Loading...
boa_08 19 1985LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD AUGUST 19, 1985 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being eight in number. II. Approval of the Minutes The minutes of the previous meetings were approved as mailed. Present: B. L. Murphree J. Norcross R. Yada R. Woods G. Wells E. Walton T. McGowan H. Rideout Absent: S. Smith City Attorney: Pat Benton August 19, 1985 Item No. A - Z-3853-A Owner: Frank Whitmore Address: 2503 Gaines Description: Lot 1 and the North 12 feet of Lot 2 Block 1, Kimball's South Park Addition Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of Section 7-103.3/D.2 to permit a new addition with a 4-foot setback JUSTIFICATION: Location of existing building and provide adequate parking. Present Use of the Property: Commercial Proposed Use of the Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit a 4-foot side yard on the south side of the property. Because the lot to the south is used for a residence, the Zoning Ordinance requires a 15-foot side yard. If the property to the south was a nonresidential use, then no setback would be necessary. In June 1982, the Board of Adjustment approved a similar variance for a building that is identified as the existing structure on the accompanying sketch. It appears that the 4-foot side yard has had little impact on the residential use to the south. The proposed addition /structure will replace a smaller building so the amount of encroachment will increase but that should not create any problems. Staff feels that the owner has provided adequate justification and supports the variance with the condition that the City's traffic engineer approve the driveways and access. The lot has three driveways off two streets and one from the alley and this could possibly cause a traffic flow problem if not properly controlled. August 15, 1985 Item No. A - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the traffic engineer approving the driveways and access. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Staff informed the Board of Adjustment that the item needed to be deferred because the owner failed to notify the required property owners. A motion was made to defer the request to the August 19, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (8-19-85) The applicant, Mr. Frank Whitmore, was present and offered comments on his proposal. There were no objectors in attendance. A brief discussion of the proposal followed. A motion was made to approve the application as recommended by the staff. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. August 19, 1985 Item No. B - Z-4490 Owner: James and Avis Mitchell Address: 59 Tallyho Description: Lot 192, Foxcroft Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit a carport with a 5-foot side yard JUSTIFICATION: In order to construct this carport and to have adequate space for two vehicles, this adjustment is necessary. Note on the attached sketch that only a very small portion of the planned addition would exceed the standard setback requirements. Because of the location of the existing driveway, this is the only logical place to make this addition. Architecturally and typographically, this is also the best place to make the addition. Also even after the carport is built, there will still be at least 40-feet between the closest point of our neighbor's house and ours. We would hope that 40-feet would still be considered an adequate distance between the two houses. Present Use of the Property: Single Family Proposed Use of the Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None have been reported. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a carport with a 5-foot side yard. With this lot, an 8-foot side yard is required by the Zoning Ordinance. Because of the lot configuration which becomes substantially narrower from the front to the rear, the side yard in question increases from 5 feet to 12 feet at the front of the proposed carport. Because of this, only a small August 15, 1985 Item No. B - Continued portion of the carport will encroach into the required setback as the owner has stated. Staff supports the variance because the owner has provided proper justification and a hardship does exist with the shape of the lot. In addition, even with the 5-foot setback, there will be adequate separation between the proposed carport and the residence to the east. Because of this, the variance will not impact the property to the north or other properties in the immediate area. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Staff informed the Board of Adjustment that the owner had submitted a letter requesting a deferral to the August meeting. A motion was made to defer the item to the August 19, 1985, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (8-19-85) The applicant was present and offered comments on his proposal. There were no objectors in attendance. A brief discussion of the proposal was held. A motion was then made to approve the application as filed with the record to reflect a caution to the owner to review with the Little Rock Wastewater Utility sewer lines on this lot before building. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. August 19, 1985 item No. 1 - Z-3903 Owner: C.Y.H. Development Corp. Address: 3625 Kavanaugh Description: SW Corner of Kavanaugh and "L" Street Lots 1 & 2, Block 51, Pulaski Heights Addition Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION: From the setback provisions of Section 7-103.3/D.2 expansion of a previously approved variance. 1. The need of two of the tenants to have additional space. 2. To comply with a citing by the City of Little Rock Code Enforcement Office for noncompliance. Present Use of the Property: Retail/Commercial Proposed Use of the Property: Same STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues Traffic Engineer recommends denial of the variance due to the impact of traffic to Kavanaugh and "L" Street. Staff Analysis The request before the Board of Adjustment is for an expansion of a previous variance granted in October 1982 for relief from Section 7-103/3D encroachment into both exterior yards and Section 8-101 reduction of required parking spaces. One provision of the granting of the above mentioned variances was that the upper level be utilized only as commercial use with the lower level being utilized solely for storage space. Due to a recent citing by the Little Rock Code Enforcement Office, it was found that at least two tenants on the upper level are using their storage spaces for other uses which is a violation of the variance and places the owner in a noncompliance status. August 19, 1985 Item No. 1 - Continued At present, there are six tenants occuping the upper level. One commercial use is that of a restaurant which has staff concern as to whether the applicant can secure the parking spaces needed for an expansion. In the previous variance, the applicant was given relief from the required number of parking spaces stated in the ordinance. The ordinance requires parking be provided for all 1200 square feet, but at that time the applicant agreed that he was only going to be using 7000 square feet. Therefore, a mimimum of twenty -five spaces was granted with no parking on the Harrison Street side of the project. