boa_10 22 1984LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTE RECORD
OCTOBER 22, 1984
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 7 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present: George Wells
B.L. Murphree
Thomas McGowan
Ellis Walton
Ronald Woods
Herbert Rideout
Richard Yada
Members Absent: Joe Norcross
Steve Smith
City Attorney: None
October 22, 1984
Item No. A - Z-4315
Owner: James Calvin
Address: 423 Bond Street
Description: Lots 11 and 12, Block 14
Garland Addition
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
Variance
Requested: From the mobile home provisions of
Section 3-101 /C.l.d to permit a mobile
home for security purposes.
JUSTIFICATION:
Applicant operated a food service business at a nearby
location for a number of years and has been the victim of
five burglaries at that location.
Present Use
of Property: Restaurant
Proposed Use
of Property: Same
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None have been reported as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
The requested variance is to allow the applicant to
place a mobile home on the site of a restaurant for
security purposes. At a previous location, the
applicant experienced a number of break-ins and now is
of the belief that only a 24-hour guard on the premises
will help solve this problem. There is no question
that a hardship does exists, and the request is
justified. But, staff is concerned with the proposed
location of the trailer. The trailer would be very
visible from all directions and only have a 2 feet
setback from the south property line. Staff does not
feel this is desirable for the neighborhood and
recommends that the trailer be shifted to the east. A
more suitable location would be between the existing
service drive and the east property line. This should
lessen the impact of the trailer and also allow for
October 22, 1984
Item No. A - Continued
a greater setback along East Capitol. Staff believes
that this location and some landscaping or buffering
would reduce the visibility of the trailer. One final
recommendation is for a fence to be constructed along
the east property line if one is not currently in
place. This fence should be opaque and 6 feet in
height.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the placement of the
mobile home subject to the comments made in the staff's
analysis.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (9-17-84)
The applicant, James Calvin, was present. There were no
persons in attendance objecting to the request. Staff
reviewed the conditions of the approval: (1) the trailer
being relocated to the east, (2) a fence be constructed
along the east property line and (3) the trailer be
restricted to security purposes only and not be rented for
residential use. Mr. Calvin then discussed the various
locations and the size of the trailer. He said that the
size of the trailer shown on the site plan was incorrect.
Mr. Calvin stated that his plans were to place a 14' x 50'
trailer on the site, not an 8' x 40' one as shown on the
site plan. There was a lengthy discussion about the size
issue. Mr. Calvin felt that a large trailer could not be
placed at the location proposed by the staff and properly
work. He also indicated that he never intended to use an
8' x 40' trailer and was not sure why that size was
represented on the plan. Because of the size conflict and
other uncertainties, a motion was made to defer the request
to the October 22, 1984, meeting. The motion passed by a
vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (10-22-84)
The applicant, James Calvin, was present. There was one
objector also present. Staff reviewed the recommendations
and distributed copies of the revised site plan to the Board
of Adjustment members. Mr. Calvin spoke briefly and
answered questions about his proposal. He indicated that
the size of the trailer that he had purchased was 13' x 44'
and that was the smallest one he could locate. Elsie Edie,
a property owner on East Capitol, spoke and objected to the
size and the proposed location. There was a lengthy
discussion about the security issue and the various
October 22, 1984
Item No. A - Continued
locations. Mr. Calvin said he had no problems with locating
the trailer in the rear parking lot and Ms. Edie had no
objections to placing it there. A motion was made to
approve the variance with the conditions that the mobile
home be placed in the northeast corner of the lot as shown
on the site plan as the alternate location and provide
adequate landscaping. In addition, the use of the mobile
home is restricted to James Calvin only as long as he
maintains the restaurant. The motion passed by a vote of
7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
October 22, 1984
Item No. 1 - Z-3520-A
Owner: Exxon Corporation
By: K.R. Gagnon
Address: 3723 Cantrell Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C-4" Open Display District
Variance
Requested: From the front yard setback provisions
of Section 43/7-103.4.E.1 of the Code
of Ordinances to permit a new canopy
with a 5.5-foot setback.
JUSTIFICATION:
The existing steep slopes on the rear of the lot effectively
reduce the buildable area to one-half.
Present Use
of Property: Exxon Service Station
Proposed Use
of Property: Remain the same with new pump island
arrangement and a new island canopy
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
The Engineering Division of Public Works will respond
at the meeting. However, the Planning staff would like
to point out that the eastern curb cut and drive access
to adjoining property are a concern. We feel that
there may be a need to provide a common drive access at
the easterly corner of the site.
