boa_11 19 1984LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTE RECORD
NOVEMBER 19, 1984
2:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
I. A Quorum was present being seven in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The Minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present: B.L. Murphree
Ellis Walton
Ronald Woods
Joe Norcross
Steve Smith
Thomas McGowan
Herbert Rideout
Members Absent: George Wells
Richard Yada
City Attorney: Patricia K. Benton
November 19, 1984
Item No. 1 - Z-4003-A
Owner: Otter Creek First Baptist Church
By: Rev. Max W. Deaton
Address: 13801 Otter Creek Parkway
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the pavement provisions of
Section 43/8 -101.I to permit parking
areas with only SB-2 surface ( for a
period of two years).
JUSTIFICATION:
To allow additional parking and eliminate future parking
problems.
Present Use
of Property: Church
Proposed Use
of Property: Remain the same
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
Engineering has recommended denial of this request
because of concern over dust in the immediate
residential neighborhood. This residential area is to
the west of the church site.
B. Staff Analysis
The staff recognizes that the church does have
immediate parking needs and supports the request. The
required parking for the existing church is paved, and
it is recommended that any additional parking that is
needed to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements also
be paved. The church wants to place as much of their
parking on -site, but at this time, they are unable to
construct the proposed areas to meet the City
requirements. The staff does recommend that the two
areas under consideration have the proper curbing
installed around them to ensure control over where the
cars are parked and that the temporary surface be
limited to one year. The curbing will discourage
parking to take place on areas not suited for parking,
possibly add to the existing problems.
November 19, 1984
Item No. 1 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance request with the
conditions that the temporary surface be limited to one year
and the interior curbing be installed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Ronnie Cole. There were no
objectors present. Mr. Cole discussed the issue and
indicated that the church was somewhat concerned with the
staff's recommendation which included interior curbing. He
said that the curbing was very costly, and that is what the
church wanted to avoid at the present time. Mr. Cole went
on to say that there were problems with the existing parking
on the street and that the SB2 surface would prevent any
dust problems. There was additional discussion about the
interior curbing and whether some other alternative would
address the staff's concerns. Railroad ties were mentioned
as a possible solution. A motion was made to approve the
variance with the conditions that railroad ties or equal be
used for the interior and that the temporary surface be
limited to one year. The vote: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2
absent. The variance was granted.
November 19, 1984
Item No. 2 - Z-1382-A
Owner: Markham Inn Inc.
By: James O. Weisman
Address: 5116 West Markham Street
Description: Part of Block 7, Pfeifer's Addition
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance
Requested: From the front yard setback provisions
of Section 43/7-103.3 -1.1 to permit an
addition with a 19-foot setback
(ordinance requires 25').
JUSTIFICATION:
1. Limited seating in dining area causes constant
operator turnover.
2. A recent expansion of the adjacent motel requires
nearby food service.
3. Many residents of the motel are there because of nearby
hospitals and many of the persons are elderly.
4. The only other breakfast is McDonald's which is two
blocks east across a busy intersection.
Present Use
of Property: Restaurant
Proposed Use
of Property: Remain the same
STAFF REPORT
A. Enqineerinq Issues
Engineering has requested that no fixed structures be
located in the right-of-way. Engineering has also
indicated that right-of-way dedication and boundary
street improvements will be required. This will be
elaborated on further at the hearing by the Engineering
staff.
November 19, 1984
Item No. 2 - Continued
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal is to enlarge the existing restaurant by
what is commonly referred to as a solar greenhouse.
These are structures that have a lot of glass surface
and are usually very attractive. Because of the glass
and the greenhouse aspect with plants, the expansion
has less of an impact than if the addition was similar
in construction as the existing building. In this
block, the primary structures have maintained at least
a 25-foot setback, but there are some physical
intrusions into the front yards. To the west, the
motel has some stairways with significant brick
construction that encroach and to the east, a
restaurant has a paved parking area in the front yard.
In addition, the lot in question has a ground mounted
sign in the required setback that is fairly large.
Most of the yards are landscaped and a greenhouse
addition should not detract from that. With the
proposed addition, it appears that the restaurant will
be about two parking spaces short of the requirement.