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the application based on the following objections: (a) The applicant's previous variance for relief from the parking requirements of Section 8 -101. It is staff's view that if the variance is granted, the required number of parking spaces would have to be increased. (b) As it stands now, staff feels that for the type of commercial uses already on the site, the parking is really insufficient for the need. (c) The placing of undue hardship and encroachment on the residence on the Harrison Street side of the project. (d) Staff believes that the granting of the variance will impact the already concerned of the traffic flow at the intersection of Kavanaugh and "L" Streets. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. J. Redden, the applicant and architect, presented the application and identified the various uses and floor spaces involved. Mr. Gregg Lathrop representing the exercise studio discussed the effects of the variances on his wife's business if it were denied. Mr. Jim Couch, the developer of this project, discussed the various uses, the floor space allotted and the history of the current occupancies. There were no objectors present. However, it was noted that several persons had called and voiced concern about the application. A general discussion then followed with various solutions being offered through the offering of four separate motions to approve or deny in various formats. These several motions all failed with subsequent actions August 191 1985 Item No. 1 - Continued taken to reconsider the application. A final motion was made which stated denial of the request as filed but providing for the retention of the existing exercise studio in the facility as it currently operates, the use to remain as is until the business leaves this space. At that time, this area will revert to accessory use for upper floor tenants. The balance of the basement use area to remain as previously approved as storage or ancillary activity to the businesses above. This motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. August 19, 1985 Item No. 2 - Z-4435-A Owner: George Downey Address: 13,001 I-30 Description: South side of I-30 across from the Outlet Mall Zoned: "C-4" Open Display Variance Requested: From the side yard setback provision of Section 7-103.4/E.2 construction of a new building with a 10-foot side yard. JUSTIFICATION: 1. To allow more room for the semi-trucks to be more mobil when making deliveries. 2. To provide protection to an artesian well during inclement weather. Present Use of the Property: Commercial Sales Proposed Use of the Property: Same STAFF REPORT A. Enqineerinq Issues None reported. B. Staff Analvsis The proposal is to construct a new building with a 10 -foot side yard. The present building sets 2-feet off the property line to the west and 6-feet off the front yard. If granted, the new structure will have a front yard of 40-feet instead of the required 45-feet and a sideyard of 10-feet to the west instead of the required 15-feet. The new structure will increase the amount of encroachment, but that should not create a problem to any of the adjacent buildings in that there is ample space between businesses in the area. Staff feels that the applicant has provided adequate justification of a hardship and the new structure will be an added improvement to the area. August 19, 1985 Item No. 2 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval conditioned upon the applicant agreeing to meet the provisions to properly pave the driveway to the entrance which is now gravel and make arrangements to adequately clean up the exterior area of the property. At present, there are several antique cars that should be removed. (In the course of the meeting, the staff clarified its comment on the paving requirement to include the parking and drives only and not that area utilized for open storage of the pickup truck bed covers or trailers. That area may remain as gravel. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present and offered a brief comment on his proposal. There were no objectors in attendance. The staff offered additional comments on its recommendation directing the owner to the floodplain in this area. The owner stated that he understood that his site was involved in the floodplain and would require his communicating with the City Engineer's Office. A motion was then made to approve the application as recommended by the staff with the notation that the floodplain issue is to be resolved. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. August 19, 1985 Item No. 3 - Z-4508 Owner: Linda Holderfield Address: 5003 Asher Avenue Description: South side of Asher Avenue, one half block east of Mary Street. Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial variance Requested: From the front yard provisions of Section 7-104.2/E.1 construction of an awning with 20-foot front yard. JUSTIFICATION: A. To provide protection from weather. B. To provide protection to customers. C. To make the building more energy efficient. Present Use of the Property: Commercial Proposed Use of the Property: Same STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues Engineering requests that if the awning is approved the applicant never be allowed to enclose it. B. Staff Analysis The proposal before the Board of Adjustment is to allow for an already constructed awning. The structured awning is encroaching with a 20-foot setback to the front yard of an open space building. This variance was filed as a result of a citing by the Little Rock Code Enforcement Office. A problem observed by staff is that the City's current Zoning Ordinance provides for a 50 -foot setback. Whereas the former Zoning Ordinance required zero setback on the front. Because of the above mentioned problem, there are several businesses in the area whose front yard lies right on the property line. Before the construction of the awning, the applicant was already encroaching within the front yard which added to the already problem this office and the Code Enforcement Office is experiencing with the Asher Avenue area. August 19, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued Staff feels that the applicant has not adequately provided justification of a hardship. One provision of the new zoning ordinance is that if an applicant can demonstrate that at least forty percent of the already surrounding building's front yard falls within an allowable area of the ordinance other than that which is required, that applicant would have a justification for not meeting the required ordinance. Kenny Scott of the Code Enforcement Office, will be at the meeting to address the above mentioned provision more in depth and to explain the events surrounding the citing by his office of