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