B. Staff Analvsis
This application was filed to gain design flexibility
in the remodeling and upgrading of the existing Exxon
Station. The plan is to group the pump islands at one
point and place a weather cover above. The canopy will
project to a point some 5.5 feet from the property line
which is 4 feet + from the curbline. The canopy is to
be supported by columns on the outer pump island and
approximately 19 feet from the property line. We
believe the proposal to be entirely appropriate. The
removal of the west pump island will remove some
conflict with on-site and off -site traffic movement.
October 22, 1984
Item No. 1 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the request subject to Engineering Division
comments.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, K.R. Gagnon, was present. There were no
objectors present. Mr. Gagnon spoke about the proposal and
other considerations. He indicated that Exxon had agreed
with the Engineering comments and the common access drive
could be removed. There was some discussion about the
access on the east side of the property. After additional
comments were made about various points, a motion was made
to approve the request as filed. The motion passed by a
vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
October 22, 1984
Item No. 2 - Z-4347
Owner: Realty Associates, Inc.
By: Ernest J. Peters
Address: 1000 Block of Interstate 30 Frontage
Road, West Side
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "HR" High Density Residential
Request: Issue a conditional use permit for an
eating place without drive-in service.
Present Use of
the Property: Vacant
Proposed use of
the Property: Restaurant/Eat-In
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported at this writing; however, Planning staff
noted that the street improvements along East 10th
Street may need upgrading.
B. Staff Analvsis
This application was filed under provisions of the
Central Little Rock Zoning Ordinance as a conditional
use permit. The proposal is to erect an eat-in type
restaurant with access limited to the frontage road and
East 11th Street. This block has a history in
residential and church use as well as the Arkansas
Repertory Theater.
The block to the south contains the University of
Arkansas Graduate Institute campus and some office
electronic lab type uses. The block to the north
contains a mix of single family, multifamily,
restaurants and a service station. The two restaurants
are prior CUP issues dating back to the mid-1970's.
Those restaurants were scrutinized closely by the
Quapaw Quarter Association, the MacArthur Park
Association and others with an interest in maintaining
the character of the park neighborhood.
As a result of the hearings on those cases, two things
occurred:
October 22, 1984
Item No. 2 - Continued
1. A City Board resolution was passed prohibiting
further commercial development abutting the park
or facing across the boundary streets.
2. Rigid site plan review criteria such as color of
buildings and roofs, limiting west walls to brick
and brick walls as buffers.
In addition sign plans were required restricting the
height of signs below the rooflines of the proposed
structures and well landscaped sites were required.
The staff has reviewed this proposal with the above in
mind. We have determined that the site does qualify
for commercial development inasmuch as there is an
intervening row of lots along McAlmont. As to the site
plan design, our review has not produced a negative
comment relative to the kinds of criteria noted above.
This is in greater measure due to the designing agent
having taken steps to deal with critical issues such as
access.
The only areas not specifically addressed on the plan
are sign height and building exterior composition. The
building proposed is not completely visible from
MacArthur Park but does offer some of the same kinds of
visibility issues that are likely to arise. These are:
(1) color of roof, (2) direction of site lighting,
(3) retention of large mature trees on the site.
C. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval of the conditional use
permit conditioned upon the following:
1. Provision of a landscape plan that retains the
larger mature single trunk trees in a fashion that
assures some long -term protection. These should
be marked and protected during construction.
2. The upgrading of all boundary streets to City
standards.
3. A site lighting plan directing light away from the
neighborhood.
4. Approval of a signing plan by the Sign Code staff
with no sign height greater than the roofline of
the proposed building (ridge line if pitched and
deck line if flat).
October 22, 1984
Item No. 2 - Continued
5. Elevations of the building with the color scheme
and construction materials should be reviewed by
the Board of Adjustment.
6. The dumpster location should be reflected on the
plan with the screening treatment indicated and
compatible with the building finish, preferably
brick.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Ernie Peters, was present. There were also
three to four persons in attendance objecting to the
request. Mr. Peters addressed the staff's recommendation
and presented the proposed site plan. He indicated that the
site plan had been modified to satisfy the staff's concerns.
