Loading...
boa_01 20 1987LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD JANUARY 20, 1987 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being six in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Thomas McGowan (Acting Chairman) George Wells John McDaniel Ronald Woods Jim Mitchell Ronald Pierce Members Absent: Richard Yada Joe Norcross Herbert Rideout City Attorney: Pat Benton January 20, 1987 Item No. A - Z-4776 Owner: M & R Partnership Address: 8424 Kanis Road Description: Lot 3, Michael's Subdivision Zoned: "O-3" Variances Requested: From the radio tower provisions of Section 38.3 to permit a tower with a height of 120 feet. Justification: 1. The tower is an essential element within the mobile home and paging service communications system. This tower is designed to accommodate the microwave link between Little Rock and other cities around the state. 2. The capability of achieving a clear path for radio signal transmission and receipt is directly related to the tower height. The building on Kanis Road was selected as a tower site because it created better signal penetration for the downtown area where tall buildings could otherwise present problems. It has also helped facilitate our other stations in Hot Springs and Ft. Smith. 3. The tower height is also determined by the need to establish a direct line of sight for the microwave signals from Hot Springs. The present location at the Cammack Village Police Department is blocked by Cantrell Road. Because Little Rock is our headquarters, it is essential that the Hot Springs station and the Ft. Smith station be linked here by way of this microwave signal. January 20, 1987 Item No. A - Continued Present Use of Property: Office Proposed Use of Property: Office STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analvsis The proposal before the Board is to construct a 120 radio tower at the northwest corner of Kanis Road and Michael Street. The City Code of Ordinances permits ground mounted towers to have a height of 75 feet and anything greater requires a variance. The tower will be a self- supporting communications tower and will be located between two buildings on the site. The proposed structure is very similar to a tower that the Board of Adjustment approved for the MEMS headquarters at West Eighth and Ringo Streets. This site on Kanis is a high point with the elevation dropping off both to the north and south so it will have visibility. Because of the tower's placement on the lot and a number of trees situated at the rear of the property, the tower's visual impact will be somewhat minimized and is the least objectionable spot on the site. To help maintain this low visibility and buffer the main structural involvement staff recommends that as many of the trees be retained as possible. One final item that staff would like to clarify is the type and size of antenna that will be located at the top of the tower. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the tower variance subject to no advertising being placed on the structure and no lighting except that needed to meet FAA requirements. January 20, 1987 Item No. A - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-16-86) The applicant, James Kaelin, was present. There were two objectors in attendance and they spoke first. Allen Gibson said he opposed the tower because it would devalue his property. Gene Eberle, representing a property owner to the east, objected to anything over 75 feet and was concerned with property values. Vicky Tyler indicated that she did not totally object to the request, but wanted to know more about the effects on T.V. reception and property values. Mr. Kaelin then spoke and said that the additional height was needed because of the trees. He went on to say that the tower could be removed without any problems and that there would be no T.V. reception problems because of FCC requirements. Mr. Kaelin also said that the variance was needed to obtain the necessary microwave links and that the proposed tower location would reduce its visibility because of the structures and trees. He then pointed out if the request was not granted and only a 75 -foot tower was permitted, then he would have to remove the trees. Mr. Gibson then addressed the Board again. He said that there were other alternatives and the tower would be visually objectionable. Mr. Kaelin made some additional comments and said the tower would be self-supporting with a 6 1/2-foot base and have a dimension of 18 inches at the top. A motion was made to deny the variance as requested. The motion failed because it did not receive a second. A second motion was then made to defer the request to the January 20, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-20-87) The applicant, James Kaelin, was present. There was one objector in attendance. Mr. Kaelin spoke briefly and answered several questions. Allen Gibson, a property owner to the south, objected to the 120' tower height and said it would devalue his property approximately $100,000. He indicated that this figure was based on information provided to him by a MAI appraiser. Mr. Gibson said it would be more difficult to get a loan and described problems from an existing tower close to his residence. He requested that the 50' variance be denied because of a number of reasons. Mr. Kaelin then addressed the Board. He said that a 75' tower was in place and submitted information from two appraisal companies which suggested that their be no impacts on the surrounding properties from the 120' tower. He reviewed the dimensions of the tower and submitted several photos of the immediate area. Mr. Kaelin then made additional comments about the system and said that a 75' January 20, 1987 Item No. A - Continued tower would not solve all the problems connecting the various points throughout the state. He also said that he has tried to locate other sites but there were none available. A motion was then made to grant the variance subject to no advertising on the tower structure and no lighting except that needed to meet FAA requirements. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no, and 3 absent. January 20, 1987 Item No. B - Z-4781 Owner: Baseline Missionary Baptist Church Address: 3705 Harper Road Description: Long Legal Zoned: "R -2" Variances Requested: From the off - street parking provisions of Section 8- 101 /h.2 to permit church parking on property zoned "R-2." Justification: To provide needed parking spaces. Present Use of Property: Residential Lot Proposed Use of Property: Parking Lot STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues The new parking area will have to meet parking requirements in regard to asphalt surfacing and the traffic engineer's approval of the parking layout. Also, boundary street improvements will be required for Harper Road in the future. B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit a church to utilize a residential lot, zoned "R-2," for parking. The Zoning Ordinance states that "any detached parking facilities or satellite parking shall be located on a lot which is zoned to allow the principle use to which this parking will serve or they must be approved by the Board of Adjustment." The church is located to the west with some off-street parking, but as is the case with most churches, additional parking is needed. The church has purchased a lot and is proposing to provide 40 spaces. (The existing structures on the lot will be removed.) The proposal will improve the existing situation by removing on street parking and not have any impact on the properties to the east. This action, if approved, does not grant any waivers from the parking lot design standards or from the Landscaping Ordinance, but only allows the lot to be used for parking. January 20, 1987 Item No. B - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the request be approved subject to the traffic engineer's approval of the parking layout. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-16-86) Staff reported that the issue needed to be deferred because notification of property owners had not been accomplished. A motion was made to defer the request to the January 20, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-20-87) The applicant, Terry Robertson, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Robertson spoke briefly and said that the existing structures had been removed. A motion was made to grant the variance subject to the Traffic Engineer's approval of the parking layout. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent. January 20, 1987 Item No. 1 - Z-3888-B Owner: Martin Doorman Address: 9901 West Markham Description: Part of Tract 8, West Markham Subd. Zoned: "C-3" Variances Requested: From the setback provisions of Section 7-103.3/E to permit an addition with reduced yard areas. Justification: Only location available for necessary expansion to provide space for training pool. Present Use of Property: Vacant service station Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Parking and access is a major problem on the site. Street improvements will be required to assure that parking is done adequately. Plans must be approved by the Traffic Engineer before any permits are issued. B. Staff Analysis The request is to allow encroachments into the rear and side yards for a large addition. The proposal is to reduce the rear setback to four feet and the side area to 15 feet. Because of being located on a corner and zoned "C-3," the required setbacks are 25 feet for both the West Markham Street and Oak Lane sides. If the variance is granted, the building will be converted into a scuba diving school with all the necessary facilities including a training pool and classroom. The new construction will house the pool area and that is dictating the size of the addition. Along with the school, there will also be retail sales of scuba equipment on -site. A four -foot setback has been established by a variance for the existing addition at the southeast corner of the structure. The property January 20, 1987 Item No. 1 - Continued to the south is zoned "C-3" so maintaining the existing setback will not create any problems. Reducing the exterior side yard to 15 feet is reasonable, because it will not impact any other properties in the immediate vicinity or affect site lines because of being on a corner. Staff does have one concern and that is the property's ability to provide the necessary parking. The survey identifies the north 25 feet as additional right -of -way for West Markham. There is some question about the status of this right-of-way and its need, but if it is dedicated for public use, then the lot's land area available for parking and landscaping is deficient. Providing parking on a 75' x 91' lot with the proposed addition will be very difficult. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the setback variance subject to resolving the status of the 25-foot right -of -way and meeting minimum ordinance requirements for parking and landscaping. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Harry Gunther, was represented by Steve Bonds. There were no objectors present. Mr. Bonds discussed the proposal and the right-of-way issue which will probably involve dedication of an additional 10' for West Markham. He said that Mr. Gunther will dedicate the right -of -way and do the necessary street improvements for West Markham and Oak Lane. Mr. Bonds then reviewed the proposed use, a Scuba Diving School, which will primarily be a retail operation during the day with the classes being held at night. Kenny Scott of the City staff discussed the proposed parking and said that it was adequate. Henk Koornstra, the City's Traffic Engineer, made some comments about the parking and layout. Staff then reminded the Board that the notices had been mailed less than the required ten days. After some discussion, it was determined that adequate notification had been provided. A motion was made to approve the variance subject to the owner satisfying all the City Engineer's requirements and meeting minimum ordinance standards for parking and landscaping. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent. January 20, 1987 Item No. 2 - Z-4261-A Owner: Lynn and Sherry Harris Address: #2 Pleasant Forest Cove Description: Lot 6, Pleasant Forest Park Addition Zoned: "R-2" Variances Requested: From the setback provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit a side yard encroachment. Justification: 1. If this variance is not allowed, it will cost the new parties in interest of approximately $15,000 to remove the garage wall and all the utilities that enter the structure at that point. 2. A setback variance of 40 inches on the subject property is within the spirit and intent of the provisions of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance. 3. Strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance in this instance would cause undue hardship due to the circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 4. The denial of the variance severely impacts the property owned by the Harrises. 5. Strict enforce of the Zoning Ordinance in this instance would cause undue financial hardship to the Harrises. 6. The variance would not interfere with the Harrises and those similarly situated with the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their individual properties. January 20, 1987 Item No. 2 - Continued 7. Denial of the variance will result in damage to the Harrises in diminution and property values and limitation of the available market for resale of their home. 8. The variance would not result in a blighting influence or a total incompatibility of the character of the neighborhood or the residential use of the Harrises property. Present Use of Property: Single family Proposed Use of Property: Single family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis In July 1984, a setback variance for this property was denied by the Board of Adjustment and that action was appealed to circuit court. It is staff's understanding that the court did not make a decision but instructed the parties involved that another variance application should be filed because ownership of the lot had changed. A rehearing was requested and granted by the Board of Adjustment in February 1986. This filing is the follow -up action to the rehearing request. The issue before the Board is to approve a side yard variance for an existing garage. When the first request was filed, the structure was approximately 90 percent completed and that was the applicant's primary justification for the variance. The original plans for the residence indicated an eight-foot side yard for the garage, but at some point, the outer wall was constructed approximately 40 inches closer and reducing the side yard to 4' 8". Because of this situation, the house could not receive the final inspection without first obtaining the necessary variance. Staff did not support the initial request because of poor separation between structures and possible drainage problems. Staff's position was that the garage was enlarged just January 20, 1987 Item No. 2 - Continued to gain some additional space and a true hardship did not exist creating the need for the variance. It appears that nothing has really changed other than the title of the property being transferred From Caroll and Frances Garner to Lynn and Sherry Harris. (Attached are the minute records for the June 18, 1984, July 16, 1984, and February 26, 1986, meetings.) C. Staff Recommendation Staff's position remains the same and supports the previous action. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Lynn Harris, was present and represented by Walter Murray, an attorney. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Murray spoke and presented some history on the variance issue which was first initiated in 1984. He went on to say that the lot changed hands in 1984 and corrected a statement in the staff analysis which made reference to the court action and instructing the new parties to file another variance application. Mr. Murray said that both the City Attorney's Office and the Harrises agreed to coming back before the Board with another variance request and dismissing the court case. He then informed the Board that $7,000 was spent to correct possible water problems which were identified as a concern during the review of the first variance request. He also said that having to move the garage wall would create a great hardship for the Harrises because all the utilities enter the residence at that one location. Mr. Murray then submitted some photos and competitive analysis. Some additional comments were made including discussion of the court case and the City Attorney's Office involvement by Mr. Murray. A motion was then made to grant the variance as filed. The vote: 2 ayes, 4 noes, and 3 absent. The variance request was denied July .16, 1984 Item No. B - Z-4261 Owner: Carroll and Frances Garner Address: Pleasant Forest Cove Description: Lot 6, Pleasant Forest Park Addition Zoned: "R -2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-101.2.D.2 to permit a 40 -inch encroachment. JUSTIFICATION: The house is completed and has had all the required inspections except for the final. Present Use of the Property: Single Family Proposed Use of the Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Engineering reports they have no adverse comments. B. Staff Analysis The issue at hand is the construction of a garage which encroaches into the side yard setback. The garage and residence are 90 percent completed, and that is the applicant's justification for the variance. It is the staff's understanding that the building plans that were approved by the City showed the garage to be a little over 8 feet from the property line which is in conformance with the setback requirements for the "R-2" District. The