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