This is not a significant amount because a majority of
the customers will probably be from the motel and have
secured a parking space. Staff feels the proposed
addition is the least of the offensive approach for
increasing the seating capacity which does appear to be
needed. The expansion will maintain the existing line
of the stairway intrusion to the west and will probably
be less visible. Staff is concerned with the amount of
structural involvement that would occur if the addition
is granted and the existing sign. Because of this
concern, staff recommends that the sign be removed and
some other signage alternative be utilized.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the
existing sign being removed and no additional structural
involvement in the setback be permitted.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Jimmy Weisman, was present. There were no
objectors in attendance. Mr. Weisman spoke and discussed
the variance. He said that the setback, if approved, would
be approximately 17 feet and not 19 feet as originally
applied for. Mr. Weisman said this occurred due to a
measurement error. Staff felt that this was not a
November 19, 1984
Item No. 2 - Continued
significant difference. Mr. Weisman also indicated that he
agreed with the staff's recommendation to remove the
existing sign. A motion was made to approve the variance,
subject to the existing sign being removed and no additional
structure involvement be permitted in the front yard
setback. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
November 19, 1984
Item No. 3 - Z-1912-B
Owner: John Childs, Jr.
Address: 1400 North Street
Description: Lots 13, 14 and 15, Block 360
Original City of Little Rock, Arkansas
Zoned: "R -6" High -Rise (Request for "I -2"
Filed)
Variance
Requested: From the front yard setback provisions
of Section 43/7- 104.2/E.1 to permit a
new building with a 15 -foot setback
(ordinance requires 50').
JUSTIFICATION:
None provided as of this writing.
Present Use
of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use
of Property: Warehousing
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
Engineering comments include: (1) both alleys shall
have improvements if proposed parking is allowed;
(2) right-of-way dedication for North Street; and
(3) boundary street improvements.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal is to construct a new building on the
property to allow additional warehousing. The owner
currently operates the warehousing facility to the
east. As has been noted, the owner has yet to provide
this office with a written justification for the
variance, but staff believes that a hardship does exist
and that is the size of the building and the property.
In addition, the existing buildings are lacking heating
which has created some problems in the past during the
winter months. The proposed building will have the
necessary heating. The property has a depth of only
100' and with the "I-2" district requiring a 50-foot
November 19, 1984
Item No. 3 - Continued
front yard and a 25-foot rear yard, it would be almost
impossible to place an adequate size building on the
site without a variance. The proposed setback will not
impact the property across North Street because it is
vacant and visually the building will not appear to be
as close as the 15 foot because the site is higher than
street level. The variance appears to be justified and
staff supports the request. The issues that are a
problem and a concern are those raised by Engineering.
(The owner has filed for a rezoning change to "I-2"
and, the Planning Commission has recommended approval.
Engineering review of the rezoning request also
identified the right-of-way dedication and boundary
street improvement issues. The right-of-way will have
to be dedicated prior to the Board of Directors
rezoning the site. Lots 14 and 15 are only involved
with the rezoning request.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the request be granted subject to the
Engineering issues being resolved.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff
informed the Board of Adjustment that the engineering issues
had been resolved. The item was discussed briefly and that
a motion was made to approve the variance was filed. The
motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
November 19, 1984
Item No. 4 - Z-3928-A
Owner: Kaufman Lumber Company
By: Robert Watkins
Address: 5100 Asher Avenue
Description: Block 29, C.O. Brack's Addition
Zoned: "I -2" Light Industrial
Variance
Requested: From the rear yard setback provisions of
Section 43/7- 104.2/E.3 to permit a
3 -foot setback for an addition
(ordinance requires 25').
JUSTIFICATION:
1. Size of lot.
2. Conformance with existing structures.
Present Use
of Property: Vacant Lot /Part of lumber company
overall complex on City block
Proposed Use
of Property: Warehouse
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
Engineering has reported that right-of-way dedication
and boundary street improvements will be required.