the code violation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff feels that it can support this request only if the applicant can present justification for a true hardship on the site and agrees to the following three items: A. Paving of the drive to the east side of the project where the delivery trucks enter and exit. At present, the drive has deteriorated to a great degree from the elements. B. At present, there is a 6 -foot wooden fence surrounding the property, but staff feels the applicant can do a better job of screening the merchandise that is on display in the front and on the side of the building. The business is a well established one that has been at this location for a significant period of time; therefore, staff feels there is no justifiable need to openly display the large items as they are now being displayed. C. Adhere to the request of Engineering which states that the awning never be enclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present and made a presentation which included photographic evidence of like circumstances along Asher Avenue in this area. She offered history of her business and involvement with the Enforcement staff. There were no objectors in attendance. The Board then requested that Mr. Scott of the Enforcement staff offer comments as to the enforcement issue on this premises. A lengthy discussion of the issue then followed. A motion was then made to approve the application as recommended by the staff. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 no and 2 absent. August 19, 1985 Item No. 4 - Z-4510-A Owner: Fred W. Hicks, Jr. & Frieda L. Hicks Address: 1506 Commerce Description: The east 75 -feet of Lot 11, Block 53, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the front yard provisions of Section 7-101.4 /D.1 to permit a new residence with a 14.5-feet front yard. From the rear yard provisions of Section 7-101 -4/D.3 a new residence with a 14.5-foot rear yard. JUSTIFICATION: The lot size at present is substandard and the applicant is wishing to construct a new residence that could be better centered on the lot, therefore, utilizing the property better. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Residential STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues No adverse comments. B. Staff Analysis The request before the Board of Adjustment is for the construction of a 46 X 28 three bedroom residence with the provisions for a 14.5-foot front and rear yard setback. This proposed variance is in the central Little Rock area where there has been a significant amount of renovation to the existing older structures. To the west there is a commercial building, to the north and east there is a duplex usage and to the south there is a residential use. August 19, 1985 Item No. 4 - Continued At present the property is zoned "C-3" General Commercial but a rezoning has been filed for "R-4" Residential Use. Staff feels that the applicant has provided a justifiable hardship and feels that the new structure would enhance the neighborhood and not place any significant encroachment on the surrounding property owners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance conditioned upon the applicant agreeing to the following restrictions: A. Parking be limited to on-site with entry being on East 15th Street. B. Closing of the remaining curb cuts that are not in use on East 15th Street. C. Applicant understands that this office will not support another variance at this location. D. Staff recommends that if the applicant is the owner of the commercial building to the west, that it be removed completely. The present structure is deteriorated. (The staff recommended modification to provide its comments only on the second lot which is the lot at issue in this application and not the corner lot as reflected above.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present and offered a brief comment on his proposal. There were no objectors in attendance. A brief discussion of the proposal reflected that Mr. Hicks, in fact, owned the second parcel only but was in the process of reviewing his options for purchase of the corner lot. He also stated that he did not own the property occupied by the beauty shop on the lot to the west. A motion was made to approve the variance as recommended by the staff except that the access be to Commerce Street rather than indicated from 15th Street, further that Items B and D of the staff recommendation be removed and that the site be down-zoned to "R-4" Two Family District and that Item C of the staff recommendation remain. This motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 19, 1985 Item No. 5 - Z-4513 Owner: Choctaw (Formerly Miller Industries, Inc.) Address: 1300 Bond Street Description: Blocks 5 & 6 of Manufacturer's Addition to the City of Little Rock, in Pulaski County Arkansas (14th & Bond near airport) Zoned: "I-3" Heavy Industrial Variance Requested: From the front yard provisions of Section 7-104.3/D.1 a new addition with a 12.5-foot front yard. JUSTIFICATION: To allow for expansion of existing shop and warehouse facility to accommodate the need for additional warehouse area. Present Use of Property: For rental and sale of construction equipment. Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues No adverse comments. B. Staff Analysis The present proposal is for construction of a new warehouse facility to provide for additional needed space. Provisions of Section 7-104.3/D.1 to the code of ordinance requires for a 50-foot front yard and the request before the Board of Adjustment is for a 12.5 foot front yard. The property is presently zoned "I-3" Heavy Industrial. The applicant also feels that the location of the new structure will allow for an easier traffic flow within the compound for the rental and supply customer's the company serves. Staff feels that the applicant has not provided adequate justification of a hardship. August 19, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is staffs opinion that the proposed new structure could be located at another location on the site, but is willing to agree to the variance requested, providing the applicant adhere to the following conditions: A. Provide for the needed improvements to East 14th Street. B. Improve the drainage on the north side of the building. C. Understand that this will be the last variance that this office can support at this location. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Al Miller was present representing Choctaw. He made a presentation of his case offering rebuttal of some staff comment and identifying problems with building structures at other locations within this site. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion of the proposal, a motion was made to approve the request subject to the staff recommendation with added comment on caution as to sewer and water lines lying beneath the proposed building site. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. August 19, 1985 Item No. 6 - Z-4519 Owner: Marion Curtis & LaVaun Curtis Address: 5102 Hawthorne & Beverly Description: Lot 4, Walthour & Wilbourn's- Replat of Block 3, Newtons Addition. Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the height and area provisions of Section 5-101 /F.2E - new garage with a 1-foot setback. JUSTIFICATION: Construction of a new garage in order to make it more accessible than the present one. Present Use of Property: Residential Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The request before the Board of Adjustment is for a two car garage with a 1-foot setback. The intent of the applicant is to replace an existing deteriorated garage, but with the addition of a 5-foot storage area. The provisions of Section 5-101 /F.2.E of the zoning ordinance states that any accessory building shall maintain at least 3 -feet of setback from any side of rear property line, except where said rear yard abutts on a dedicated alley. No setback shall be required of an accessory building from said alley. Staff feels that the applicant has provided a justifiable hardship for the variance requested, but feels that there are at least three different alternative designs that could be used to eliminate the hardship. August 19, 1985 Item No. 6 - Continued One being plan number one that would totally eliminate the need of a variance request altogether. Included with the original submitted sketch are the three different plans the staff feels would be more applicable than the one the applicant submitted. The three different sketches are as follows: A. Under plan number one the applicant could bring the proposed garage closer to the rear of the house with a 20-foot drive. This will allow for the required 3-foot setback on both side yards and a rear yard of 30-feet instead of the 20.8-feet originally proposed. This plan also provides for an enclosed garage, and there will be no need for a variance to be filed. B. Under plan number two the applicant can construct a carport 35-feet from the rear of the house and 20-feet from the rear of the property line. The back 5-feet of the carport could be used for storage. The 35-feet will allow for more acccessibility to the carport when entering and exiting. Plan number two will provide for the required 3-feet setback on one side of the property to the west with a 1-foot variance to the east. C. As illustrated in plan number three, the applicant can construct an enclosed garage with a 22-foot setback from the property line and 31-feet setback from the rear of the house. With this plan, the applicant will be meeting at least one of the side yard requirements of 3-feet to the east and 1-feet to the west. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: At this time, staff cannot support the requested variance as submitted. If the applicant can agree to at least one of the enclosed three designs, then staff would be willing to support the variance. Preferably, plan number one in that it will not require a variance and place no encroachment on the surrounding property owners or side yards. August 19, 1985 Item No. 6 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Mr. Curtis, was present. He provided information that the garage is, in fact, a two-car garage and will be limited to one one-story in height with some storage space at the rear at ground level. There were no objectors in attendance. A discussion followed whereby it was revealed that building the structure at its current location would drain water onto the neighbor's property. It was further determined that a shortening of the eave overhangs could remedy this problem. A motion was then made to recommend approval of the application as filed subject to the applicant taking corrective measures to prevent water falling on the adjacent lot. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no and 3 absent. August 19, 1985 Item No. 7 - Z-4520-A Owner: Salvation Army Address: 1111 W. Markham Description: Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, & 40-feet of Lot 7 & 8 Block 295, Original City of Little Rock. Zoned: "C-4" - Open Display (in review for "C-3" zoning) Variance Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of Section 7-103.3/D.2 - a new addition with 9.7-feet setback. From the rear yard setback provisions of Section 7-103.3/D.3 - a new addition with a 9.7-feet setback. JUSTIFICATION: A. To enlarge their present transient quarters to provide space for family housing and to provide a new kitchen dining room and multipurpose lounge. B. To allow a building configuration that would clear up the corner of Markham and Cross and provide proper vision for traffic. STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues Engineering requested that a driveway of a maximum of 20-feet to the entrance be required. B. Staff Analvsis The issue at hand is for construction of a new addition with a side yard of 10 -feet and rear yard of 9.7-feet. The proposed used is for transient lodging and office. At present the property is zoned "C-4" Open Display which makes the property nonconforming, therefore, the applicant has filed for a rezoning of "C-3" General Commercial classification. If the "C-3" rezoning is granted, this would bring the property in compliance with the ordinance and the intended use. The applicant will be increasing the front yard setback from 0-feet to 25-feet. The completed addition will provide a total area of 18,474 square feet of which 4850 square feet will be devoted to administration usage and the remaining 13,624 square feet to transient lodging. August 19, 1985 Item No. 7 - Continued The applicant has requested that the Board of Adjustment establish the required parking needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval reluctantly because we feel that the applicant has not provided a justifiable hardship. There is also a concern in regards to the portable building in the rear of the property. If the variance is granted, will this building remain, and if so, the building will need to be placed on a foundation. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The architect for this project, Mr. Raymond Branton, was present and offered comments as to the hardship present requiring this variance. He also responded to questions of the accessory building and the parking and alley issue. He instructed the Board that the accessory building is temporary in nature being utilized to store food items recently purchased. He discussed the need to identify the parking ratio for this use and establishing a requirement by number of parking spaces. The staff offered support of the parking as presented indicating that a net gain of six parking stalls would occur with this construction. It was further noted by staff that the use being transient in nature should not require any spaces beyond that needed for the administrative function which now consists of seven stalls. A general discussion of the proposal was then held followed by a motion to approve the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 abstention (B.L. Murphree). August 19, 1985 Item No. 8 - Other