Mr. Peters said that the site would be heavily landscaped
and occupied by a quality fast food establishment. Various
Board of Adjustment members expressed concern about the
drive through aspect and about the certainty of what kind of
eating establishment was planned. Mr. Peters indicated that
he has had some preliminary discussions with one company,
but nothing was firm. He also stated that the only frontage
would be the I-30 access road. Mary Hart, a resident on
McAlmont Street, was very concerned about the traffic
circulation. Mr. Peters then explained the proposed
circulation and said that there would be an exit only on
11th Street. Sam Sparks, a property owner in the area, was
concerned about lighting and traffic. He said that there
was already a problem with traffic because of the existing
eating places. Mr. Sparks also suggested that a brick wall
be utilized to buffer the project from the existing
residential uses. Merl Seamon, landscape architect for the
project, spoke about the proposed signs and that they should
not create any problems for the residents on McAlmont
Street. Mr. Peters said the sign would only be visible from
the access road. There was a lengthy discussion about the
buffer and signs. Mr. Sparks again asked that a brick wall
be utilized. Cheryl Nichols of the Quapaw Quarter
Association discussed the staff analysis and said that
commercial development was inappropriate for the edge of
MacArthur Park. She also pointed out that the design was
not compatible with the historic district. Ms. Nichols said
that the real issue was further commercialization in the
area. The site was zoned for high density residential use
which was a more appropriate development pattern. After
some additional comments, a motion was made to deny the
conditional use permit until more specifics were provided.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes and 2 absent.
The conditional use permit was denied.
October 22, 1984
Item No. 3 - Z-4164-A
Owner: Lundy Colvert
Address: 7912 Mabelvale Pike
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Request: Permission to expand a day -care center
previously authorized by ordinance as a
conditional use permit.
Present Use of
the Property: Day-Care Center
Proposed use of
the Property: To remain the same with additional floor
space providing one new teacher and
18 new students.
STAFF REPORT:
This request was filed with staff without our having
opportunity to review the original files. After having done
so, we have determined that the request should have been
filed with the Planning Commission for review of
modifications. We would recommend that since the item was
advertised for public hearing that a motion is in order for
withdrawal. The staff has directed the applications to the
appropriate Planning Commission agenda with little or no
cost and time to the applicant.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
A motion was made to withdraw the request from the agenda.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
October 22, 1984
Item No. 4 - Z-3262-B
Owner: Lundy Colvert and Steve Black
Address: 1816 Hinson Loop Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "MF-18" Multifamily District
Request: Permission under the provisions of
Section 43/4-102.H of the Code to
expand a day-care center.
Present Use of
the Property: Day-Care Center
Proposed use of
the Property: To remain the same with additional floor
space including three new teachers and
60 new students.
STAFF REPORT:
This request was filed with staff without our having
opportunity to review the original files. After having done
so, we have determined that the request should have been
filed with the Planning Commission for review of
modifications. We would recommend that since the item was
advertised for public hearing that a motion is in order for
withdrawal. The staff has directed the applications to the
appropriate Planning Commission agenda with little or no
cost and time to the applicant.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
A motion was made to withdraw the variance request from the
agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
October 22, 1984
Item No. 5 - Z-4340
Owner: Richard Blume and Others
By: Roy West
Address: 811 East 6th Street
Description: Lot 4 of Block 14, Rector Town
Addition
Zoned: "I -2" Light Industrial District
Variance
Requested: From the side yard setback provisions
of Section 43/7-104.2/E.2 of the Code of
Ordinances to permit an addition of
8' 8" in height to the existing
building.
Justification:
The adoption of the present Zoning Ordinance imposed a
15-foot side yard where one had not been required when the
building was constructed.
Present Use of
the Property: Car Wash and Truck Scales
Proposed Use of
the Property: To remain the same with capacity to
wash large buses and trucks.
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported at this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
This request is one of several unique situations
encountered by staff in recent months. The owner's
request does not intrude horizontally into the side
yard since the building is located on the property
line. The issue is expansion of that portion of the
nonconformity vertically. A visit to the site and
observing the work underway has permitted observation
of the finished elevation. Our observation suggests
that the 8' height increase will have no adverse effect
on the adjacent property or industrial neighborhood.
The building is barely in excess of the height of its
neighbor on the east. We would like to point out that
the construction underway lies outside the 15-foot
setback.