B. Staff Analysis
The owner has indicated that the size of the lot and
maintaining the existing building line as the
justifications. The size of the lot does present a
hardship. An addition of any size conforming to the
existing building line is not a true hardship, but is
sufficient reason for considering a variance. An
intrusion into the rear yard to the west does currently
exist, so this variance, if granted, will not be
establishing new precedent. This property's rear yard
is adjacent to a street and there are houses that front
onto the street. Even though the street is somewhat
narrow, that type of relationship does provide an
adequate separation between the structures. If the
November 19, 1984
Item No. 4 - Continued
proposed structure maintains the height of the existing
building, the two together will create a significant
visual barrier, and steps should be taken to reduce
that impact. It is recommended that some type of
screening, preferably a planting, be utilized along the
rear of the building. Staff realizes that it will be
impossible to screen the entire building because of
its height, but a planting, such as vine, should lessen
the effect of a significant intrusion. To the west,
there is an existing chain link fence with some plants
growing on the fence, and it is recommended that type
of screening be continued.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the
comments made in the staff analysis.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Robert Watkins, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Watkins spoke and indicated that he agreed
with the staff's recommendation for some screening and
resolving the right-of-way issue. A motion was made to
approve the variance with the condition that some type of
screening be provided and the Monroe Street right-of-way
issue be addressed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
November 19, 1984
Item No. 5 - Z-4156-A
Owner: Geyer Springs Baptist Church
Address: 5700 Block of Geyer Springs Road
East side of street
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Request: Permission under provisions of Section
43/8-101/H.2 to locate satellite parking
for a church in a "R-2" zone.
JUSTIFICATION:
(Not required for this process.)
Present Use
of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use
of Property: Parking lot for overflow parking
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
Engineering has reported that dedication of additional
right-of-way and boundary street improvements will be
required.
B. Staff Analysis
This issue does not require justification because it
does not involve a hardship but rather a land use
consideration. The proposal is to utilize an "R-2"
zone tract of land for a church parking lot. This
parking is not part of the required spaces but rather
overflow parking. The site in question is adjacent to
a piece of land that received BOA approval to be used
for satellite parking. That parking lot is currently
under construction. The new parking area will be
adjacent to a residential use on the south, but the lot
should have little impact on the adjoining property
because of its limited use and being used for overflow
parking. Providing adequate off-street parking has
always been beneficial for an area where a substantial
sized facility is located.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested.
November 19, 1984
Item No. 5 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Ronnie Hall, was present. There were no
objectors present. The Board of Adjustment addressed the
request very briefly. An adjoining property owner was
concerned about the existing drainage problems and asked
that something be done. Mike Batie of the Engineering
staff said the City was aware of the situation and looking
into possible solutions. A motion was made to approve the
variance as requested. The vote: 7 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent. The variance was granted.
November 19, 1984
Item No. 6 - Z-4351
Owner: Byron D. and Syble Brown Sr.
Address: 4022 Kenyon Street
Description: Lot 1, Block 18, Hillcrest Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the rear setback provisions of
Section 43- 7.101.2/D.3 to permit an
addition with an 8.3 -foot setback
(ordinance requires 25').
JUSTIFICATION:
None expressed that involves hardship. The statement
provided refers to steep terrain.
Present Use
of Property: Residence
Proposed Use
of Property: Remain the same
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal is to expand the existing kitchen with the
proposed addition. Because of the slope of the lot,
the residence is one level on the Kenyon Street side
and two levels on the Read Street side where the
expansion will take place. With this type of
structural configuration, the addition will extend out
over an existing driveway and only the support columns
will be encroaching into the setback at the ground
level. The structure already encroaches into the rear
yard, so this proposed variance will only add to the
existing nonconformity. Because of the lot, a variance
would be required for any type of expansion so a
potential hardship does exist. Also, the area on the
north side of Read Street is undeveloped, so there is
adequate separation between this structure with the
addition and the residence to the north. Staff
November 19, 1984
Item No. 6 - Continued
supports the request because a hardship does exist, and
the encroachment will be of a minimal structural
involvement. There is one concern that staff has and
that is in reference to the width of the addition. The
initial survey indicated an 8-foot addition and when a
second survey was submitted, it reflected a 14-foot
room expansion. This difference needs to be clarified
at the public hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance request as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The owner was presented by Everett Wilson. There were no
objectors present. Mr. Wilson stated that the room
expansion would be 14 feet and not 8 feet. 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.
November 19, 1984
Item No. 7 - Z-4360
Owner: James M. Wright
Address: 5411 "L" Street
Description: Park of Block 2, Hollenberg Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
variance
Requested: From the front yard setback provisions
of Section 43-7.101.2/D.1 to permit an
addition with a 19.7-foot setback for a
second floor addition (ordinance
requires 25').