Matters /Interpretation Request: A determination of the appropriateness of a home occupation within a structure in the high density residential zone which makes no specific provision for such uses. This request is an appeal of staff determination. Owner: Douglas Wallace & Kathleen K. Wallace Issue: The owner proposed the location of a consulting firm office within their residence at 924 Commerce Street, Unit No. 21. This use is a professional office in character. The use does not have walk-in clients, nor does it propose exterior signage. The use would occupy minimal floor space and does not require employees beyond the residence. STAFF ANALYSIS: This building was converted from multifamily use in August of 1979 to a mixed use of offices on the first floor and apartments on the second floor. This conversion was accomplished by means of a Conditional Use Permit authorized by the Board of Adjustment. The permit prohibits office use as a principal occupancy on the second floor of this building. A review of the Code of Ordinances reveals that the central Little Rock Zoning Ordinance as adopted, does not contain specific home occupation references; however, the ordinance is codified within Chapter 43 of the Code of Ordinances with the primary zoning ordinance text. That ordinance contains regulation for home occupation. The question before the Board is: Do we apply the home occupation definition from the primary ordinance to lands within the central Little Rock ordinance? Although the staff will not offer a specific recommendation, we feel that there is some basis for home occupations in the "H-R" zones if the owners /operators remain within the ordinance guidelines. The Zoning Ordinance provides home occupation guidelines as follows: 1. Incidental and secondary to the principal use of residential. 2. Does not change the character of the use. August 19, 1985 Item No. 8 - Continued 3. No display. 4. No stock and trade on premises. 5. No storage. 6. No on-site sale of merchandise. 7. No more than two persons engaged in the operation. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Mr. Wallace, was present and offered remarks in which he identified the use proposed within his primary residence. During the course of his remarks, he further identified that he would use less than 25 percent of his total floor area in Unit No. 21 at this address. He further stated that the ground floor of this building although authorized for office usage a number of years ago was never converted and now is occupied by residential. A general discussion followed whereby staff offered specific comment in support of the proposal at hand identifying the code relationships between the CLR ordinance and the primary zoning ordinance for the balance of the City. A motion was then made as follows: 1. That the Board recognize this use as a home occupation in the "HR" District within the CLR ordinance. 2. That the ordinance is tied in the code to the existing ordinance providing definition coverage for the CLR district. 3. That the use maintain occupancy under the guidelines of the criteria set out in the staff analysis which is extracted from the zoning Ordinance. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. WALLACE ASSOCIATES Post Office Box 1836 / Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 -1836 / 501-372-6512 July 27, 1985 Board Of Adjustment City Of Little Rock Room 311, City Hall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 To Board Of Adjustment: WALLACE ASSOCIATES requests that the Board of Adjustment of the City of Little Rock issue an interpretation of the zoning ordinances of the City of Little Rock to allow a "home occupa- tion use" of the residence of the owners of WALLACE ASSOCIATES, located at 924 Commerce, #21 (Park Place Condominiums), Little Rock. The owners of WALLACE ASSOCIATES are Douglas Wallace and Kathleen Kossman Wallace. WALLACE ASSOCIATES is a consulting firm specializing in govern- ment relations, political services, association management, and convention /event administration. The owners of WALLACE ASSOCIATES plan to use a portion of their residence as the principal place of business of WALLACE ASSOCIATES. Based on the definition of "home occupation use" as defined by the City of Little Rock, WALLACE ASSOCIATES believes that the use of the residence of the owners of WALLACE ASSOCIATES meets the standards of the City of Little Rock. WALLACE ASSOCIATES transacts business by telephone, mail, and meetings away from the principal place of business at 924 Commerce, #21. The inadvertent omission of a provision for a "home occupation use" seems clear and it is within the power of the Board of Adjustment to remedy this situation and allow WALLACE ASSOCIATES to pursue its business endeavors. WALLACE ASSOCIATES is certain that the City of Little Rock did not intend to place excessively burdensome restrictions on entrepreneurs living in the MacArthur Park area. WALLACE ASSOCIATES believes that upon examination of the facts, the Board of Adjustment will issue an interpretation allowing a "home occupation use" of the residence of the principals of WALLACE ASSOCIATES as the principal place of business of WALLACE ASSOCIATES. Your expeditious handing of this request is appreciated. Sincerely yours, DOUGLAS WALLACE DW:sl WALLACE ASSOCIATES Post Office Box 1836 / Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 -1836 / 501-372-6512 July 18, 1985 Mr. Tony Bozynski Office of Comprehensive Planning City of Little Rock Room 311, City Hall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Bozynski: I am writing this letter, as per our conversation today, requesting action on the application of WALLACE ASSOCIATES for a city privilege license. As I told you, WALLACE ASSOCIATES is a consulting firm specializing in government relations, political services, asso- ciation management, and convention /meeting administration. I plan to operate my business from my residence at Park Place Condominiums, a high -rise building at 924 Commerce Street, #21, Little Rock, Arkansas. In seeking to pay the privilege license fee for WALLACE ASSOCIATES, I learned that Little Rock zoning regulations make no provision for the commonly used "home occupation permit" in the city's Historic District where my home is located. My only remedy, it appeared, was to apply for a "conditional use permit," which requires a site plan, a survey, and a public hearing. This is an excessively burden- some requirement which certainly works to dissuade entrepreneurs from engaging in business in the City of Little Rock. As we discussed, the "conditional use permit" exists for the purpose of, regulating the use of buildings in the Historic District -- not for the restriction of "home offices." It is the posi- tion of WALLACE ASSOCIATES that requiring a "conditional use permit" to operate a home business is excessively burdensome and should not be applied to WALLACE ASSOCIATES. I want to stress that WALLACE ASSOCIATES is a consulting firm that operates primarily through telephone