October 22, 1984
Item No. 5 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval of of the application.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the
variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 22, 1984
Item No. 6 - Z-2223-A
Owner: Arthur Gamble
Address: 1620 West 14th Street
Description: The West 50 Feet of Lots 5 and 6 in
Block 11, Centennial Addition
Zoned: "O-3" General Office District
(Filed request for "C-1" Neighborhood
Commercial)
Variance
Requested: From the off-street parking provisions
of Section 43/8- 101.B.2.F to permit
less than the required eight parking
spaces on-site.
Justification:
1. An addition allowed by Ordinance would be inefficient
and not suited to proper placement of the chairs. It
would also cause a 6 -foot offset in the building.
2. The addition does not double the parking requirement
and although occupying present spaces, on-street
parking can support some of the requirement.
Present Use of
the Property: Barber and Beauty Shop
Proposed Use of
the Property: To remain the same with additional
floor space.
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported at this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
This proposal presents one issue of substance, that
being the deficient parking on the site to accommodate
the more than 100 percent increase in floor space. The
owner states that he desires a maximum of two barber
and two beauty chairs at this time. However, he
indicated that several additional spaces were possible
but not planned. The Zoning Ordinance requires one
parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area
for uses of this type. The total floor space with the
October 22, 1984
Item No. 6 - Continued
new addition is 1,517 square feet which requires eight
parking spaces.
The present parking is unpaved and will provide a
maximum of seven stalls without the addition. This is
substantially in conconformance with the Ordinance.
However, the spaces will be diminished severely by any
addition to the existing structure. We would point out
that there is substantial on- street parking in the
immediate area on all streets, including West 14th
during certain hours.
The owner proposes to use a portion of the addition as
a retail sales area for items allied with his barber
and beauty shop. The amount of retail space is not
known at this time, but that dimension will require
fewer parking spaces by approximately 50 percent. This
owner needs to commit to a limit on sales and personal
service area which will provide guidance in determining
the real parking requirement on-site.
C. Staff Recommendation
Based on the information at hand, the staff is prepared
to recommend approval of a portion of the requested
addition. The recommendation to be conditioned upon:
1. The site being rezoned to the appropriate
commercial classification.
2. The addition being limited to a 20-foot north and
south dimension.
3. Paving of all parking on-site.
4. Provision of a minimum of five parking spaces
on-site.
5. Build sidewalk along Marshall Street.
6. Widen the existing driveway to 12 feet.
October 22, 1984
Item No. 6 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Arthur Gamble, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff informed the Board members that
the issue was a parking variance and not a side yard
variance. Mr. Gamble addressed the staff's recommendations
and asked some questions about the various points. There
was a long discussion about the parking issue and it was
suggested that Mr. Gamble review the parking proposal with
Zoning Enforcement. Kenny Scott of the Enforcement Office
said that the City's Engineering Office had approved the
additional driveway on Marshall Street. A motion was made
to grant the variance subject to: (1) the site being
rezoned to the appropriate commercial classification;
(2) paving of all parking on-site; (3) provisions of a
minimum of five parking spaces on-site; (4) build sidewalk
along Marshall Street; and (5) that the owner will make
contact with Engineering to work out the driveway issue.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
October 22, 1984
Item No. 7 - Z-4339
Owner: Mike Trusty
By: Chuck Mulhearn
Address: 6401 Asher Avenue
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial District
Variance
Requested: From the provisions of Section
4/5-101.F.2.d of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Little Rock to permit
location of two satellite TV dishes
between the building and a street
right-of-way.
Justification:
The demonstration of tracking functions to customers is
primary and the physical location requirements for this type
of use are limited.
Present Use of
the Property: Custom Car Audio
Proposed Use of
the Property: Remain the same with two satellite
dishes placed in the front yard area.
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported at this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
This application is the first occasion for the Board of
Adjustment to review a variance for placement of a
satellite dish in a commercial zone. This case is
somewhat different from those expected when the
Ordinance was adopted. Most of the dish locations are
in front of buildings much closer to the street
right-of-way and more visible.
The subject site has 100 feet ± setback on the building
and is somewhat below grade of Asher Avenue which tends
to reduce visibility. The site contains two concrete
pads for placement of the dishes, the southernmost of
which has been erected. The placement of that dish is
what triggered the enforcement notice and this
application.
