HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3995-B Staff AnalysisSeptember 18, 1989
I t em No. 4- _-
File No. Z -3995-B
Owner: Dante Jacuzzi
Address: 1024 North University
Zoned: "0-3" General Office
Request: A reconsideration hearing to
conditions from a previous
approved variance to have a
parking lot on property zoned
multifamily at the time of
approval.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
On January 17, 1984, the applicant came before the Board
requesting permission under provisions of Section 8-10i of
the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance to permit accessory parking
on a residential zoned lot to serve an office use. Because
of several unresolved issues at the meeting, a special
meeting was reconvened at the site on February 4, 1984.
The action taken at the February 4, 1984 special meeting was
approval of the variance for the parking lot conditioned
upon: (1) the parking lot be constructed where marked on
the site outlining the 19 stalls; (2) a six foot opaque
fence be erected along the west and south perimeters of the
parking lot; (3) a physical barrier consisting of a gate or
substantial chain mechanism be placed across the driveway to
prevent after hours use of the lot for loitering, or as a
traffic short-cut; (4) the earth area exposed by fill
outside the fence be planted with appropriate groundcover;
and (5) the City Engineer is to approve the plans for water
discharged from the site into the drainageway.
It is staff's understanding from the Enforcement Officer in
charge of this case that all conditions of approval have
been met but two. The two conditions not met are the
construction of a six foot opaque fence along the west and
south perimeters of the parking lot and the placement of a
physical barrier consisting of a gate or substantial chain
mechanism across the driveway to prevent after hours use of
the lot for loitering or as a traffic short-cut.
1
September 18, 1989
Item No. 4 (Continued)
Please note the letter attached to the agenda. In the
letter to the Board, the applicant points out several
reasons why the two remaining conditions should not be met.
The issue before the Board is a determination as to whether:
(1) the two remaining conditions of the previous approval
should be deleted; (2) requiring the applicant to meet the
two remaining conditions as approved; or (3) amend the two
remaining conditions to state new conditions the applicant
has to meet.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (September 18, 1989)
The applicant was in attendance. Laura Gold was also in
attendance to speak in favor of the applicant's request.
Phyllis Dougherty and five other persons were in attendance
to speak against the applicant's request. Staff gave an
overview of the issues and task before the Board.
Mr. Jacuzzi addressed the Board. He stated he had written a
rather comprehensive letter outlining points to back up his
request. The Chairman stated that the staff had included
the letter as part of the agenda item. A Board member then
asked the staff when a variance is granted by the Board,
does a time limit exist for the variance to be carried out
by the applicant. Staff stated it did, but at the time of
the original approved variance on this site, the time limit
was sixty days whereas now it is two years. The Chairman
then stated that, technically, the time limit had expired
before the construction ever started. Staff stated that was
correct. The Chairman then asked whether, technically, the
matter should have been brought back before the Board of
Adjustment. Mr. Jacuzzi stated that at the time of approval
the tenants of the surgical center had decided they no
longer needed the parking lot that was eventually built, so
the request was withdrawn and the Board was advised of that
withdrawal. The Chairman then asked of Mr. Jacuzzi if the
request was withdrawn, how then did he proceed with the
construction? Mr. Jacuzzi stated that they then addressed
the Board and did not receive any complaints until after the
construction started. Mr. Jacuzzi was asked how the Board
was advised. He stated he did not recall, but thought it
was originally done in writing and the second time by
telephone. He further stated that a determination was made
by the City Attorney that the permit to go ahead with the
earlier approval was still valid because he went through
that process earlier when some of the neighbors complained.
The Chairman asked when construction began on the project.
Mr. Jacuzzi said approximately ninety days ago. The
2
September 18, 1989
Item No. 4 (Continued)
Chairman stated the reason he was asking was because he had
not received anything pertaining to an extension of time or
a withdrawal of the earlier variance on this site. Other
Board members indicated that they did not recall any such
request from the applicant having appeared before them.
Richard Wood of the Planning Staff then offered to the Board
some clarification of the issues which exist with the
applicant's present and earlier request. The initial
application was reviewed on the site. The significant
issues were addressed at that time. One issue was that of
rezoning the property. The owner of the property was
required by the Board of Adjustment to do away with the
apartment zoning on the property and rezone it to an open
space classification. In essence, that meant the owner
could never build anything on the site. Therefore, that is
why all the land outside the curb of the parking lot and the
west one-third to one-half of the parking lot is zoned "OS"
Open Space today. If the City staff had said that the
applicant could not build a parking lot and brought the
request back to the Board of Adjustment, the Board would
have been placed in a bad situation because the Board could
not have allowed the parking lot in an Open Space zone.