Zoning Ordinance requires an 8-foot side yard maximum in the "R-2" District. During the construction of this house, the outer wall of the garage was constructed approximately 40 inches closer to the north property line and creating an encroachment into the side yard. This reduced the setback to approximately 58 inches. Because of this encroachment, there is poor separation between this new structure and July 16, 1984 Item No. B - Continued the residence immediately to the north and produces an undesirable situation. The property in question is higher than the adjacent lot and that makes the intrusion into the setback more visible. Also because of this lot being higher, the residents at #4 Pleasant Forest Cove have experienced some flooding since the construction of the house at #2 Pleasant Forest Cove. They have indicated that there were no problems with flooding prior to construction. Based on this runoff problem and a visual inspection of the site, it appears that the location of the garage has impacted the neighborhood. It is unclear as to why the garage was constructed in a configuration other than what was approved by the Building Permits Office. Because there are no apparent hardships, it appears that the garage was enlarged just for that reason. The staff does not support the request because there is no true hardship and the variance has not been justified. (See accompanying letters for additional information.) C. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends denial of the variance request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (6-18-84) The applicant, Carroll Garner, was present. Mr. Garner's attorney, Walt Murray, was also present. There was one objector in attendance. Mr. Murray spoke and described the issue at hand. He indicated that the residence had received all the necessary inspections except for the final. He stated that it would cost approximately $15,000 to remove the garage wall and all of the utilities that enter the structure at that point. Mr. Murray felt that this did create a hardship for the owner. He then distributed photos of the structure to the Board of Adjustment members. Mr. Murray briefly discussed the flooding issue. Mr. Garner then spoke and stated that he had depended on somebody else and was not sure how the encroachment took place. He also stated that he had experienced some problems with vandalism. At this point, staff distributed a memo from Roy Beard, Building Official, to the Board of Adjustment members. This memo described the sequence of events and inspections that were made by the City. Mr. Murray spoke again and stated that the original plans were correct, but that those plans had been lost. After that, a duplicate set of plans was July 16, 1984 Item No. B - Continued used. Mr. Garner informed the Board of Adjustment members that he did not realize he had a problem until he was told to file for a variance. He stated that he was aware of the complaints from the neighboring property owners. He said that he would try to address the drainage /flooding problem but by being the highest point may present some difficulties. Kenny Scott of the City Zoning Enforcement Office addressed the Board of Adjustment. He stated that a building permit was issued on June 21, 1983, and the plan submitted had an 8' 2" setback and that additional construction took place after the original inspection. Bobby Gravett, #4 Pleasant Forest Cove, the property to the north, objected to the variance. He stated that since the construction of the structure in question, his property had experienced water problems including flooding of the kitchen. His biggest concern was encroachment and how it would effect his property values because of #2 Pleasant Forest Cove being the high point. Mr. Gravett said that the garage with the encroachment was creating an impact on his property and it should be moved back. Mr. Murray spoke again and suggested that Mr. Gravett's property also had a possible encroachment problem. He also indicated that an addition that the Gravetts had constructed may be the source of some of the flooding. Mr. Gravett responded to Mr. Murray's comment and said the runoff is not coming from their property. He again emphasized their concern with the effects on property values and the desirability of the neighborhood. Mr. Gravett had not received a professional estimate to determine the monetary impact on his property. Mr. Garner then suggested that he would retain an impartial realtor to inspect the situation and make a determination on the value question. A motion was made to approve the variance with the condition that the water problem be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The vote was: 4 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent. The motion failed for lack of five positive votes and the variance was denied. A second motion was made to defer the item, but it was withdrawn. There was discussion about possible remedies and that two parties should try to work together because there appears to be room to negotiate. A question was raised about the structure being occupied until the matter is resolved and acted on. The possibility of issuing a temporary certificate of occupancy was discussed. After some discussion, a motion was made recommending that a temporary certificate of occupancy be issued for the living portion exclusively and that the owners assume all further consequences. The motion failed for lack of a second. A motion to defer the item to the July 16 meeting passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 noe, 1 absent and 1 abstention (B.L. Murphree). Mr. Murray questioned the various motions and there was further discussion. The Board of Adjustment asked that the building inspector directly involved with the issue be present at the next meeting. July 16, 1984 Item No. B - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7- 16 -84) The applicant, Carroll Garner, was present. Mr. Garner's attorney, Walt Murray, was also present. There was one objector present. Mr. Garner discussed some possible solutions for screening the wall and addressing the drainage problem. He described the landscaping plan which would include trees and shrubs planted along the wall and the type of drainage structure to be utilized. Mr. Garner stated that he had obtained a cost estimate for doing the necessary improvements. Mr. Murray also discussed the drainage issue. Mr. Garner indicated to the Board that he was unable to meet with the Gravetts', the property owners to the north, as directed by the Board of Adjustment. He stated that he tried to contact the Gravetts on several occasions, but was unable to reach them. Both Mr. Garner and Mr. Murray described the market analysis that had been undertaken by Rainey Realty. The analysis suggested that the structure in question would increase the value for the neighborhood and that it would not impact the residence to the north. Kim Gravett, property owner to the north, spoke and stated that she was still opposed to the request. The wall was to close and she felt that nothing could be done to solve that problem. Again, Mr. Garner stated that he was unable to contact the Gravetts. Ms. Gravett indicated that they were usually home in the evenings. Roy Beard, Chief of Protective Inspections, then spoke. Mr. Beard described to the Board members when footing inspections are made and how they are made. The footings are open when inspected and the property lines are marked. The various yards are measured and Mr. Beard stated that mistakes of inches were not uncommon. The footing inspection for the structure in question was made on November 15, 1983, and adequate yard spaces were provided at that time. No further verification was made. At some later time, the encroachment was made and Mr. Garner was notified that the structure was in violation. Mr. Garner was informed of the situation after the sheetrock had been installed. He was notified in person and by phone conversations. Mr. Garner felt that there was a hardship involved with the request and that he was willing to resolve the situation. Mr. Murray stated that a temporary certificate of occupancy was issued for the dwelling portion of the structure. A temporary certificate of occupancy was discussed by the various parties. Ms. Gravett spoke again and stated that the Bill of Assurance also required setbacks. She was questioned by various Board of Adjustment members about possible compromises. Ms. Gravett indicated that the overall appearance was still the problem and there was no solution to that situation. There was additional discussion about the proposed landscaping and other improvements by the Board of Adjustment. A motion was made to recommend that the variance be denied. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Ronald Woods). The variance request was denied. February 28, 1986 Item No. 8 - Rehearing Request Owner: Lynn and Sherry Harris Address: #2 Pleasant Forest Drive Request: To grant a rehearing for a previous denied setback variance STAFF REPORT: The rehearing provisions in the Board of Adjustment bylaws (Article V) are as follows: Section 1. No rehearing of any decision by the Board of Zoning Adjustment shall be had on except on motion by a member of the Board to reconsider the vote made and acted on within 10 days after the decision and carried by not less than five concurring votes. Section 2. No motion for a rehearing shall be entertained except upon request for a rehearing and then not unless new evidence is submitted which could not reasonably have been presented at the- meeting-at which the hearing was originally had. Section 3. If a rehearing is granted, the case shall be put on the calendar for a rehearing and the notices issued in accordance with the notice provisions of these rules. Section 4. No additional application to the Board of Adjustment shall be allowed unless there shall have been a substantial change in the circumstances effecting such property since the prior decision on the same piece of property. The primary reason for requesting a rehearing is that the Harrises are now the owners of #2 Pleasant Forest Drive and that is a substantial change in circumstances according to Walter Murray, the Harris' attorney. A copy of Mr. Murray's letter is provided. The letter goes into great detail about the various issues involved with this particular piece of property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Walter Murray was present and representing the Harrises. Mr. Murray gave a history of the previous request and described the City Attorney's involvement in the matter. He went on to discuss the court action and the reasons for the refiling. Mr. Murray said that the Harrises were the new owners of the lot and that was a change in circumstances. February 28, 1986 Item No. 8 - Continued A motion was made to grant the rehearing request. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 3 open positions. January 20, 1987 Item No. 3 - Z-4635-A Owner: William L. Huffstutlar Address: 10600 I-30 Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-4" Variances Requested: From the development criteria provisions of Section 7-103.4/B.4 to permit outside display without a screening fence. Justification: The display shells are necessary to show various colors and shapes. They will be secured and maintained in an orderly fashion and will enhance the appearance of the property and of the sales office. This display is necessary to promote the business which in turn reflects in volume dollars necessary to maintain the operation. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Any proposed display or signs must be placed away from the property line in a manner so that no sight distance problem occurs and coordinate with the Traffic Engineer before any display area limits are set. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to allow an open display area in the front yard without the necessary screening. The Development Criteria Section for "C-4" states: No article or materials stored or offered for sale in connection with the permitted or conditional uses listed herein shall be stored or displayed outside the confines of a building unless it is so screened by a permanent, opaque screening fence or wall so that it cannot be seen from an adjoining lot. January 20, 1987 Item No. 3 - Continued The site is located on the I-30 frontage road, and requiring the screening in this particular situation will not serve any useful purpose. The property to the east has a building on it that is oriented north and south with the rear of the structure facing the site under consideration. To the west, the land is currently vacant, and it is the staff's opinion that any future use of the tract will not be impacted by the lack of screening to the east because of the nature of development found along I-30. Also, because of the way several portable buildings have been placed on a lot, some screening of the display location is occurring which does reduce the area's visibility somewhat. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to approve the variance as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent. January 20, 1987 Item No. 4 - Z-4773-A Owner: Gladys I. Hobert Address: East 11th and Townsend, SW Corner Description: Lots 1-4, Block 11 Fairgrounds Addition Zoned: "R-3" Variances Requested: From the off - street parking provisions of Section 8-101 /H.2 to permit a parking lot on property zoned "R-3." Justification: The subject property is across the street from the Arkansas Modification Center. Presently, many of the employees of the Arkansas Modification Center must park on the side of the narrow residential streets which could possibly interfere with emergency vehicles. The applicant, Mr. Dennis Davis, proposes to build a parking lot so the employees of the Arkansas Modification Center will have adequate off - street parking. This property is the only location available within a reasonable distance from the Arkansas Modification Center which could possibly provide off-street parking to the employees. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Parking lot STAFF REPORT: A. Engineerinq Issues An access and parking layout plan needs to be approved by the Traffic Engineer before any construction begins. B. Staff Anal vsis The issue before the Board is to grant a variance to allow off-street parking on four lots zoned "R-3." January 20, 1987 Item No. 4 - Continued The parking lot will be utilized by the Arkansas Modification Center which is located to the east and has a large number of employees. The Zoning Ordinance states that: Any detached parking facilities or satellite parking shall be located on a lot which is zoned to allow the principal use to which this parking will serve or they must be approved by the Board of Adjustment. The site is currently vacant, and it appears that it has been used for parking at various times because of the existing surface. The lots are located in a block that is primarily residential with single family units to the west and south. Across East 11th, the property is vacant, and the lot at the southeast corner of East 11th and Apperson is occupied by a nonconforming commercial structure. Based on the existing land use, the proposed parking lot is a reasonable use of the land. A certain design factors are taken into consideration to minimize any potential impacts on the adjacent single family residences. Those design elements should include internalizing any lighting, providing a six -foot privacy fence on the south and west sides and adequate landscaping. The proposed layout shows all the spaces to be 90° with some landscaping and a privacy fence. Staff suggests that the plan be modified to provide several rows of 60° spaces along the south end to allow for better traffic flow and a 14 to 15 -foot landscaped strip adjacent to the single family lot. Along with the privacy fence, the planted area should provide a very adequate buffer. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the off - street parking variance subject to a redesign of the parking layout to provide for better use of the site, meeting all landscaping requirements and the final plan being approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Dorcy Corbin, was present. There were no objectors. Ms. Corbin said that she had no problems with the conditions as recommended by the staff. A motion was made to grant the parking variance subject to a redesign of a parking layout, meeting all the landscaping requirements, January 20, 1987 Item No. 4 - Continued and having the final plan approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. A second motion was made to waive the filing fee. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent. January 20, 1987 Item No. 5 - Z-4787 Owner: Winrock Development Company Address: #6 High Point Cove Description: Lot 11, Block 11, Parkway Place Addition Zoned: "R-2" Variances Requested: From the setback provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.3 to permit a reduced rear yard area. Justification: The plan was drawn as one that is easily changed on the front elevation to give a different appearance. The lot was chosen because it is on a cul-de-sac, it is relatively level, it has some nice hardware trees, and by placing the home as it appears on the plot plan, it will show up well from High Point Cove. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Single family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues have been identified. B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit a reduced rear yard area, 20 feet instead of 25 feet for a new residence. Because of the lot confiquration and the style of the house, there are very few options available for placement of the structure on the side without some type of a variance. Also, the lot has a 25-foot building line which limits the siting of the residence. Even with the encroachment which is minimal, an adequate rear yard will remain because of the shape of the lot, and there will be no impact on other lots in the immediate neiqhborhood by granting the setback variance. Staff's position is that proper justification exists and supports the request. January 20, 1967 Item No. 5 - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to grant the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent. January 20, 1987 Item No. 6 - Other Matters Owner: Kenneth Okpala Address: 3907 West 13th Street (Zoned "C-3") Request: To review the development criteria section of the "C-3" district. STAPP REPORT: The owner is asking the Board of Adjustment to review the "C-3" development criteria and how it applies to temporary outdoor storage and display. The request was filed after the owner received a warning notice from the City instructing him to cease outdoor storage and display of merchandise at 3907 West 13th. In addition, the placement of the goods has been blocking the sidewalk because the building has no front yard area. According to the owner, the front yard has to be used for loading and unloading of the merchandise because the structure provides no other adequate location for this function. The items are either moved into the building or placed on a truck for delivery to other sites, and the turnover is fairly rapid with no full -time display taking place. The development criteria section for the "C-3" district reads as follows: All commercial uses shall be restricted to closed buildings, except parking lots, plant nurseries, promotional events and normal pump island services of service station operations. In addition, outdoor display of merchandise is allowed in an area equal to one-half of the facade area of the front of the building. Certain seasonal or special event sales may be allowed when the owner has requested a permit for such activity in conjunction with a privilege license application. The permitting authority shall review the owner's plan or placement of merchandise in order to assure that obstruction of drives, walks, required parking and fire lanes does not occur. In no case shall full-time static open display be permitted. January 20, 1987 Item No. 6 - Other Matters BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-16-86) Kenneth Okpala was present and addressed the Board. He said that the merchandise had not been blocking the sidewalk and that the items were left in front of the building because he operates a service business. Jim Hathcock of the City's Enforcement office then spoke. He said that Mr. Okpala was using the public right-of-way for storage which was not permitted by City ordinance. There was a long discussion, and Mr. Okpala said that he thought his survey indicated that there was some private property between the structure and the right-of-way line. After some additional comments, a motion was made to defer the matter to January 20, 1987, to allow Mr. Okpala to review his survey with the City. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-20-87) Staff recommended that the item be deferred. A motion was made to defer the matter to the February 17, 1987, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent. January 20, 1987 Item No. 7 - Other Matters Name: Arkansas Easter Seals Society by: Marian McMullan Address: 2901, 2903 Lee Avenue Request: Appeal of an Enforcement staff decision and to determine the nonconforming status of an office use zoned "R-4." STAFF REPORT: This matter is before the Board of Adjustment because of an enforcement action by the City. The Easter Seal Society is utilizing a structure, zoned "R-4" Duplex, for offices. The City's Zoning Office received a complaint regarding that use because an office is not permitted in the "R-4" District. The Easter Seals Society purchased the property in 1966, and the records indicate that since 1967, a portion of the duplex has been used as an office. Based on history provided by the Easter Seals, the building has been functioning as an office full -time since 1977. It is their opinion that being in use for over 20 years constitutes a nonconforming use for the site or creates a hardship because of having a vested interest. The City's position is that the information provided by the Easter Seal Society is insufficient and does not establish a legal nonconforming use, and they were instructed to cease the office use or file for the appropriate rezoning action. After several months of discussion, the Easter Seals requested that the matter be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. (Attached are letters and other documentation that provides a detailed history of the issue.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The Easter Seal Society was represented by Jim Butler, the Executive Director and Marian McMullan, an attorney. Mr. Butler described the Easter Seals facility and said that it was established in 1958. He went on to say that the Easter Seal Society has owned the duplex in question for 20 years and it has been used as an office since then. Mr. Butler said that it would be a hardship to move back into the main facility and six staff members occupy the office. He then pointed out that some of the neighbors wanted the office use to remain and presented some photos of the neighborhood. Ms. McMullan spoke and said a complaint January 20, 1987 Item No. 7 - Continued was made because of the traffic problems from the entire complex not just the office. Mrs. I. Steinkamp, a resident of the area, said that there were too many problems with the Easter Seals and that the office contributes to the situation. She also said that the use should not be in the neighborhood and that the office issue needed to be resolved. Another neighbor addressed the Board and said that the entire complex needed to be moved because it was generating too many problems. He also said that the office was adding to the ongoing problems. Mr. Butler spoke again and said that the staff parks on the duplex lot and the property for the main facility is leased from the State. Some additional comments were made by the various parties and Mrs. Steinkamp said that the Easter Seals intends to continue to expand. A motion was then offered which stated that the existing office use was not a premissable nonconforming use. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 abstention (John McDaniel). HALE, WARD, YOUNG, GREEN & MORLEY A Partnership Including Professional Association. Attorneys at Law One Broadway River Center 628 West Broadway, Suite 300 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 MARIAN MAJOR McMULLAN (501) 376 -4000 December 18, 1986 Richard Wood Little Rock City Planning Markham & Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: 2901-2903 Lee Ave. Little Rock, AR Dear Richard: Please accept this letter as our application to be placed of record for a hearing by the Board of Adjustment of Little Rock on the above referenced property. Please notify our office as quickly as possible with regard to the date and time of said hearing. It is our understanding from a review of the Little Rock City Ordinances that the Board of Adjustment is autho- rized to hear appeals from the decision of administrative officers with respect to the enforcement of certain zoning ordinances. As you are aware, Dana Carney, the zoning enforcement officer, has instructed our client, Easter Seals and the owner of the above property, that the use of the duplex for Easter Seals office purposes violates present day zoning ordinance. We are asking for a reversal of Dana Car - ney's decision for the reasons as set forth in this letter. Easter Seals has owned the above property since Jan- uary, 1966. Although the original intent was to create motel -type rooms for use by outpatients or former members of patients the duplex (or at least one -half of it) has been used as offices since Easter Seals acquired it. Admittedly, the duplex referenced above is being used in a manner which is prohibited by the present zoning laws for that area, how- ever, we do not believe that a strict application of the zoning laws are in order. The Board of Adjustment has the power to grant a hardship variance as relief to any property owner who has a vested interest in the property where the property owner can show extreme hardship of the application of the present zoning laws. HALE, WARD, YOUNG, GREEN & MORLEY Richard Wood December 18, 1986 Page -2- We believe subject property provides a unique set of circumstances for the Board of Adjustment to render a deci- sion which would not be based on strictly enforcing present day zoning laws. We understand that in order for the Board to grant such a variance, we must be able to demonstrate at the hearing that the Board's action would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of zoning