October 22, 1984
Item No. 7 - Continued
The staff view of this request is that the neighborhood
along Asher Avenue is blighted severely at this time by
abandoned buildings and auto salvage yards. Our
feeling is that these dishes will have little or no
impact on persons or uses in the area.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Chuck Mulhearn, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Mulhearn discussed the variance and
explained to the Board members that it would be difficult to
place the dishes in the rear because of existing uses. He
also said that there would be two different kinds of dishes.
There was a lengthy discussion about various aspects of the
variance, especially the display issue. A motion was made
to approve the variance subject to the dishes being circled
in a landscaped area with the north /south dimension of a
minimum of 25' and an east /west dimension of 30', and that
the owner agree to dedicate 5.7' of additional right -of -way
for Asher Avenue. The landscape area is to be sodded and
have shrubs. The vote on the motion was 6 ayes, 1 noe and
2 absent. The variance was granted.
September 17, 1984
Item No. 8 - Z-1518 -A (Z-3860)
Owner: Mrs. Geneva Culmore
Address: 1111 South Pulaski Street
Description: Part of Lots 2 and 3 in Block 310,
Original City of Little Rock
Zoned: "R -4" Two Family
Variance
Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of
Section 43/7-101.4/D-2 to permit the
addition to the existing residence with
a 4.1-foot side yard. (Ordinance
requires 7.5 feet.)
JUSTIFICATION:
The owner of this residence does not have space in her home
for a washer and dryer connection; therefore, she makes many
trips to a laundromat. This variance would permit a home
laundry system.
Present Use
of Property: Residence
Proposed Use
of Property: To remain the same with additional
floor space.
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None reported at this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
This variance is the third request since construction
of the residence in the fall of 1963. The original
variance request was for a rear yard intrusion. That
request was approved on the basis of shallow lot depth.
The second request was for a carport on the south side
with a 1.3-foot setback with an Ordinance requirement
of 7.5 feet. The second request was approved in July
1982, without specific justification other than it
replaced a carport which had been closed in.
October 22, 1984
Item No. 8 - Continued
This request is to provide for a washer dryer
connection which was apparently not provided when the
residence was constructed. The side yard issue
involved has more merit than the carport request since
a significant portion of the setback will remain. The
Planning staff does not feel that the neighborhood will
be impacted by this construction, but we would like a
couple of points cleared. First, why a washer dryer
area needs to be 9' x 15' in area? Second, why this
utility type use is located on the north end of the
residence, when most utility areas are adjacent to the
kitchen and main service areas. The staff has not made
an interior inspection of the dwelling, but our
observation is that bedrooms are on the north end of
the house.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the proposal, subject to resolution of the
size and location questions in our analysis.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board of Adjustment that the questions
raised in the analysis had been answered and that they were
comfortable with the request. A motion was made to approve
the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of
6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
NOTE: This being the owner's third request, it will
probably be the last one granted.
September 17, 1984
Item No. 9 - Other Matters - Interpretative
CONDITIONAL USE EXPANSION /NONSTRUCTURAL AND OPEN FACILITIES
- A REPORT TO THE BOARD.
HISTORY OF SUBJECT AND REGULATIONS:
In January 1980, the City of Little Rock adopted regulations
which for the first time exercised specific site plan
authority over churches and most schools. This authority is
contained within the conditional use permit provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance.
During the past four years, the activity level for
conditional use permits has been generally restricted to new
development for churches and schools. These activities were
generally dealt with in a fashion that provided for
long-term direction through adoption of a Master Site Plan.
Those projects present no problem for future expansion
review, neither do occasional simple building expansions or
structural addition when an existing building is involved.
A problem recently developing is existing use which propose
to construct facilities entirely accessory in nature and in
no way affect the capacity or intensity of the principal
use. There are two examples which we would offer:
1. St. Teresa's Church and School on Base Line is in the
process of building an athletic complex of ball fields,
play areas and courts. One of the courts is for
racquetball. The Planning staff determined that the
court was of a nature which would permit issuance of a
permit except for the roof structure over which, in our
estimation, is a building requiring further review.
2. The Geyer Springs Church of Christ at West 53rd Street
and Geyer Springs Road constructed a playground in
early summer 1984 consisting of play equipment in a
graveled yard. The staff reaction was mixed with the
general feeling being that no regulation was required.
Neighborhood opposition developed, suggesting that
there is impact on residential use nearby.