That would have placed the applicant in a "catch 22"
situation, and he could not have gone either way with the
request without some type of administrative approval. Gary
Greeson, the Planning Director at that time, made the
decision that the applicant could go ahead with the earlier
approval.
Phyllis Dougherty of 1021 North Arthur stated she lives
directly behind the surgical center and she was the person
who called to complain in May when the parking lot was being
constructed. The neighbors were opposed to the parking lot
from day one because University Avenue is so noisy and there
is so much traffic on Evergreen Plaza's parking lot that the
neighbors didn't want people darting through the two lots.
At the time of the meetings, both at City Hall and on the
site, the major thing was if the owner built and during the
building destroyed some of the natural foliage, the owner
would put up a fence at least to cut down on the noise and
block the view of the surgical center as well as add more
landscaping to the site. Mrs. Dougherty feels that the
owner should have to put up a fence because that is what he
agreed to and a rule should apply to everyone. She further
stated that kids use the parking lot to congregate and,
thinking back, she wished that during those times she had
phoned the police so that a record could have been
documented. Mrs. Dougherty then questioned Mr. Jacuzzi's
3
September 18, 1989
1_1 en„No_. 4 Con t i Hued
statement that the landscaping isn't needed now but what
about this winter when the leaves are no longer there to
protect the view of the surgical center. Mr. Dougherty
further stated that she was extremely opposed to the
applicant's request.
Laura Gold, administrator of the surgical center, stated
that she would like to draw to the attention of the Board
the letter from the staff and doctors of the surgical center
which is included in the agenda. Ms. Gold stated that she,
as a property owner in West Little Rock, is familiar with
issues in her neighborhood which have come before the
Planning Commission and Board of Directors.. She feels that
Mr. Jacuzzi has done a great justice to these neighbors by
allowing the open space area. The parking lot is located on
land which previously would have been a City street but
which Mr. Jacuzzi petitioned the Board of Directors to
close. Therefore, if the City street had been built, it
definitely would have generated more traffic than the
parking lot generates. Since the time Mr. Jacuzzi obtained
the variance with the conditions placed on the approval,
five years of natural growth has occurred. -It is a
beautiful wooded area and the surgical center cannot be seen
from those properties. Contrary to what Mrs. Doughtery
said, the leaves are not all going to fall down once the
winter season comes. There is dense growth within the open
space. If, during the times she has been before the
Planning Commission and Board of Directors, a 100 foot open
space strip had been left between her residential property
and a development she was opposing, she would have been
delighted. A green belt is much more desirable than a
wooden fence would ever be to the eyesight. If a fence was
erected, it would prevent those tenants of the surgical
center from seeing the green belt which attracted them to
the office.
Ms. Gold further stated that in regard to the erection of
some type of barrier between the lots, there is no need
because the lots really do not have a direct connection.
The business is very quiet, and is closed on weekends and
holidays.
Mrs. Dougherty stated that once the main building was
completed, she called to ask Mr. Kenny Scott when the fence
was going to be erected. Mr. Scott stated at least two more
weeks at which time she should call back if the fence still
had not been erected. Mr. Scott also told her that the
parking lot could not be used until the fence was
constructed.
4
September 18, 1989
Item No. 4 (Continued_)
A Board member asked Mr. Jacuzzi if the pictures submitted
to the Board show vehicles which are parked facing the open
space area. In those two pictures, is that where the fence
should be erected? Mr. Jacuzzi stated, yes, and if the
Board would notice, nothing can be seen. Mrs. Dougherty
then asked Mr. Jacuzzi why is it she can see the surgical
center but the surgical center cannot see her property. Mr.
Jacuzzi stated he didn't know why, but Carl Glenn, a
neighbor closer to the property than Mrs. Dougherty cannot
see the surgical center. Mrs. Dougherty disputed Mr.
Jacuzzi's statement. Carl Glenn's property is just below
the surgical center but on an elevation considerably higher
than Mrs. Dougherty.
Mrs. Dougherty stated that Mr. Glenn does not live behind
the surgical center. Mr. Glenn lives behind the
Professional Building which is located next door to the
surgical center. Mr. Glenn was the person who cause the
Professional Building to put up the fence behind his
property, the same one Mr. Jacuzzi feels is so unsightly.