ordinances. Little Rock City Ordinances, Chapter 43, Section 1-102, sets out the purpose of zoning ordinances as follows: It is hereby declared to be the purpose and intent of the Board of Directors in enacting this chapter that the zoning regulations and districts as herein established have been made for the purpose of general welfare of the City of Little Rock. These regulations and districts have been designed to provide adequate light and air; to secure safety from fire; flood and other catestrophic dangers; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration or wasteful scattering of population; to lessen the congestion in streets; and to facilitate the adequate provision of water, sewer, schools, transportation, parks, open space and other public necessities. They have been made with the reasonable consideration for, among other things, the character of the dis- trict, its particular suitabilities of the partic- ular uses specified, and with a view to conserve the value of buildings and property and encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the city consistent with the comprehensive plan. The duplex is situated on a corner lot. Except for the abutting neighboring duplex, the nearest neighbor is that of the Easter Seals Society complex on Lee Ave. which is used both for office space and rehabilitation services for the handicapped. The mere fact that Easter Seals has been oper- ating the duplex for various uses, none of which include the use of the entire duplex as a residence, for approximately twenty years without a previous complaint illustrates that the use of the duplex for uses Ot.'mr than residential does not interfere with the neighbors use of their property. During the twenty years Easter Seals has owned the duplex, one half of it was used as a residence for one of the staff members, however, this unit was not rented and the HALE, WARD, YOUNG, GREEN & MORLEY Richard Wood December 18, 1986 Page -3- purposes were consistent with charitable Easter Seals purposes. Ch. 43 §5 -101 of Little Rock City Ordinance allows a building classified as non-conforming to change to other non - conforming uses provided it does not revert back to a more intensive non-conforming use. The continued use of the duplex as office space does not pose a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the neighbors because there is no hindrance or interference with the access of emergency vehicles. Only six people use the duplex for an office and these people do not park on the street. The duplex is only in use during the day since the office staff works normal office hours. The unique set of circumstances whereby the duplex-office is used to perform administrative work for a charitable non-profit organization means there is no "comings and goings" as might occur in a profitable office-use situation. We suggest the neighbors might prefer this use as compared to rental property which might pose a risk of public disturbance such as parties or night-time visitors. Nor does the continued use of the duplex for office use on behalf of Easter Seals interfere with comprehensive zoning plans or decrease property values because of its geographical location of being situated on a corner lot. The duplex is close in proximity to the Easter Seals complex and no exterior alterations have been made which would reflect to a passerby that the facility is used for office purposes. For example, no signs are displayed advertising the duplex as being a part of Easter Seals. We believe you will agree since there are no persons parking on the street, no business traffic, no exterior alterations, and no activities at night, the Board of Adjustment should allow Easter Seals to continue the present day use of the duplex. Common sense dictates the necessity for keeping the administrative office functions close in proximity to the services rendered by Easter Seals. Along the same vein, if Easter Seals is ordered to comply with present zoning ordinances, the hardship of transporting the handicapped back and forth from the duplex to the complex is obvious. The Board of Adjustment should consider the philanthropic values associated with the continued use of the duplex for office space needed for the necessary administrative work of The Easter Seals Society. Easter HALE, WARD, YOUNG, GREEN & MORLEY Richard Wood December 18, 1986 Page -4- Seals is a charitable association whose primary function is to help and teach the handicapped. As such, Easter Seals has limited funds to acquire new property to be used for office purposes. if a hardship variance is not granted, funds which would be used for the handicapped will be diverted to the acquisition of additional office space. Easter Seals would be forced to sell the duplex or suffer great expense in converting the property for use by the handicapped as a residence. Your consideration and cooperation in granting a hard- ship variance on behalf of Arkansas Easter Seals Society is hereby respectfully requested. Sincerely, HALE, WARD, YOUNG, GREEN & MORLEY Marian McMullan MM/ap City of Little Rock Engineering Division Department of 701 West Markham Public Works Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 371-4600 December 29, 1986 ZONING INVESTIGATION OF 2901-2903 LEE AVENUE ARK. EASTER SEAL SOCIETY ALLEGED VIOLATION: Converted Duplex to Offices ZONED - R-4 8-26-86 - Ark. Easter Seal Society has converted duplex to office. I have spoken to Jim Butler, Executive Director. He stated they have used that duplex as offices about ten years. I advised him that it was still a violation and needed corrected. Mr. Butler stated they would apply for rezoning and if that failed would convert back to duplex. Very Good attitude. 8-27-86 - Letter to Mr. Butler outlining previous conversation. 9-5-86 - Received letter from Mr. Butler outlining the history of the property. It was bought as a duplex in 1966. Next record indicates that 1/2 of the duplex was being used on a part time basis as office. I don't believe this adequately provides a 20 year period of nonconforming use. Sent letter to Mr. Butler suggesting he go to OCP. 9-9-86 - Letter sent to Mr. Butler, giving ten days. 9-23-86 - Ten day warning letter to Mr. Butler. 10-1-86 - Spoke with Denise Hoggard, Attorney. She is working with ES and needs time to put her case together. I told her to put a request in writing and that I would grant thirty days. 10-1-86 - Letter in from Denise, thirty day extension granted. 10-21-86 - Letter in from Marian McMullian, Attorney requesting background on issue. Page 2 10-27-86 - Met with Marian in Richard Wood's office and reviewed the history of the case. Marian stated she would take the matter to Board of Adjustment. 10-28-86 - Letter in from Marian stating desire to appear before BOA, suspend till 11- 24 -86, closing date. 11-26-86 - Called Anna, OCP. Not on docket for BOA. Called Marian McMullian not on docket. Did not know there was a time limit. 11-26-86 - Ten day notice to Mr. Butler and AESS. 12-12-86 - Violation still exists, request City Attorney letter. 12-16-86 - Spoke with Tony. AESS has requested paperwork for BOA. Set for 1- 20 -87. 12-18-86 - Letter from Marian McMullian, Attorney, requesting appearance before BOA. DC /ps August 27, 1986 Mr. Jim Butler, Executive Director Arkansas Easter Seal Society 2801 Lee Avenue Little Rock, AR 72205 Res Duplex at 2901-2903 Lee Avenue Dear Mr. Butlers In response to a complaint received by our office, a zoning inspection was done of the duplex at 2901-2903 Lee Avenue. That inspection revealed that the Arkansas Easter Seal, Society has converted the duplex residence into offices. I must inform you that this is a violation of the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance, No. 13,777, Section 7-101.4, which states "within the "R-4" district, all buildings, structures or uses - having commercial characteristics shall be excluded whether operated for profit or otherwise." Please accept this letter as official notice that you have fifteen (15) days to cease to use the duplex structure at 2901-2903 Lee Avenue as offices for the Arkansas Easter Seal Society. You may, within this fifteen (15) day period, make application with the Office of Comprehensive Planning to rezone the property to a more appropriate zone. If you have any questions, please contact me at 371-4866 or the Office of Comprehensive Planning at 371-4790. Sincerely, Dana Carney Zoning Enforcement Officer DC:vw7 Arkansas Easter Seal Society OFFICERS & DIRECTORS September 3, 1986 GOVERNOR BILL CLINTON Honorary President MICHAEL MEANS President C. EDWARD BRADFORD Vice President JAMES H. BEET, III Vice President GERALD V MAULDIN Vice President REP. JOHN E. MII I ER Vice President MICHAEL C. SCHAUFELE Vice President, Treasurer BEN McMINN Secretary MARY WILSON ALLISON Little Rock RAFEANDREWS Wynne HAROLD B. BETTON, M.D. Little Rock JOHN L. BURNETT Little Rock ROBERT C. DILL Pine Stuff