JUSTIFICATION:
1. The proposal as filed provides for building up rather
than out in order to retain large oak trees in the
yard.
2. The porch /overhang is necessary in order to move the
low bearing portions of the foundation away from the
sewer line.
3. The rear lot area has terrain problems.
Present Use
of Property: Residence
Proposed Use
of Property: Remain the same as two story
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal is to add a second story for additional
living area. To do this, the existing porch which
intrudes into the 25-foot front yard must be expanded
from its current 8-foot width to approximately 25'.
This is to provide support for the second story
addition which will have an overhang and try to solve a
foundation problem as stated in the justification. The
proposed porch will not be enclosed so the structural
encroachment will be limited. The reduced setback will
not have any impact on the property across the street
November 19, 1984
Item No. 7 - Continued
because it is a park, and with the lot in question
being lower than other lots on the block, the addition
will be less noticeable visually. The staff supports
the requested variance because a hardship does exist
and the owner has provided substantial justification.
In addition, the staff views the second story expansion
as being more desirable than a similar size addition
encroaching into a limited rear or side yard.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Board held a brief discussion on the issue. A motion was
made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by
a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
November 19, 1984
Item No. 8 - Z-4361
Owner: Arkansas Highway & Tranportation Dept.
Address: I -430 Bridge over Arkansas River
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the floodplain provisions of
paragraph A of paragraph 4 of Section B
of Article 5 of Ordinance No. 14,534 to
permit construction of facilities for
repairs to the bridge structure.
JUSTIFICATION:
None provided.
Present Use
of Property: River bridge
Proposed Use
of Property: Remain the same
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
Engineer is recommending approval of the variance
because: (1) U.S. Corps of Engineers approval and
(2) the temporary nature of work.
B. Staff Analysis
The variance is for the I -430 bridge and to permit some
additional structural involvement in the Arkansas
floodway. The bridge support piers are in need of
repairs and this work will require temporary dikes to
be constructed around the piers and then the water to
be pumped out to allow the necessary work to proceed.
Once the repairs to the bridge structure are completed,
the dikes will be removed. Because of this variance
being temporary, staff supports the request and has no
further comments to offer.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance.
November 19, 1984
Item No. 8 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. After
a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the
variance as requested. The motion passed by a vote of
7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
ovember 19, 1984
Item No. 9 - Z-4364
Owner: Edwin B. Cromwell
Address: 1720 Beechwood Street
Description: The South 45 feet of Lot 1 and
the North 45 feet of Lot 2
Cliffwood Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the side yard setback provisions
of Section 43/7-101.2/D.2 to permit an
addition with a 6.7-foot side yard
(ordinance requires 8').
JUSTIFICATION:
1. Most of the present kitchen was in place when I
purchased house. Equipment is old and we would like to
replace it.
2. Present kitchen is small. Since retirement, I find I
spend a lot more time in the kitchen (whether I like it
or not) and frequently there are two of us competing
for space.
3.
The old breakfast room is far from adequate.
Currently, half our meals are on a folding card table
that is put up and taken down at each meal.
4. Over the past 16 years, we have developed a pleasant
garden in the back of our house. To have a dining
space opening out onto the garden would add immensely
to our enjoyment.
5. The present kitchen area will be added to other space
to form a family room.
6. The addition will not infringe on neighbors space or
exposure since it is toward the highway. An existing
stonewall screens this area and will remain essentially
as it is now.
Present Use
of Property: Residence
Proposed Use
of Property: Remain the same
November 19, 1984
Item No. 9 - Continued
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analvsis
The proposed addition is for a kitchen expansion so
that does place some limitations on where the owner can
add on. The expansion is substantial but should have
very little impact on the surrounding residential
properties and have little visibility. The side of the
addition is adjacent to Cantrell Road (Highway 10) and
a majority of the plan expansion will be screened by a
stone wall. That portion of the addition that will not
have benefit of the stone wall will be partially
screened by a heavily landscaped area. Along what
would be the rear of the property, the wall is
approximately 6' high and decreases in size to 2' ±,
and it is at that point the landscaping begins. Even
though a true hardship does not exist, the owner has
offered sufficient justification to support the needed
variance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the requested variance be granted.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. The Board discussed the issue briefly. A
motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The
motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The
variance was granted.