A member of the Board then requested some past history of
the site. Richard Wood stated that there were several
reasons why the conditions were placed on the variance. One
was the dedicated street right-of-way. Once abandoned, the
right-of-way assumed most of the area where the parking lot
is located. Secondly, as part of the staff recommendation,
the applicant was required to down -zone the "MF -6" property
to Open Space because at that time, to have "MF -6" zoning at
this location was poor planning. Further west on the
property, the steeper the natural grade and the underbrush
become. At the bottom of the grade is a significant creek
which drains from the northwest to the southeast and
eventually runs into University Avenue drains.
After a considerable amount of discussion between the Board,
the applicant and people opposed, Mrs. Felicia Marlar who
lives across from Mrs. Dougherty stated with all the talk
about a creek and taking trees out, the Board needs to
understand the configuration of Mrs. Dougherty's back yard.
There really exists no difference from her back yard to the
creek bed itself to going straight up to the parking lot.
More discussion continued at which time several motions were
attempted until a final motion was made to require of the
applicant to construct some type of barrier between the two
lots across the driveway. Also, the applicant is required
to plant six foot natural evergreen plants instead of the
six foot opaque fence. The motion passed by a vote of
6 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent.
September 18, 1989
1—tem-NO.. 4(Continued)
..................
Mr. Jacuzzi wanted it placed in the record that he had gone
the mile with the neighbors and feels strongly against any
conditions which have been imposed upon him in the Board's
ruling.
9
September 18, 1989
Item No. 4
File No. Z -3995-B
Owner:
Address:
Zoned:
Request:
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Dante Jacuzzi
1024 North University
"0-3" General Office
A reconsideration hearing to
conditions from a previous
approved variance to have a
parking lot on property zoned
multifamily at the time of
approval.
On January 17, 1984, the applicant came before the Board
requesting permission under provisions of Section 8-101 of
the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance to permit accessory parking
on a residential zoned lot to serve an office use. Because
of several unresolved issues at the meeting, a special
meeting was reconvened at the site on February 4, 1984.
The action taken at the February 4, 1984 special meeting was
approval of the variance for the parking lot conditioned
upon: (1) the parking lot be constructed where marked on
the site outlining the 19 stalls; (2) a six foot opaque
fence be erected along the west and south perimeters of the
parking lot; (3) a physical barrier consisting of a gate or
substantial chain mechanism be placed across the driveway to
prevent after hours use of the lot for loitering, or as a
traffic short-cut; (4) the earth area exposed by fill
outside the fence be planted with appropriate groundcover;
and (5) the City Engineer is to approve the plans for water
discharged from the site into the drainageway.
It is staff's understanding from the Enforcement Officer in
charge of this case that all conditions of approval have
been met but two. The two conditions not met are the
construction of a six foot opaque fence along the west and
south perimeters of the parking lot and the placement of a
physical barrier consisting of a gate or substantial chain
mechanism across the driveway to prevent after hours use of
the lot for loitering or as a traffic short-cut.
1
September 18, 1989
I tem, No...4 _(Cont i nued)
Please note the letter attached to the agenda. In the
letter to the Board, the applicant points out several
reasons why the two remaining conditions should not be met.
The issue before the Board is a determination as to whether:
(1) the two remaining conditions of the previous approval
should be deleted; (2) requiring the applicant to meet the
two remaining conditions as approved; or (3) amend the two
remaining conditions to state new conditions the applicant
has to meet.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (September 18, 1989)
The applicant was in attendance. Laura Gold was also in
attendance to speak in favor of the applicant's request.
Phyllis Dougherty and five other persons were in attendance
to speak against the applicant's request. Staff gave an
overview of the issues and task before the Board.
Mr. Jacuzzi addressed the Board. He stated he had written a
rather comprehensive letter outlining points to back up his
request. The Chairman stated that the staff had included
the letter as part of the agenda item. A Board member then
asked the staff when a variance is granted by the Board,
does a time limit exist for the variance to be carried out
by the applicant. Staff stated it did, but at the time of
the original approved variance on this site, the time limit
was sixty days whereas now it is two years. The Chairman
then stated that, technically, the time limit had expired
before the construction ever started. Staff stated that was
correct. The Chairman then asked whether, technically, the
matter should have been brought back before the Board of
Adjustment. Mr. Jacuzzi stated that at the time of approval
the tenants of the surgical center had decided they no
longer needed the parking lot that was eventually built, so
the request was withdrawn and the Board was advised of that
withdrawal. The Chairman then asked of Mr. Jacuzzi if the
request was withdrawn, how then did he proceed with the
construction? Mr. Jacuzzi stated that they then addressed
the Board and did not receive any complaints until after the
construction started. Mr. Jacuzzi was asked how the Board
was advised. He stated he did not recall, but thought it
was originally done in writing and the second time by
telephone. He further stated that a determination was made
by the City Attorney that the permit to go ahead with the
earlier approval was still valid because he went through
that process earlier when some of the neighbors complained.
