HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5830-A Staff AnalysisJuly 28, 1997
File No.: Z-5830-A
Owner: Staley Electric Company, Ed Staley
Address: 3500 J. E. Davis Drive
Description: Part of Lot 2, Scott Hamilton
Addition
zoned: I-2
variance Requested: A variance is requested from the
pavement requirements of Section
36-508 to permit use of an unpaved
property for parking.
Justification: Applicant's Statement: We request
this lot to be grandfathered in to
the city ordinance, in like manner
as our neighbor the City of Little
Rock Maintenance Department. The
Enforcement Staff has already
recognized in a previous staff
report (Staff Report February 26,
1996) that this lot has been used
for parking for several years, and
this is not a recent development.
Kenny Scott has explained to us
that the City Maintenance
Department is allowed to park on
the dirt area on the neighboring
Maintenance premises plus various
locations throughout the city,
because of being grandfathered into
the City Ordinance, therefore,
giving the City infinity to comply
to section 36-508 of the Zoning
Ordinance. We would like to have
the same status on this lot. In
the event we do decide to build
upon this lot, we will obtain all
necessary licenses and permits
associated with the construction.
Present Use of Property: Unimproved parking lot
Proposed Use of Property: Unimproved parking lot
July 28, 1997
Item No.: 11 Cont.
Staff Report:
A. Publiā Works Issues:
Provide concrete apron for area if access is to be from
Fourche Road.
B. Staff Analysis:
This issue is before the Board as a result of action by the
Codes Enforcement Staff. The property in question, the
northeast corner of J. E. Davis Drive and Fourche Road, is
being use for parking of wheeled vehicles including large
trailers. This vacant lot is mostly grass covered with a
small scattering of gravel. Staley Electric Company is
requesting a variance from the pavement requirements of
Section 36-508 to permit continued use of this unpaved
property for parking of trailers and employee vehicles.
Section 36-508 of the Code states:
"Every parcel of land which after the
effective date of this chapter is changed to
a parking area, automobile, other vehicle or
trailer sales or storage area or automobile
or motor vehicle service station, garage or
other vehicle use area shall be paved where
subject to wheeled traffic. The minimum
pavement requirement shall be one and one-
half (1 1/2) inches asphaltic concrete hot
mix with a five -inch compacted base or a
double surface treatment with a five -inch
compacted base or a four -inch concrete slab
and shall have, appropriate bumper guards
where needed. Asphalt roofing and by-
products of its manufacture are expressly
prohibited as a base course or as surfacing
material on parking lots and/or drives."
On June 27, 1994, the applicant requested a variance to
allow for the use of this unimproved parking lot for a
period of 36 months. It was felt that 36 months was
excessive and the Board approved an 18 month paving variance
(from May 1994 to November 1995). That 18 month deferral
expired and the applicant continued use of the lot. After
being advised to either cease parking vehicles on the lot or
to reapply to the Board of Adjustment, the applicant
requested an additional 42 month deferral. The lot in
question is separated from the applicant's business by
another property. The applicant stated that he was
attempting to purchase that intervening property and the
building located on it. If the purchase occurred, the
applicant proposed to pave and fence the subject property
2
July 28, 1997
Item No.: 11 Cont.
deferral of the paving requirements to run from December
1995 through June 1997.
This second 18 month deferral has now expired and the
applicant has again been advised to either cease parking
vehicles and trailers on the unimproved lot or to seek
relief from the Board of Adjustment. He has now filed for a
waiver of the pavement requirements stating that he has been
parking on the lot for several years. He is asking to be
"grandfathered" in as a nonconforming use. This property
was annexed into the City on October 6, 1969.
A nonconforming use is defined by the Ordinance as:
"Any use lawfully being made of any land,
building or structure, on the effective date of
this chapter, as amended, which does not comply
with all the regulations of this chapter
governing use for the zoning district in which
such land, building or structure is located."
The effective date for the subject property is October 6,
1969. The Codes Enforcement Staff states this is not a
nonconforming use but is a zoning violation since the
property was not being used as an unimproved parking lot on
October 6, 1969.
Staff has been consistent in not supporting waivers of
pavement requirements and the associated landscaping
standards. Staff typically is receptive to deferrals not to
exceed 18 months. Staley Electric has already had 2
deferrals of 18 months each. Focusing on alleged zoning
ordinance shortcomings on other properties does not relieve
the applicant of his responsibility to properly develop his
property prior to using it.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested waiver of pavement
requirements.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 28, 1997)
The Chairman asked that staff present the item. Richard Wood, of
the Staff, presented the staff's recommendation, which is, "the
staff recommends denial of the requested waiver which is offered
at this time." Wood stated there had been at least two occasions
for extension of the requirement for improvement and that it was
appropriate that the improvements be installed at this time.
After the conclusion of Wood's remarks, the Chairman recognized
Mr. Staley, the applicant.