November 19, 1984
Item No. 10 - Z-3961-A
Owner: Indoor Tennis Center of Little Rock
By: Ed Scharff
Address: 4700 Block of Sam Peck Road
West side of street
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "AF" Agriculture and Forestry
Variance
Requested: From the lot area coverage of
Section 43/7- 105.1/F.4 to permit
erection of a pavilion (tennis
facility) in authorizing multiple
structures.
JUSTIFICATION:
The use conflict in "AF" district with a commercial
recreation use in a zone designated for agricultural and
forestry activity which has a less involved structural
relationship.
Present Use
of Property: Tennis Center
Proposed Use
of Property: Remain the same with new pavilion
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
Engineering reports that boundary street improvements
will be required for Peckerwood Road.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue at hand is the amount of lot coverage
permitted in the "AF" Agriculture and Forestry
District. In the "AF" zone, the main building and all
accessory structures shall not occupy more than 25
percent of the total area of the tract. The West Side
Tennis Center on Sam Peck Road is proposing to cover
four existing tennis courts with a free - standing
pavilion that is open sided and unheated. The addition
of the pavilion if the variance is approved will
increase the lot coverage to 33.5 percent. This does
November 19, 1984
Item No. 10 - Continued
not appear to be a significant increase since the
tennis courts are in place and the structure is an open
pavilion. The complex existed prior to being annexed
into the City, and because the tennis courts are
permitted in "AF," the City determined that would be a
more appropriate classification than a commercial
district. The problem is the "AF" district does have
some limitations, lot coverage, and that does create a
hardship for a facility such as the tennis center. A
secondary issue is that the pavilion will create
multiple structures and the Board of Adjustment must
act to authorize that. Staff feels that the variance
is justified and supports the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present and represented by Chris Barrier.
Also in attendance were Ed Scharff and Phil Wiggins. There
were no objectors. Mr. Barrier discussed the various
issues, including the necessary street improvements for
Peckerwood. He said that the West Side Tennis Center would
be willing to do improvements when parking is upgraded or
when other improvements are made to Peckerwood to the west.
Mike Batie of the City Engineering staff addressed the
street improvement issue and said that the improvements
could be tied to the next building permit requirement or
possibly a plat approval. There was additional discussion
on the various issues. A motion was made to approve the
variance with the condition that the street improvements be
undertaken at the next stage of improvements or with
development of the adjacent property /street improvements to
the west. The vote: 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and
1 abstention (Joe Norcross).
November 19, 1984
Item No. 11 - Z -4149
APPEAL FROM A STAFF INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
RELATIVE TO A NONCONFORMING USE
Site Location: 9000 West 36th Street
Request: Interpret the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance relative to expansion of a
nonconforming use within owned property.
STAFF REPORT
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?
November 19, 1984
Item No. 11 - Continued
ENFORCEMENT DIVISION REPORT
1961 - This property was annexed into the City of
L ti tle Rock with an existing machine shop located on the
west one -half of Lots 1 and 2 in an occupied residential
structure on the east one-half of the lots. The business
was allowed to remain in existence as a nonconforming use.
1977 - The residential structure burned and was demolished
and removed by the owner.
December 1978 - Zoning Enforcement received a complaint that
the business had changed from a machine shop to a heavy
equipment storage and repair, and equipment was stored on
the east one -half of the lots where the residential
structure was located.
May 1979 - The City Attorney appended in response to a
request from Jim Hathcock states that the nonconforming use
of the building could continue. However, storing of
vehicles on the east one-half of the lots constitutes an
expansion of the nonconforming use.
November 1979 - Auto Haus moved onto property as an auto
repair business. The owner installed a chain link fence
along Malloy Street and West 36th Street and graveled the
lot. He then began storing vehicles on the property, again
expanding the nonconforming use.
March 1984 - Another inspection revealed the east one -half
of property again being used for storage of vehicles.
May 1984 - Zoning Enforcement requested legal action be
initiated against property owner for illegal expansion of
nonconforming use.
September 1984 - Arrest warrant issued by the City Attorney
for violation of the Little Rock Zoning Code.
October 1984 - Service a warrant by Little Rock Police
Department pending.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff will provide additional comments at the meeting.