The Chairman asked when construction began on the project.
Mr. Jacuzzi said approximately ninety days ago. The
2
September 18, 1989
Item No. 4 (Continued}
Chairman stated the reason he was asking was because he had
not received anything pertaining to an extension of time or
a withdrawal of the earlier variance on this site. Other
Board members indicated that they did not recall any such
request from the applicant having appeared before them.
Richard Wood of the Planning Staff then offered to the Board
some clarification of the issues which exist with the
applicant's present and earlier request. The initial
application was reviewed on the site. The significant
issues were addressed at that time. One issue was that of
rezoning the,property. The owner of the property was
required by the Board of Adjustment to do away with the
apartment zoning on the property and rezone it to an open
space classification. In essence, that meant the owner
could never build anything on the site. Therefore, that is
why all the land outside the curb of the parking lot and the
west one-third to one-half of the parking lot is zoned "OS"
Open Space today. If the City staff had said that the
applicant could not build a parking lot and brought the
request back to the Board of Adjustment, the Board would
have been placed in a bad situation because the Board could
not have allowed the parking lot in an Open Space zone.
That would have placed the applicant in a "catch 22"
situation, and he could not have gone either way with the
request without some type of administrative approval. Gary
Greeson, the Planning Director at that time, made the
decision that the applicant could go ahead with the earlier
approval.
Phyllis Dougherty of 1021 North Arthur stated she lives
directly behind the surgical center and she was the person
who called to complain in May when the parking lot was being
constructed. The neighbors were opposed to the parking lot
from day one because University Avenue is so noisy and there
is so much traffic on Evergreen Plaza's parking lot that the
neighbors didn't want people darting through the two lots.
At the time of the meetings, both at City Hall and on the
site, the major thing was if the owner built and during the
building destroyed some of the natural foliage, the owner
would put up a fence at least to cut down on the noise and
block the view of the surgical center as well as add more
landscaping to the site. Mrs. Dougherty feels that the
owner should have to put up a fence because that is what he
agreed to and a rule should apply to everyone. She further
stated that kids use the parking lot to congregate and,
thinking back, she wished that during those times she had
phoned the police so that a record could have been
documented. Mrs. Dougherty then questioned Mr. Jacuzzi's
3
September 18, 1989
te.m No.__4 (Cont inued�_
statement that the landscaping isn't needed now but what
about this winter when the leaves are no longer there to
protect the view of the surgical center. Mr. Dougherty
further stated that she was extremely opposed to the
applicant's request.
Laura Gold, administrator of the surgical center, stated
that she would like to draw to the attention of the Board
the letter from the staff and doctors of the surgical center
which is included in the agenda. Ms. Gold stated that she,
as a property owner in West Little Rock, is familiar with
issues in her neighborhood which have come before the
Planning Commission and Board of Directors. She feels that
Mr. Jacuzzi has done a great justice to these neighbors by
allowing the open space area. The parking lot is located on
land which previously would have been a City street but
which Mr. Jacuzzi petitioned the Board of Directors to
close. Therefore, if the City street had been built, it
definitely would have generated more traffic than the
parking lot generates. Since the time Mr. Jacuzzi obtained
the variance with the conditions placed on the approval,
five years of natural growth has occurred. It is a
beautiful wooded area and the surgical center cannot be seen
from those properties. Contrary to what Mrs. Doughtery
said, the leaves are not all going to fall down once the
winter season comes. There is dense growth within the open
space. If, during the times she has been before the
Planning Commission and Board of Directors, a 100 foot open
space strip had been left between her residential property
and a development she was opposing, she would have been
delighted. A green belt is much more desirable than a
wooden fence would ever be to the eyesight. If a fence was
erected, it would prevent those tenants of the surgical
center from seeing the green belt which attracted them to
the office.
Ms. Gold further stated that in regard to the erection of
some type of barrier between the lots, there is no need
because the lots really do not have a direct connection.
The business is very quiet, and is closed on weekends and
holidays.