and mail communica- tions. WALLACE ASSOCIATES does not have a "walk-in" clientele, nor does WALLACE ASSOCIATES have a sign on the exterior of the building advertising the business. Again, a requirement for a "conditional use permit" is excessive and should not be applied to WALLACE ASSOCIATES. I understand that you plan to seek an opinion from the City Attorney for the City of Little Rock on this matter. I cannot emphasize the urgency of gaining a resolution of this issue as quickly as possible. I wait to hear from you. Sincerely yours, KATHLEEN KOSSMAN WALLACE KKW:sl August 19, 1985 Item No. 9 - Other Matters /Interpretation Request: A determination as to the appropriateness of allowing an owner to replace a mobile home on a lot which was removed prior to annexation. The site at issue is vacant containing only a concrete pad and utility setup. This section is an appeal of a staff determination. Owner: Rita & Larry Hope Issue: A vacant lot on Community Lane in southwest Little Rock with a history of mobile home usage /single family occupancy used as a rental unit. The Zoning Ordinance permits a stick built single family dwelling on this lot, but does not permit a mobile home by right, inasmuch as the definition in the ordinance deals with transportable temporary buildings. The owner desires to do exactly that. STAFF ANALYSIS: The Planning and Codes Enforcement staff have dealt with a number of these issues in recent months. With most issues being resolved by the owners not persuing an appeal of our interpretation. That interpretation is that the Zoning Ordinance is an exclusive listing ordinance which states in every district the permitted uses. The "R-2" Single Family district lists one single family dwelling as permitted. No reference is made to mobile home inasmuch as that is a structural type not a land use. The two definitions of mobile home within the Zoning Ordinance are listed under the use definition section, that defines structural involvement of each. The definitions are not specific as a use. Therefore, the problem presented is: Do we call a mobile home a land use? Was that the ordinance intent? Or was the definition insertion in use definitions because all residential types of definitions are listed together? The staff's feeling on this matter is that to allow replacement of the mobile home could cause irreparable harm to other like circumstances of which there are many in this area of the county. August 19, 1985 Item No. 9 - Other Matters /Interpretation Request: A determination as to the appropriateness of allowing an owner to replace a mobile home on a lot which was removed prior to annexation. The site at issue is vacant containing only a concrete pad and utility setup. This action is an appeal of a staff determination. Owner: Rita & Larry Hope Issue: A vacant lot on Community Lane in southwest Little Rock with a history of mobile home usage /single family occupancy used as a rental unit. The Zoning Ordinance permits a stick built single family dwelling on this lot, but does not permit a mobile home by right, inasmuch as the definition in the ordinance deals with transportable temporary buildings. The owner desires to do exactly that. STAFF ANALYSIS: The Planning and Codes Enforcement staff have dealt with a number of these issues in recent months. With most issues being resolved by the owners not persuing an appeal of our interpretation. That interpretation is that the Zoning Ordinance is an exclusive listing ordinance which states in every district the permitted uses. The "R-2" Single Family district lists one single family dwelling as permitted. No reference is made to mobile home inasmuch as that is a structural type not a land use. The two definitions of mobile home within the Zoning Ordinance are listed under the use definition section, that defines structural involvement of each. The definitions are not specific as a use. Therefore, the problem presented is: Do we call a mobile home a land use? Was that the ordinance intent? Or was the definition insertion in use definitions because all residential types of definitions are listed together? The staff's feeling on this matter is that to allow replacement of the mobile home could cause irreparable harm to other like circumstances of which there are many in this area of the county. August 19, 1985 Item No. 9 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present and offered a general statement as to the proposal which is to replace a mobile home on this site which has been recently annexed. The City Attorney's staff member in attendance, Pat Benton, offered an opinion from the City Attorney's Office that the owner had lost its nonconforming status relative to the mobile home on the date of annexation. A general discussion then followed with the central discussion being on other means of resolving the applicant's problem. The primary resolution being offered was the "R -7" Mobile Home zoning District. A motion was then offered to read as follows: That the Board endorse the staff and the City Attorney's opinion and recommendation which is that a mobile home cannot be replaced on this site and that in general mobile homes are not permitted uses on "R-2" Single Family lots. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. NOTE: The applicant was instructed that it would be appropriate for her to become involved in the present land use and zoning study of her neighborhood for purposes of determining whether her lot could be included for rezoning. August 19, 1985 Item No. 10 - Other Matters /Interpretation Request: An interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance for purposes of determining the placement of an Arkansas Gazette distribution facility in an O-3 General Office zone. Owner: Arkansas Gazette by Janet Pulliam Issue: The Gazette has established one of its six newspaper distribution facilities on West Markham Street in an office district. The issue came to the attention of City Hall as the result of a neighbor complaint. The use consists of an office space for field managers and other staff persons, storage space for a substantial volume of newspapers, a bundle count is unknown at this time, and a work area for various carriers. The papers are delivered by a large truck approximately 12 -feet in van length in the early hours of each day. This bulk delivery is made in sufficient time for the many delivery persons to pick up their bundles at the proper time (see attached letter for outline of operation). STAFF ANALYSIS: This issue has been debated by the involved parties since earlier this year without gaining resolution. The subject issue is complicated by many factors, including warehousing, wholesaling, merchandising, transport, distribution and sales, most of which are specifically excluded from the office definition in the ordinance. The definition of office use No. 94 on page 26 of the zoning text is as follows: "No. 94. Office, General: A place for the regular transaction of business, but not to include the occupation retail sales, transfer of manufactured goods, or storage of commodities." We feel that this definition specifically prohibits the use at hand. The remaining use is an "O-3" by right or as a conditional use, does not associate with this use. We would also like to point out that the Zoning Ordinance is an exclusive listing ordinance which permits only that use which is listed in the text. As pointed out in the applicant's letter, the decision in this case will have a far reaching effect due to the several Gazette operations and those of its competitors. The staff will not offer a specific recommendation, but will be prepared to respond as needed. August 19, 1985 Item No. 10 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Prior to the reading of this item, the Board was notified that the applicant had submitted through its attorney, Janet Pulliam, that the request was being withdrawn from consideration. The owner has decided to move all but the office function from this site. A motion was made to accept the request for withdrawal. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. LAW OFF'ICE'S JANET L. PULLIAM SUITE 350, GAZETTE BUILDING 112 WEST THIRD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 JANET L. PULLIAM DENISE REID HOGGARD August 8, 1985 (OF COUNSEL) RONALD J. MASON Mr. Richard Wood Director of Comprehensive Planning City of Little Rock Little Rock, Arkansas RE: Gazette Property - Markham Street Dear Mr. Wood: TELEPHONE (501) 371 -3888 So that you have a better understanding of the ways we utilize our field branch offices, let me review the objectives these offices serve, what they replaced and the specific activities generally conducted at these offices. While the technology for printing newspapers has changed, newspaper delivery has not changed in the last fifty years. We still provide the same valuable service to the community as we did by disseminating vital news and information each and every day. The method we use to ensure that subscribers receive their newspapers on time each day is unchanged. Newspapers that are printed and packaged are loaded into delivery vehicles and trans- ferred to several strategically located drop points. Carriers receive their newspapers at these points and deliver them to nearby customers. The key element in this process is time. The delivery "window" is very narrow; therefore, we attempt to opti- mize the entire delivery process. In order to do this we must make certain that carriers receive their papers close to the area they deliver without individually dropping each bundle of newspa- pers to each carrier. In Pulaski County we have 451 routes with approximately 48,000 newspapers delivered daily and 58,000 delivered on Sunday. The average route takes 2 to 3 hours to deliver daily and 3 to 4 hours to deliver on Sunday. If deliveries are late, more than one half hours, we can expect 200 to 300 complaints within a time span of 2 hours. So it is critically important that we get papers delivered on time. Another element in the delivery system is the size of the individual newspaper including the advertising supplements. As the paper increases its pages through editorial /news and advertsing, the newspaper takes longer to pre- pare for delivery. This includes the packaging process at the plant all the way to the carrier who must insert, fold and secure each newspaper before delivery can begin. LAW OFFICES JANET L. PULLIAM Mr. Richard Wood August 8, 1985 Page 2 In order to meet the delivery deadlines each day, we constantly examine ways to streamline our operation. This includes ana- slyzing everything from the type of vehicles we use to the number of stops each of our trucks makes. In the last five years we have been consolidating our carrier pickup points to expedite the distribution process. The consolidation of these points allowed us to establish field branch offices as a means to increase the contact with carriers and provide office space for field managers to perform their daily activities. The branch offices achieved a great deal of success because we were able to accomplish the following: 1. Provide office space for field managers to perform their duties and responsibilities. 2. Reduce the number of residential and other drop off points by 195. 3. Reduce our contract hauler fleet by 15 vehicles. 4. Decrease the number of customer complaints by 25 %. 5. Increase the contact field managers have with carriers. 6. Provide.on -time and consistant delivery of newspapers to carriers. It is important to note here that the primary reason for establishing branch offices was to provide office space for field managers (1), decrease customer complaints (4), increase contact with field managers (5), The dropping off of papers is ancillary to the primary function of the office. Further, the reduction of the number of drop off points and trucks has clearly decreased the amount of nighttime activity necessary for newspaper distri- bution. Currently, we have six branch offices and 77 additional drop points. While activities may vary between branches, the basic accomplishments and method of operation are the same. The following is an account of the daily activities at our branch offices. LAW OFFICES JANET L. PULLIAM Mr. Richard Wood August 8, 1985 Page 3 Time Activity 3:00 a.m. - Branch office opens 3:30 - 3:45 a.m. - Newspapers and delivery instructions arrive - Carriers arrive to pick up newspapers 3:45 - 5:00 a.m. - Branch is clear of carriers - Field personnel are checking previous day's service errors, reviewing carriers performance, activities, etc. 6:00 - 9:00 a.m. - Field personnel receive service errors from subscribers. - Redeliver service errors - Chart branch activity 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. - Branch manager reviews daily activity, interviews prospective carriers, deve- lops recruiting plans, reviews accounts receivable records, collects money from carriers for newspapers, inventories requests from carriers, prepares time cards and employment records for branch personnel, monitors open routes for coverage and ensures that serious ser- vice complaints have been corrected. 10:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. - Advertising service utilizes the branch office to write insertion orders from ads received from ad salespeople. Also, they will phone advertisers and the main office to correct ads and return proof copies of ads to adver- tisers. LAW OFFICES JANET L. PULLIAM Mr. Richard Wood August 8, 1985 Page 4 The branch offices provide a great deal of benefit for our operation - -field administration, customer service, as well as, distribution. If we lose the distribution portion of these offices or are relegated to areas not conducive to efficient newspaper distribution, two things will happen. First, the branch offices will remain the field extension of our main office for both the circulation and the advertising departments; second, distribution points will likely increase particularly to residen- tial areas since the proximity of drop point to delivery area is critical. The obligation of serving subscribers is serious. We are using reasonable methods to provide that service. Although this inci- dent is isolated, the decision will have major impact not only upon the Arkansas Gazette, but upon the entire publishing industry. Please contact me should you have further questions or inquiry directly to John Schueler, Director of Circulation. Sincerely, Janet L. Pulliam JLP:eh August 19, 1985 Item No. 11 - Other Matters /Interpretation Request: An interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance provisions dealing with home occupations for purposes of determining whether the operation of the offices of a nonprofit foundation are permitted in a "R-2" zone. This action is an appeal of a staff determination. Owner: Michael A. McLeod Issue: The owner of the residence at 210 Linwood, being a resident and self - employed accountant with an office at this address, desires to continue an office function with volunteer staff. The office use is detailed in the attached letter as to hours of occupancy and personnel. The enforcement staff has visited the site and had several contacts of personal and by letter with the owner. As a result of these visits and conversation with the planning staff, it was determined that the use was not appropriate. This action is an appeal of that determination. STAFF ANALYSIS: This issue is a recent addition to the site. The enforcement staff served the first violation notice to Mr. McLeod on June 11, 1985. A visit to the site by the staff of the Enforcement Office confirms that the use has begun operation with the intention of a limited stay until additional funding sources can be developed. A review of the home occupation provisions of the Zoning Ordinance reveals that this use bears little or no resemblance to the permitted activities. The Zoning Ordinance provides for uses customarily found in a residence and subordinate to the primary use as a residence. Although the staff will not offer a specific recommendation in this matter, we will be prepared to respond as needed, (see attached supporting materials). August 19, 1985 Item No. 11 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Jack East was present representing the owner, Mr. McLeod. Mr. East identified for the Board that he is Director of the association /foundation. He offered an outline of the use and activities as well as the term of operation that he proposed. He indicated that 60 to 90 days is the most that the foundation would need in order to correct its current funding problems and relocate. Mr. Hal Kemp, an attorney and resident of the neighborhood, addressed the Board offering concerns for the effect on the neighborhood of this action if it were approved. Mr. Kemp further offered comments from the ordinance concerning interpretation of home occupation and application to the site. The staff added further comments to its analysis which generally stated that it, believed the issue at hand included a use that was not provided for within the office allowable uses as home occupation. Certain types of office uses of professional persons are permitted such as the accountant's office which currently occupies this residence. Mr. Victor Ray, a neighbor and objector, offered his comments. A lengthy discussion was held with further commentary by all parties including Mr. Ken Scott of the Public Works Enforcement staff. Mr. Scott offered history and enforcement follow -up on this matter if the intepretation goes against the applicant. A motion was then offered which stated the Board of Adjustment rules that this use is not a home occupation as provided for the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. NOTE: The Board asked that such flexibility as possible be afforded the applicant to allow as much as 30 days additional time for the foundation to relocate this function. Mr. Richard Wood City of Little Rock Board of Adjustments City Hall Little Rock,Ar. 72203 Dear Sirs; This is a letter from MicheeL A Mcleod Owner of 210 Linwood,Little Rock,Ar.72205.I have bean notified that there is a complaint in your office as to my residence and it's currant use. Although I do not feel all this is absolutely needed I shell request that you pardon me for any miaeunderatend- inge that may have transpired. I em a self- employeed accountant I have (2) clients for whom I prepare financial statements and various other individuals that I prepare or assist in financial matters. I have no employese whatsoever an do not plan to in the future. I have one personal phone Line and one business phone line coming into my home aLL my clients are serviced at their Locations so unless they come by for a social visit they don't come by. As to the American Amputee Foundation; I am on the board of this fine organization that is trying to assist amputees throughout Arkansas. Its activities from my residents consist of the following; (one) there are three persons whom are volunteers and are compensated for expenses and some small ranumeration for their efforts; (two) there are three phones in uas,however, there are (5) phone lines that are in service. It is and has been my under- standing that the other two lines were instaLLed because Harper Systems gave the foundation free of charge the installation and the phone equipment in order to help the foundation. Since the organization was provided such it did not turn it down. The system itself allows for B phone Lines and due to the Large # of incoming calls the organization decided to have 5 lines for its use. The 6th line is used by myself as mentioned above in the preceding paragraph; (three) As to the flaw of traffic both pedestrian and vehicle. The pedestrian traffic consists of the 3 individuals above and the following: A wheelchair confined individual whom is a friend of the Director Jack M East and he comas by 2 to 3 times a week to visit and some weeks he never comae by Like this week since he is in the new VA hospitaL receiving treatment. A plant Lady comas by once a week to water plents that we are using free of charge. We have family and friends over on occasion to visit and Lest but not Least there may be on the average once a month 1 to 2 individuals dropping by in order to discuss affairs of the foundation. It would seem that a family of 4 Husband and Wife and 2 teenagers would have as much traffic and possibly as many phones and traffic. I ask that you allow us to continue as we are until we recieve funding thereby allowing AAF to relocate when funds ere available end continue operations. The organization cannot afford another move, and is having a very difficult time financially . However, there are some vary positive activities developing which should turn things around in the near future. Phase note that almost ell of our neighbors have signed a petition concerning this and support what we are requesting. Sincerly Yours August 19, 1985 There being no further business before the Board, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m. Date Secretary Chairman