3
July 28, 1997
Item No.:- 11 (Cont.
Mr. Staley offered a brief commentary on the graphic presented to
the Board indicating to them that there was a parcel he did not
hold title to, Lot 2A intervening between his building and the
subject lot. Mr. Staley stated that his long term objective was
to own that property and the balance of the block. At such time
as the owner of that property retires and sells him the lot. Mr.
Staley indicated that since moving into the building he now
occupies that his business has grown to approximately 60
employees from some 13 employees.
He continued his comments by stating that the corner lot, the lot
at issue, is utilized as an overflow lot and most of the time
there is only a couple of vehicles on that site. As of today's
meeting date, it is only occupied by two trailers. Mr. Staley
offered additional lengthy commentary on the subject of
nonconformity identified by him as grandfathering. Duuring the
course of his presentation, Mr. Staley pointed out there were
some businesses about the city and some city properties which are
not in conformance with the ordinance or they were these
nonconforming or grandfathered sites that he continues to have a
problem with understanding.
Mr. Staley indicated that his primary interest was to obtain some
level of approval that would allow him to proceed with this
business based upon the offerings he had previously made about
the lot and to eliminate the constant delivery of citations to
his property. Mr. Staley again stated that his goal is to
continue to use this as he has in the past until he can buy the
building next door, the other building on this property and have
parking there. He indicated another option would be to move and
that is not his preference. At this point, Mr. Staley concluded
his remarks.
The Chairman asked if there were questions from the Board. Kenny
Scott, of the Staff, was requested to come forward and offer some
background on this case. Scott offered a brief history offering
some dates and the primary reasoning for the initiation of the
violation notices in that it was initiated originally based upon
a complaint. Scott pointed out there were occasions when he went
by the site and there were no vehicles on the lot and a variable
number on other dates. In response to a question from the Board,
Scott responded that the complaint calls received basically are
from an individual that typically calls each time the lot has a
number of vehicles parked on it. He pointed out the city does
not require a person to leave their name and we do not document
such in our files.
The Chairman then asked Mr. Staley if had any kind of timeframe
for purchasing the lot. Staley indicated that he is currently
renting 25% of that gentleman's building. He basically indicated
that his buying the other lot is conditioned on the other
gentleman's retiring. Again in response to a Board member's
question, Mr. Staley indicated that he was not prepared to tell
the Board when he would buy that property intervening.
4
July 28, 1997
Item 'No.:" 11(Cont.)
A question was then posed by a Board member to the effect, that,
if the Board approves this variance today, what would be the long
term effect? Would it run with the property owner or with the
property? In response to that question, Cindy Dawson of the City
Attorney's Office stated that the Board could do it either way
making the commitment to run with the land or the ownership. In
response to a question from Mr. Staley, the staff was directed to
identify the term "grandfathering" as it pertains to the zoning
Ordinance. Richard Wood, of the Staff, stated that term was not
typically utilized. We use the term "nonconforming" as that is
what the ordinance intends to be applied. Wood stated that the
two principal means of identifying nonconformity have to deal
with annexation where properties are annexed and not zoned
properly, and the city recognizes that use and its appurtenant
activities as long as the owner desires to use them. Another
principal means is those occasions when properties are rezoned by
the City Board and creating a nonconforming relationship.
Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, then offered
additional commentary on nonconformity as to how they terminate
and the intent the ordinance that they eventually go away.
Another lengthy discussion followed involving the City Attorney's
Office and Mr. Staley concerning nonconforming sites about the
city or those sites alleged to be nonconforming in the manner in
which they are maintaining unimproved parking areas. At this
point then Board member, Ann Palmer indicated that she would like
to make a motion on this application. Her motion began that the
Board approve this application conditioned upon:
1. Mr. Staley acquiring the building next door.
2. The options that were offered by Mr. Staley.
3. The expansion of the current usage and she stated that the
basic premise of her motion is to allow Mr. Staley to do what
he is doing currently. But if he buys additional property,
remodels and expands existing property or sells the property,
the variance is invalid and he would have to seek another
variance or comply with the ordinance.
4. He builds a building on the site.
Prior to a vote on this motion, Mr. Staley offered comments with
his understanding what the motion included:
The'Chairman, Mark Alderfer, offered a comment at this point
stating that he felt the motion should include an additional
clarification that Mr. Staley be allowed to continue the usage of
the parking lot in its current state as an overflow parking lot
in its current condition and there be no additional or heavier
usage.
At this point, the Chairman asked if there was a second on that
motion. The second on the motion produced a vote of 6 ayes,
2 nays and 1 absent.
5
July '28, 1997
Item No.: 11 (Cont
the parking lot in its current state as an overflow parking lot
in its current condition and there be no additional or heavier
usage.
At this point, the Chairman asked if there was a second on that
motion. The second on the motion produced a vote of 6 ayes,
2 nays and 1 absent.
6