Mrs. Dougherty stated that once the main building was
completed, she called to ask Mr. Kenny Scott when the fence
was going to be erected. Mr. Scott stated at least two more
weeks at which time she should call back if the fence still
had not been erected. Mr. Scott also told her that the
parking lot could not be used until the fence was
constructed.
4
September 18, 1989
Item No. 4 (Continued;
A Board member asked Mr. Jacuzzi if the pictures submitted
to the Board show vehicles which are parked facing the open
space area. In those two pictures, is that where the fence
should be erected? Mr. Jacuzzi stated, yes, and if the
Board would notice, nothing can be seen. Mrs. Dougherty
then asked Mr. Jacuzzi why is it she can see the surgical
center but the surgical center cannot see her property. Mr.
Jacuzzi stated he didn't know why, but Carl Glenn, a
neighbor closer to the property than Mrs. Dougherty cannot
see the surgical center. Mrs. Dougherty disputed Mr.
Jacuzzi's statement. Carl Glenn's property is just below
the surgical center but on an elevation considerably higher
than Mrs. Dougherty.
Mrs. Dougherty stated that Mr. Glenn does not live behind
the surgical center. Mr. Glenn lives behind the
Professional Building which is located next door to the
surgical center. Mr. Glenn was the person who cause the
Professional Building to put up the fence behind his
property, the same one Mr. Jacuzzi feels is so unsightly.
A member of the Board then requested some past history of
the site. Richard Wood stated that there were several
reasons why the conditions were placed on the variance. One
was the dedicated street right-of-way. Once abandoned, the
right-of-way assumed most of the area where the parking lot
is located. Secondly, as part of the staff recommendation,
the applicant was required to down -zone the "MF -6" property
to Open Space because at that time, to have "MF -6" zoning at
this location was poor planning. Further west on the
property, the steeper the natural grade and the underbrush
become. At the bottom of the grade is a significant creek
which drains from the northwest to the southeast and
eventually runs into University Avenue drains.
After a considerable amount of discussion between the Board,
the applicant and people opposed, Mrs. Felicia Marlar who
lives across from Mrs. Dougherty stated with all the talk
about a creek and taking trees out, the Board needs to
understand the configuration of Mrs. Dougherty's back yard.
There really exists no difference from her back yard to the
creek bed itself to going straight up to the parking lot.
More discussion continued at which time several motions were
attempted until a final motion was made to require of the
applicant to construct some type of barrier between the two
lots across the driveway. Also, the applicant is required
to plant six foot natural evergreen plants instead of the
six foot opaque fence. The motion passed by a vote of
6 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent.
5
September 18, 1989
Item No. 4 (Continued)
Mr. Jacuzzi wanted it placed in the record that he had gone
the mile with the neighbors and feels strongly against any
conditions which have been imposed upon him in the Board's
ruling.
F
OTHER MATTERS Of CONCERN
Item No. '
Owner:Da,o
;,__1
Address.
Request:
STAFFANALYSIS:
........ ... ...............................
On ,January 17, 1984, the applicant came before the Board
requesting permission under provisions of Section 8-10i of
the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance to permit accessory parking
on a residential zoned lot to serve an office use. Because
of several unresolved issues at the meeting, a special
meeting was reconvened at the site on February 4, 1984.
The action taken at the February 4, 1984 special meeting was
approval of the variance for the parking lot conditioned
upon: (1) the parking lot be constructed where marked on
the site outlining the 19 stalls; (2) a six foot opaque
fence be erected along the west and south perimeters of the
parking lot; (3) a physical barrier consisting of a gate or
substantial chain mechanism be placed across the driveway to
prevent after hours use of the lot for loitering, or as a
traffic short-cut; (4) the earth area exposed by fill
outside the fence be planted with appropriate groundcover;
and (5) the City Engineer is to approve the plans for water
discharged from the site into the drainageway.
It is staff's understanding from the Enforcement Officer in
charge of this case that all conditions of approval have
been met but two. The two conditions not met are the
construction of a six foot opaque fence along the west and
south perimeters of the parking lot and the placement of a
physical barrier consisting of a gate or substantial chain
mechanism across the driveway to prevent after hours use of
the lot for loitering or as a traffic short-cut.
Please note the letter attached to the agenda. In the
letter to the Board, the applicant points out several
reasons why the two remaining conditions should not be met.
The issue before the Board is a determination as to whether:
(1) the two remaining conditions of the previous approval
should be deleted; (2) requiring the applicant to meet the
two remaining cond i t i ons as annr•nvpd • n r , q % 4L --
L•••_