Loading...
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