PRESENT PRACTICE IN ADMINISTRATION OF ORDINANCE:
There are no guidelines for dealing with nonstructural
setback, screening, buffers or lighting unless attached by
the Board or Planning Commission as conditions of a
conditional use authorization. Staff members faced with
requests for such activities generally instruct the owner to
proceed without permits or review. There has been little or
September 17, 1984
Item No. 9 - Continued
no experience with this type of activity since the adoption
of the Ordinance in 1980 and none of it is documented.
BUILDING CODE INTERPRETATION OF STRUCTURE FOR THE PERMIT
PROCESS:
At this time, the City does not require a building permit or
review for construction of playgrounds, driveways or
athletic fields with normal accessory structures such as
bleachers, backstops and building smaller than 100 square
feet.
All accessory structures such as pavilions and other
accessory buildings would require a permit if the covered
area exceeds 100 square feet or $1,000 in value. All
parking lots whether new or expanding of existing are
reviewed for conformance to Ordinance standards such as
paving thickness and landscaping. They do not require
public hearing review by any commission or board unless they
are off-site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the feeling of the Planning staff that with changing
times, attitudes and technology that every accessory
activity should be regulated by way of a structured process
or that none of them be regulated. This is based on a
belief that an accessory activity area nonstructural in
nature cannot be measured as to capacity for expanding the
principal use. These kinds of activities come and go as the
level of activity and technology change. It is believed
that the potential for neighborhood conflict is great enough
that some review of these nonstructural areas is in order.
If this office has to take a position, it would be as
follows:
1. That the procedure now provided in the Ordinance be
modified only with respect to accessory buildings which
do not now require a building permit (add 10' x 10' and
$1,000 maximum cost). These buildings should be
permitted without review. As to the maximum number of
these buildings, we have no thoughts as to what the
restrictions should be.
2. All nonstructural involvement such as parking, play
areas and sports facilities should receive a public
review by the Board of Adjustment. Staff feels this
process would be brief, least costly and least involved
for the owners, yet providing neighborhoods with a
public review.
October 22, 1984
Item No. 9 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Staff reviewed the issue and its recommendations listed as
No. 1 and No. 2. The Board of Adjustment discussed the
matter at length and decided that they needed some more
guidance. Some comments were made pertaining to the
possible ordinance amendment and what would be the
appropriate action to take. It was recommended that the
item be taken to the Planning Commission Zoning Committee
for their review.
October 22, 1984
Item No. 10
APPEAL FROM A STAFF INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
RELATIVE TO A NONCONFORMING USE
Site Location: 9000 West 36th Street
Mr. Herbert Rule, attorney acting for Mr. Steve Lehoczky,
has submitted a request for a hearing before the Board of
Adjustment for purposes of review of a staff interpretation.
The issue involves a two lot ownership in the John Barrow
Addition approximately two blocks west off Barrow Road.
These lots were annexed to the City of Little Rock in the
general annexation of 1961 with the use of this site being a
welding shop and a residence. The welding shop was sited on
the west one-half of the property fronting upon West 36th
Street. The residence occupying the lot faced eastward onto
the side street.
That circumstance prevailed for a number of years and was
recognized by the City of Little Rock as a nonconforming
use. In 1977, Mr. Lehoczky purchased the property with the
welding shop intact. However, the residence had burned at
an earlier time. Mr. Lehoczky claims that the site as
purchased by him was used partially for storage of heavy
equipment both around the business building and the vacant
site of the residence.
In 1982, the tornado which caused much damage in this part
of the City damaged a portion of his building. He is
presently completing repair on the structure.
The site at issue has been fenced and autos are stored on
the east one -half of these two lots. That storage prompted
the enforcement issue and was the basis for this request.
The issue stated as simply as possible is as follows:
1. Can the owner of a nonconforming use expand that use
throughout the site owned when annexed?
2. Can this expansion occur when the area to be expanded
upon has been occupied by a residence in the past and
fenced from the shop use area?
Staff Recommendation:
This request was filed late, and the Enforcement staff has
not completed its informational report. They will report to
this office early in the week of October 15, 1984. We will
provide a more detailed report to the Board prior to the
meeting.
October 22, 1984
Item No. 10 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Herbert Rule, attorney for the owner, requested that the
item be deferred to the November 19, 1984, meeting. A
motion was made to defer the issue to the November 19
meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
October 22, 1984
There being no further business before the Board, the
Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m.
Date
Secretary Chairman