the Board. There were several persons present in support of Ms. West's appeal. Ruthie West addressed the Board in support of the appeal request. She explained that construction of the front porch enclosure began prior to the Central High Neighborhood ❑OD. She stated that she was unaware that she needed a building permit for the porch enclosure. She noted that several surrounding property owners had signed a petition stating that the construction began prior to the DOD. Frankie Gaines and Dorothy Patton spoke in support of Ms. West's appeal. They stated that the construction on the porch enclosure began in August, 2009. Vice -Chair Smith noted that a building permit was not obtained for the porch enclosure. He asked about the sequence o' Gvents leading to the porch construction. Ms. West explained that she began thinking about the enclosure in April, 2009, and started FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 5 CON'T. purchasing building materials in August, 2009. She noted that the porch enclosure was completed in late September, 2009. In response to a question from Vice -Chair Smith, Ms. West noted that none of the work was hired out. She stated that family members did all the work. There was discussion of when enforcement began with respect to when the construction started. In response to a question from Vice -Chair Smith, Ms. West noted that the porch enclosure was completed in two (2) weeks. There was discussion of the petition submitted by Ms. West. Eric Simmons, Ms. West's son, spoke in support of the appeal. He discussed the porch enclosure. The DOD guidelines were discussed. Minnie Sanford, Ms. West's sister, explained that they began thinking about enclosing the front porch in April, 2009. Rajesh Mehta noted that Ms. West had presented good information regarding when the porch was enclosed. Brad Wingfield noted that the sequence of invoices for building materials ended with house numbers and a mailbox purchased in September, 2009. There was a motion to approve the requested appeal, determining that construction on the front porch enclosure at 2406 W. 13th Street began prior to the October 20, 2009 adoption of the Central High Neighborhood Design Overlay ❑istrict Ordinance. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position. The appeal was approved. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-8633 Owner/Applicant: Greer H. Lile, Jr. Address: 1707 Lilac Circle Description: East side of Lilac Circle, South of Lilac Terrace Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested of the Planning staff's determination that driveways as constructed within the front yard area of the residential property exceed the maximum width allowed by Section 36-513. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT The R-3 zoned property at 1707 Lilac Circle is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide carport located on the north end of the residence, accessed by a 10 foot wide concrete driveway (original) at the northwest corner of the property. The applicant recently constructed two (2) additional driveways from Lilac Circle for vehicular parking. Approximately 2.5 feet south of the original 10 foot wide driveway is a new 23.5 foot wide drive, with parking for three (3) vehicles. Approximately 9 feet south of that drive is a new driveway with a width of 16.75 feet and parking for two (2) vehicles. The original (northernmost) 10 foot wide drive allows the parking of three (3) vehicles in conjunction with the carport. The applicant has noted that the two (2) new driveways were constructed between February and May 15, 2010. Ordinance No. 20,231 which regulates the parking of motor vehicles in the front yards of residences was passed by the City Board of Directors on March 2, 2010 and went into effect on June 1, 2010. The ordinance allows a maximum driveway width of 20 feet in addition to a 20 foot by 20 foot "flagpole" area for vehicular parking or maneuvering. The ordinance, as noted in paragraph (f), creates no nonconforming situations. On November 17, 2010 the City's Housing and Neighborhood Programs department issued a notice to comply to the property owner, based on the fact that an excessive amount of the front yard area had heen paved/concreted for motor vehicular parking: The notice granted seven (7) days to comply or file an administrative appeal. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 6 CON'T. On November 23, 2010 Greer H. Lile, Jr. submitted an administrative appeal request to staff. The letter was submitted to Tony Bozynski, Director of Planning and Development. After thorough review, a letter was sent to Mr. Lile on December 14, 2010 denying the administrative appeal, requiring Mr. Lile to remove the center/widest driveway/parking pad on the site. During a site visit for the appeal request staff observed eight (8) vehicles parked in the front yard and carport of the residence. The administrative appeal was denied for the following reasons: ■ The number and width of driveways/parking pads on the site exceeds the intent of the ordinance. • The number of vehicles parked on the site exceeds the intent of the ordinance. ■ There is ample space on the site to park five (5) vehicles without utilizing the center/widest driveway/parking pad. Five (5) parking spaces is ample to serve any single family residence. Mr. Lile is now appealing staff's denial of his administrative appeal to the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine if Mr. Lile's parking arrangement (driveways, parking pads, number of vehicles, etc.) meets the intent of Ordinance No. 20,231 and can continue. Additionallsupplemental information (copy of ordinance, photos and letters) will be provided to the Board members for review of this issue. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2011) Greer H. Lile, Jr. was present, representing the application. Staff presented the appeal request to the Board. Greer H. Lile, Jr. addressed the Board in support of the appeal request. He discussed when the driveways were constructed with respect to the parking in yards ordinance. He noted that a city inspector had been to the property prior to adoption of the ordinance. He noted that he had no idea of how the ordinance was going to work. He stated that he should be able to keep the driveways because they were constructed prior to the ordinance. There was discussion of the parking in yards ordinance with respect to non -conforming situations. The issue was discussed. Staff noted that the center driveway needed to be removed. Mr. Lile stated that many properties in the city did not conform with the ordinance with respect to driveway width and pavement in front yard areas. The issue was discussed. Vice -Chair Smith discussed the ordinance allowance for driveway width and parking area. There was discussion of the intent of the ordinance and what needed to be done FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 6 CON'T. to make Mr. Lile's property comply. Mr. Lile noted that the City required the center driveway be removed. Staff explained that a strip of concrete (approximately four (4) feet wide) along the street, within the right-of-way, could be removed, with the remaining concrete pad used as a patio and not for parking cars. This issue was discussed further. There was a motion to approve the requested appeal, determining that the construction of driveways at 1707 Lilac Circle meets the intent of Ordinance No. 20,231 (parking in yards ordinance). The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position. The appeal was denied. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-8634 Owner/Applicant: William S. Warren, Jr. Address: f 808 Carywood Lane Description: Southwest Corner of Carywood Lane and "H" Street Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested of the Planning staff's determination that vehicles parked at the residence are classified as commercial vehicles and prohibited by Section 36-512. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT The R-2 zoned property at 808 Carywood Lane is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence, which is currently being remodeled. The property is located at the southwest corner of Carywood Lane and "H" Street. The Hall High School campus is located across "H" Street to the north. Single family residences are located to the east (across Carywood Lane), west and south. There is a one (1) car wide driveway from Carywood Lane at the southeast corner of the lot. The driveway runs along the south side of the residence to a large parking pad area in the rear yard. A large garage addition was recently constructed on the west end of the residence within the rear yard area. On December 10, 2010 the City's Zoning Enforcement staff received a complaint alleging that two (2) commercial vehicles were being parked at a residence at 808 Carywood Lane. Inspection of the site revealed two (2) commercial box -type trucks parked at the residence. As a result of the inspection, a Courtesy Notice was issued on December 15, 2010 to William S. Warren, Jr. to cease parking/storing the two (2) commercial trucks on the property at 808 Carywood Lane. On December 16, 2010 Mr. Warren submitted a letter requesting an administrative appeal of the Courtesy Notice issued by the enforcement staff. The letter was submitted to Tony Bozynski, Director of Planning and Development. After thorough review, a letter was sent to Mr. Warren on January 5, 2011 denying the requested administrative appeal. Mr. Warren is now appealing that decision to the Board of Adjustment. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO-: 7 (CO N T• Section 36-2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance defines a "commercial vehicle" as follows: "Commercial vehicle means any bus, trailer, van, truck, tractor other vehicle and/or trailer which has a current license and safety inspection, the purposes of which are the transport of people, merchandise, the moving of furniture or other goods, hauling or towing of equipment or other vehicles. This definition shall include backhoes, bulldozers or other wheeled or tracked vehicles engaged in construction or land development occurring off -site, whether or not properly licensed." Section 36-512 of the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles in residential zonings as follows: "Sec. 36-512. Commercial vehicle parking (prohibited). (a) Except as provided herein, no portion of any lot, tract or parcel of land zoned for residential usage, including districts "R-1" through "R-7a" and WF-6: through WF-24", shall be utilized for the parking of commercial vehicles with a load carrying capacity of one (1) ton or greater. (b) For the purposes of this section, the following types of vehicles are expressly prohibited at any time: (1) All commercial tow vehicles or vehicle carriers. (2) Dump trucks, trash haulers, bulldozers and other earth haulers or excavation equipment. (3) Flatbed or stake bed trucks. (4) Trailers whose designed intent is storage or transport of material or equipment. (5) Trucks or buses used in inter- or intrastate commerce. (6) Vans, of one (1) ton or greater in load -carrying capacity. (7) School or church buses or vans of one (1) ton or greater in load - carrying capacity. (8) Street sweepers and vehicle -mounted vacuum devices intended for the cleaning of streets or parking lots." The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine if the two (2) vehicles in question should be classified as "commercial vehicles" as per the City's Zoning Ordinance, and if the City Enforcement staff's action in requiring the two (2) vehicles be removed from the residential property is correct and appropriate. Additionallsupplemental information (letters and photos) will be provided to the Board members for review of this issue. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 7 CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2011) William Warren, Jr. and Jack Browne were present, representing the application. Staff presented the appeal request to the Board. Jack Browne addressed the Board in support of the application. He stated that Mr. Warren's vehicles were not commercial vehicles. He explained that Mr. Warren did not have a business which used the trucks. He noted that the State licensed the trucks for private/personal use. He presented photos of other vehicles parked in the neighborhood. Chairman Winchester asked what the trucks were used for. Mr. Warren explained that he trucks were for his personal use, and for use by family members. Vice -Chair Smith asked about the carrying capacity of the trucks. Mr. Warren stated that the trucks had a one (1) ton capacity. Vice -Chair Smith discussed the ordinance definition of a commercial vehicle. He noted that the issue was not how a vehicle is used, but how it is manufactured to be used. Mr. Browne further discussed Mr. Warren's use of the trucks. The issue of the State's licensing of vehicles was discussed. Mr. Warren noted that there were other commercial vehicles parked in the neighborhood. Staff explained that the trailer on the site was being used by Mr. Warren's contractor in conjunction with the current remodeling project. There was a motion to approve the requested appeal, determining that the two (2) trucks owned by Mr. William S. Warren, Jr., and parked at 808 Carywood Lane, do not meet the ordinance definition of commercial vehicle. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position. The appeal was denied. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-8634 Owner/Applicant: William S. Warren, Jr. Address: 808 Carywood Lane Description: Southwest Corner of Carywood Lane and "H" Street Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested of the Planning staff's determination that vehicles parked at the residence are classified as commercial vehicles and prohibited by Section 36-512. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT The R-2 zoned property at 808 Carywood Lane is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence, which is currently being remodeled. The property is located at the southwest corner of Carywood Lane and "H" Street. The Hall High School campus is located across "H" Street to the north. Single family residences are located to the east (across Carywood Lane), west and south. There is a one (1) car wide driveway from Carywood Lane at the southeast corner of the lot. The driveway runs along the south side of the residence to a large parking pad area in the rear yard. A large garage addition was recently constructed on the west end of the residence within the rear yard area. On December 10, 2010 the City's Zoning Enforcement staff received a complaint alleging that two (2) commercial vehicles were being parked at a residence at 808 Carywood Lane. Inspection of the site revealed two (2) commercial box -type trucks parked at the residence. As a result of the inspection, a Courtesy Notice was issued on December 15, 2010 to William S. Warren, Jr. to cease parking/storing the two (2) commercial trucks on the property at 808 Carywood Lane. On December 16, 2010 Mr. Warren submitted a letter requesting an administrative appeal of the Courtesy Notice issued by the enforcement staff. The letter was submitted to Tony Bozynski, Director of Planning and Development. After thorough review; a letter was sent to Mr. Warren on January 5, 2011 denying the requested administrative appeal. Mr. Warren is now appealing that decision to the Board of Adjustment. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.) Section 36-2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance defines a "commercial vehicle" as follows: "Commercial vehicle means any bus, trailer, van, truck, tractor other vehicle and/or trailer which has a current license and safety inspection, the purposes of which are the transport of people, merchandise, the moving of furniture or other goods, hauling or towing of equipment or other vehicles. This definition shall include backhoes, bulldozers or other wheeled or tracked vehicles engaged in construction or land development occurring off -site, whether or not properly licensed." Section 36-512 of the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles in residential zonings as follows: "Sec. 36-512. Commercial vehicle parking (prohibited). (a) Except as provided herein, no portion of any lot, tract or parcel of land zoned for residential usage, including districts "R-1 "through "R-7a" and "MF-6: through "MF-24", shall be utilized for the parking of commercial vehicles with a load carrying capacity of one (1) ton or greater. (b) For the purposes of this section, the following types of vehicles are expressly prohibited at any time: (1) All commercial tow vehicles or vehicle carriers. (2) Dump trucks, trash haulers, bulldozers and other earth haulers or excavation equipment. (3) Flatbed or stake bed trucks. (4) Trailers whose designed intent is storage or transport of material or equipment. (5) Trucks or buses used in inter- or intrastate commerce. (6) Vans, of one (1) ton or greater in load -carrying capacity. (7). School or church buses or vans of one (1) ton or greater in load - carrying capacity. (8) Street sweepers and vehicle -mounted vacuum devices intended for the cleaning of streets or parking lots." The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine if the two (2) vehicles in .question should be classified as "commercial vehicles" as per the City's Zoning Ordinance, and if the City Enforcement staff's action in requiring the two (2) vehicles be removed from the residential property is correct and appropriate. Additional/supplemental information (letters and photos) will be provided to the Board members for review of this issue. FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ITEM NO.: 7 CC)N' I . BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2011) William Warren, Jr. and Jack Browne were present, representing the application. Staff presented the appeal request to the Board. Jack Browne addressed the Board in support of the application. He stated that Mr. Warren's vehicles were not commercial vehicles. He explained that Mr. Warren did not have a business which used the trucks. He noted that the State licensed the trucks for private/personal use. He presented photos of other vehicles parked in the neighborhood. Chairman Winchester asked what the trucks were used for. Mr. Warren explained that he trucks were for his personal use, and for use by family members. Vice -Chair Smith asked about the carrying capacity of the trucks. Mr. Warren stated that the trucks had a one (1) ton capacity. Vice -Chair Smith discussed the ordinance definition of a commercial vehicle. He noted that the issue was not how a vehicle is used, but how it is manufactured to be used. Mr. Browne further discussed Mr. Warren's use of the trucks. The issue of the State's licensing of vehicles was discussed. Mr. Warren noted that there were other commercial vehicles parked in the neighborhood. Staff explained that the trailer on the site was being used by Mr. Warren's contractor in conjunction with the current remodeling project. There was a motion to approve the requested appeal, determining that the two (2) trucks owned by Mr. William S. Warren, Jr., and parked at 808 Carywood Lane, do not meet the ordinance definition of commercial vehicle. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position. The appeal was denied.