November 19, 1984
Item No. 11 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (10-22-84)
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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (11-19-84)
The owner, Steve Lehoczky, was in attendance and represented
by Herb Rule. There were no other persons present regarding
this matter. Richard Wood discussed the staff's position
and the circumstances. Mr. Rule spoke and presented a
history of the site. He said that the present use had been
in operation since 1978 and that the site was significantly
damaged in 1982 by a tornado. Mr. Rule said that both lots
had been used for some type of nonresidential use. He went
on to say that Mr. Lehoczky has improved the property and
that it would be impossible to operate his business without
the east side of the property. Mr. Lehoczky spoke and
discussed the improvements to the property. Mr. Rule
requested the Board of Adjustment to make an interpretation
that the use of the east one -half of the property is tied to
the use of the west one -half. There were additional
comments about the types of uses and other issues. Kenny
Scott of the Enforcement Office addressed the storage issue.
There was a long discussion about the nonconforming status
and possible solutions to the various issues. A motion was
made to allow the lots to be used as storage and that the
use was found to be within the intent of the zoning
ordinance. Also, that the continued use of the property not
be a violation or expansion. The motion passed by a vote of
6 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent and 1 abstention
(B.L. Murphree).
November 19, 1984
Item No. 12 - Interpretative Issue - Z-4365
Owner: Marcia Camp
Address: 615 Beechwood
Description: South 48 feet of Lot 10, Block 21
Pulaski Heights Addition
Zoned: "C-3"
Request: To interpret the provisions of
Section 43/7-103.3/A purpose and
intent as application of the last
sentence which reads: "outdoor display
of merchandise is allowed under
carefully controlled conditions."
JUSTIFICATION:
Present Use
of Property: Retail sales of outdoor recreation
equipment
Proposed Use
of Property: Remain the same with sales of certain
items in front yard area
STAFF REPORT
A. Enforcement Division Report
The Enfocement Division will be present at the hearing
to address this issue.
B. Staff Analvsis
Staff will provide comments at the public hearing.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff is not prepared to make a recommendation at this
time.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The owner, Marcia Camp, was present. Ms. Camp spoke and
discussed the issue before the Board. She described the
existing situation and that the property does have some
November 19, 1984
Item No. 12 - Continued
limitations. There was discussion about controls and the
question of intensity. Kenny Scott of the City staff
addresed the enforcement issue. There were additional
comments about the various concerns. A motion was made to
determine that the single outdoor canoe rack at
615 Beechwood falls under the zoning ordinance provisions
for controlled conditions in the "C-3" District. The motion
was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
November 19, 1984
Item No. 13 - Adoption of the 1985 Calendar of Meeting Dates
(See attached calendar)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The 1985 Calendar of Meeting Dates was approved by a vote of
7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CALENDAR OF MEETING DATES
1985
ADOPTED NOVEMBER 19, 1984
FILING DATE LEGAL AD MEETING 1/ 2/
Dec. 31, 1984 Jan. 10, 1985 Jan. 21, 1985
Jan. 18, 1985 Feb. 07, 1985 Feb. 11, 1985
Feb. 25, 1985 Mar. 07, 1985 Mar. 18, 1985
Mar. 25, 1985 Apr. 11, 1985 Apr. 22, 1985
Apr. 29, 1985 May 09, 1985 May 20, 1985
May 24, 1985 Jun. 06, 1985 Jun. 17, 1985
Jun. 24, 1985 Jul. 05, 1985 Jul. 15, 1985
Jul. 29, 1985 Aug. 08, 1985 Aug. 19, 1985
Aug. 26, 1985 Sep. 05, 1985 Sep. 16, 1985
Sep. 30, 1985 Oct. 10, 1985 Oct. 21, 1985
Oct. 28, 1985 Nov. 07, 1985 Nov. 18, 1985
Nov. 25, 1985 Dec. 05, 1985 Dec. 16, 1985
Dec. 30, 1985 Jan. 09, 1986 Jan. 20, 1986
NOTE: I/ All meetings to be held at 2:00 P.M. unless otherwise changed
by the Board.
2/Agenda meetings to be held at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Conference
Room on meeting date.
November 19, 1984
There being no further business before the Board, the
Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.
Date
Secretary Chairman