MRS. GAY11A FORTSON Little Rock HARRY LEGGETT, JR. Little Rock BOB MATHIS Hot Springs W. NEIL MAYNARD Stuttgart MRS. HARRY PIELLLPS Dumas REP. CAROLYN POLLAN Fort Smith RUSSELL D. RAWN Lime Rock BART ROACH Little Rock J. D. SIMPSON, III Little Rock LARRY TAYLOR Little Rock RICHARD A. WILUAMS Little Rock VIRGIL W. YOUNG, JR. North Little Rock JIM BUTLER Executive Director 2801 LEE AVENUE P.O. BOX 5148 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72225 Bach Arhansas' Fighters Dana Carney, Zoning Enforcement Officer City of Little Rock 701 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dana: As I indicated the Arkansas Easter Seal Society purchased the duplex at 2901-2903 Lee Avenue, Little Rock, AR in January, 1966. The original intent was to create a motel-type rooms for use by outpatients or parents. The next records, March 1968, indicate that in 1967, the duplex was being used as offices for the Development staff. I have been Executive Director since July 1977 and the duplex was being used as Development offices then and has been used for Accounting and Development offices consistently since that time. Relocation of the offices would cause a tremendous hardship to the Arkansas Easter Seal Society. Therefore, if we need to pursue rezoning, please let me know. Sincerely, Jim Butler Executive Director JB:de Rehabilitation Center (501) 663-8331 Adult Work Center (501) 663-4171 Development Oflice (501) 664-0917 Executive Committee Meeting - - Jan. 26, 1966 The Executive Committee of the Arkansas Association for the Crippled met at 12:30 P. M. January 26, 1966, at the Sam Peck Hotel with the following persons present: Mr. Wm. M. Clark, President, Mr. Booker Worthen, Mr. Sam Peck, Mr. Jim Simpson, Mr. J. C. Cabe and Mrs. Virginia Armistead. Discussions and actions taken as follows: Sale of Jacksonville Convalescent Center. Sale transaction was closed January 25, 1966 and net proceeds in amount of $110,647.45 deposited in a special account in the Worthen Bank, entitled Arkansas Association for the Crippled - Capital account. (Gross sales price was $120,000, frog, this was deducted commission and expense in amount of $2,020.55 incurred in getting restrictive clause removed from deed by the Federal Government.) On motion of Sam Peck, seconded by Jim Simpson, it was unanimously resolved that withdrawals from the capital account at Worthen Bank and Trust Company be authorized when signed by any two of the following: William M. Clark, Booker Worthen, J. D. Simpson, Jr. and Virginia Armistead. Removal of Petitions and Repainting old building. The estimated cost of this amounts to $4,000. Par king and Landscaping. Estimated cost $6,000. Hill-Burton Hinds on a 1/3 - 2/3 matching basis my be available for both projects. Purchase of Dunlex. 2901-2903 Lee Avenue, owned b Mrs. Virginia Arm; One apartment in this s ing will be used for the living quarters of the superintendent of the Easter Seal Center and the other apartment and basement will be remodeled in motel -type rooms for the use of outpatients or parents of in- patients who wish to remain here for short periods while their child is being hospitalized, etc. The estimated cost for remodeling is $12,000 and there may be vocational rehabilitation funds available f or this on a 90-10% matching basis. After discussion, in Nhich it was noted that Mrs. Virginia Armistead had purchased the property situated at 2901 -2903 Lee Avenue several years ago, for the benefit of the Association, using her personal money to that end, with the intent that the Association purchase it when the Association had funds available for that purpose, and in which it was noted that she had carried the property at her own expense since she purchased it but nevertheless wishes to sell the property to the Association at the same price at which she purchased it, $18,000.00, even though an appraisal of the property by Rector-Phillips-Morse, Inc. shows the present value to be $22,250.00, (the excess in value $4,500.00) over the purchase price the Association is to pay being a contribution by Mrs. Armistead to the Association), the following. motion, made by Booker Worthen and seconded by J. C. Cabe, was unanimously adopted: RESOLVED, that the Arkansas Association for the Crippled, Inc. purchase the duplex property situated at 2901-2903 Lee Avenue from Virginia W. Armistead for the gross purchase price of $18,000.00 (plus revenue stamps), the property being Lot 1 and East 35 feet of Lot 2 in Block 1, Midland Hills Addition to the City of Little Rock. Minutes Executive Committee Meeting January 26, 1966 Pulaski County, Arkansas and a strip of land 8 feet wide extending along the east boundary of said lot 1 (said strip of land being part of a street recently vacated and abandoned by the City of Little Rook, Arkansas, and said strip being subject to existing utility easements according to Ordinance 11580 of said City), that the Association pay in full (out of said $189000.00 purchase money) the existing mortgage loan on the property at Pulaski Federal Savings and Loan Association, in Little Rock, Arkansas= that the President of the Associations and the other - officer -e, severally, and each of them, be and hereby are authorized to contract for the purchase of the property and execute, acknowledge and deliver any and all instruments and do any and all things necessary or appropriate to accomplish the foregoing, on behalf of the Association. Payment of Funds due the National Societyr. Direction was given that immediate payment be made to National for the 10.354 of Campaign Receipts for the year 1964 -65 in amount of $10,866987 and the remainder of the 1964 -65 campaign supplies in the amount $2,069.00. The unpaid balance of $10,453.00 for the 10.3% of the campaign receipts for 1963 -64 are to be paid at the rate of $2,000 per year over a five (5) year period. Mrse Armistead reminded the group of the next committee meeting on Feb. 30 12:30 at 2801 Lee Avenue and asked that each give some thought to topics, which Will come up for discussion, as follows t Budget State organization to conform to the National structure Assistant Director or Fund Raising Director Medical Advisory Committee for new center (Need for part time medical director, Name for new Children're Rehab Center There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. 6. 1969 Further building and equipment needs - Mrs. Armistead. Last summer we enclosed an additional part of the building on the lower level to be used as a Work activities room. We received about $8,000 from Vocational Rehabilitation for this building cost. Sheltered Workshop comes under the wage and hour laws, but we have some who eanvt produce at the rate of 80¢ an hour and these go into Work Activities. Such a group has to he set up in a geographically different place from the Sheltered Workshop. We very much need steps f rom the upper level to the exit of the Work Activities room in case of fire -- for the door from the Work Activities room now opens onto the ravine. Fire drills are being conducted regularly. We can evacuate the building in 29 seconds and we have a sprinkler system, so the only inadequacy is in the Work Activities exit. Another desperate need is for an exhaust system to pick up dust from the workshop, such as saw dust and dust f rom cutting leather. Duplex - Mrs. Armistead One half of our duplex on Lee is used only ,a few months of the year for the telephone operators who set up the Pulaski County Parade. It needs cleaning, painting, and air conditioning to make it rentable. We need new typewriters and a new calculator. The calculator would cost about $400. Presently there is in our building fund bank account $9,680, and our capital fund $622. There is $2000 ledged on this capital fund that we have not billed, so that there is $2000 for each of 2 years that will be coming in -- $4000. We have short term treasury notes in the amount of $52,000. $2,000 of this came from workshop money and $50,000 was left from the sale of the Jacksonville property. The Association got by despite these deficits because over a eriod of four or five years previous the Association had advanced some 70,000 to the Workshop and last year they were able to pay back $7,000. We have used that to help in the In- Patient Division. We have paid $6,000 on our Easter Seal supply bill from National Society. We have paid for all of our envelopes, some of which were used in the Membership Drive and some will be used in Easter Seal and some held. We have about $20,000 left in the Association bank account which is good for this time of the year. September 9, 1986 Mr. Jim Butler, Executive Director Arkansas Easter Seal Society 2801 Lee Avenue - P.O. Box 5148 Little Rock, AR 72225 Re: Duplex at 2901-2903 Lee Avenue Dear Mr. Butler: I have received and reviewed your letter tome dated September 3, 1986, in which you outlined the history of the duplex at 2901-2903 Lee Avenue and its relationship to the Arkansas Easter Seal Society. As I understand it, in 1967 or 1968, only one-half of the duplex was being used as office space and only on a part-time basis at that. I am afraid that this information is insufficient for me to be able to establish a nonconforming use for the whole duplex at 2901-2903 Lee Avenue as office space. I would suggest that you contact Richard Wood or Tony Bozynski at the Office of Comprehensive Planning at 371-4790. If they cannot make a decision regarding the use, it may be that you will have to go the City Board of Adjustment for an interpretation of this issue. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Dana Carney Zoning Enforcement Officer DC:jt12 City of Little Rock Engineering Division - Department of 701 West Markham Public Works Lillie Rock, Arkansas 72201 371 -4800 September 23, 1986 Mr. Jim Butler, Executive Director Arkansas Easter Seal Society 2801 Lee Avenue Little Rock, AR 72205 Re: Duplex at 2901 - 2903 Lee Avenue Dear Mr. Butler: A reinspection of 2901 - 2903 Lee Avenue on September 22, 1986 reveals the violation cited in my letters to you of August 27, 1986 and September 9, 1986 still exists. You have been given nearly a month to either comply with Zoning Ordinance No. 13,777, Section 7-101.4 by removing the office use from the duplex at 2901 - 2903 Lee Avenue or to apply for a variance or rezoning to allow the office to remain. Please accept this letter as final notice thatyou have ten days to cease to use the duplex structure at 2901 - 2903 Lee Avenue as offices for the Arkansas Easter Seal Society. If you have not complied with this directive, at the end of ten days, this matter will be turned over to the City Attorney's office for further legal action. If you have any questions, please call me at 371-4866. C ncerer, Dana Carney Zoning Enforcement Officer DC /ps HALE, WARD, YOUNG, GREEN & MORLEY A Partnership Including Professional Associations Attorneys at Law One Broadway River Center 628 West Broadway, Suite 300 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 DENISE REID HOGGARD (501) 376-4000 October 1, 1986 Mr. Dana Carney Zoning Enforcement Officer 701 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Carney: I have been retained by Arkansas Easter Seals Society to represent their interests concerning a duplex at 2901 -2903 Lee Avenue. My client has delivered to me your letter of September 23, giving ten days' notice to Arkansas Easter Seals Society. Because I have just recently been retained, I would appreciate if you would give me an exten- tion of 30 days' time. During the next 30 days, I propose to research and c6nduct interviews concerning the prior use of the building in order to determine whether a non-conforming use existed. If the facts reveal that a non-conforming use is inappropriate, then I would propose to the Society Board that we file and apply for a variance or rezoning to allow the office to remain. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter and I look forward to working with you for an amicable resolution. If you have any questions, feel free to call me. Sincerely, HALE, WARD, YOUNG GREEN, NIXON JACOBS & HICKEY Denise Reid Hoggard DRH /msb HALE, WARD, YOUNG, GREEN & MORLEY A Partnership Including Professional Associations Attorneys at Law One Broadway River Center 628 West Broadway, Suite 300 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 MARIAN MAJOR McMULLAN (501) 376-4000 October 21, 1986 Dana Carney City of Little Rock 701 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Easter Seals Duplex at 2901-2903 Lee Ave. Dear Mr. Carney: Our client, Easter Seals, has asked our assistance in the problem regarding the use of the above referenced property against city zoning regulations. I understand that several conversations have occurred between your office and Richard Woods' office at the planning commission regarding obtaining a variance of use of the duplex or perhaps, in the alternative, rezoning. From my conversations with officers at Easter Seals, the duplex has been used for the past twenty years for a business of various types including office space and living quarters for the use of outpatients or parents of inpatients who needed a place to stay. That is, although used for different types of business services, the building has not been used for residential use. I also understand that since a complaint has been made to your office, you must proceed with your responsibilities. I would appreciate your letting me know by letter or by phone what type of evidence your office will consider in order to grant a variance for the non-conforming pre- existing use of this building. For example, we have in our file copies of minutes dated January 6, 1966 stating the use of the building and further, we can obtain depositions from previous officers of Easter Seals stating the use of the building for the last twenty years. Since depositions are relatively expensive, please advise whether the use of depositions presented to your office will assist our client in obtaining a variance. HALE, WARD, YOUNG, GREEN & MORLEY Dana Carney October 21, 1986 Page -2- If your office is adamantly opposed to granting a variance for Easter Seals, I would appreciate any other recommendations you may have in resolving this problem in favor of the continued use of the above duplex. Sincerely, HALE, WARD, YOUNG, GREEN & MORLEY l t{ ` Marian McMullan MM /ap cc: Jim Butler Easter Seals HALE, WARD, YOUNG, GREEN & MORLEY A Partnership lncluding Professional Associations Attorneys at law One Broadway River Center 628 West Broadway, Suite 300 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 MARIAN MAJOR McMULLAN (501) 376-4000 October 28, 1986 Richard Wood Little Rock City Planning City Hall 500 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: 2901-2903 Lee Ave. Dear Richard: The purpose of this letter is to confirm our discussion in your office yesterday afternoon with Dana Carney that we will be appealing Dana Carney's decision in the enforcement of the residential zoning ordinance as to the above property with the Board of Adjustment. Easter Seals will begin accumulating all of their records for the past twenty years to give you the information which you have requested. Sincerely, HALE, WARD, YOUNG, GREEN & MORLEY Marian McMullan MM/ap cc: Dana Carney, City of Little Rock Jim Butler, Easter Seals City of Little Rock Engineering Division Department of 701 West Markham Public Works Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 371-4800 November 26, 1986 Mr. Jim Butler Executive Director Arkansas Easter Seal Society 2801 Lee Avenue Little Rock, AR 72205 Re: Duplex at 2901-2903 Lee Avenue Dear Mr. Butler: A reinspection of 2901-2903 Lee Avenue on November 25, 1986 revealed the violation cited in my letters to you of August 27, 1986, September 9,1986 and September 23, 1986 still exists. You have been given three months to either comply with Zoning Ordinance No. 13,777, Section 7-101.4 by removing the office use from the duplex at 2901-2903 Lee Avenue or to apply for a variance or rezoning to allow the office to remain. Please accept this letter as final notice that you have ten days to cease to use the duplex structure at 2901-2903 Lee Avenue as offices for the Arkansas Easter Seal Society. If, at the end of ten days, you have not complied with this directive, this matter will be turned over to the City Attorney's office for further legal action. If you have any questions, please call me at 371-4866. Sincerely, Dana Carney Zoning Enforcement Officer DC /ps City of Little Rock Engineering Division Department of 701 West Markham Public Works Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 371-4800 M_E_M_O_R_A_N_D_U_M December 15, 1986 TO: Mark Stodola, City Attorney VIA: Roy Beard, Central Codes Chief FROM: Jim Hathcock, Environmental Codes Chief SUBJECT: Warrant Request for Zoning Violation at II 2901 -03 Lee Avenue; Jim Butler, Executive Director, Arkansas Easter Seal Society I request that the City Attorney's office send a fifteen day letter to Mr. Jim Butler, Executive Director of the Arkansas Easter Seal Society at 2801 Lee Avenue. He is in violation of the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance No. 13,777, Section 7-101.4 by his refusing to cease using the residential duplex property at 2901-2903 Lee Avenue as offices for the Arkansas Easter Seal Society. Letters and notices were sent to Mr. Butler by Dana Carney on August 27, 1986, September 9, 1986 September 23, 1986 and November 26, 1986 giving him the opportunity to remove the office use or apply for a variance or rezoning to allow the office use to remain. As of December 12, 1986, the violation still exists. We are therefore requesting assistance from your office to gain compliance of this issue. DC /ps cc: Dana Carney Qr✓ January 20, 1987 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adj urned at 3:10 p.m. Chairman Secretary Date