boa_12 15 1986LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTE RECORD
DECEMBER 15, 1986
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being five in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present: Joe Norcross
John McDaniel
Ronald Pierce
Thomas McGowan
Herbert Rideout
Members Absent: George Wells
Ronald Woods
Richard Yada
Jim Mitchell
City Attorney; Stephen Giles
December 15, 1986
Item No. A - Z-3671-A
Owner: P.C. Hardware Company
Address: 3201 South Elm
Description: Lots 1-7, Block 7
Dickinson Mill Addition
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
Variances
Requested: From the setback provisions of Section
7-104.2/e to permit reduced front, side
and rear yards.
Justification: This proposal will allow a logical
expansion of the existing building and
would conform to the existing site
development as well as other properties
in the immediate area. In addition,
these lots were platted many years ago
and are too small for proper "I-2" site
development.
Present Use
of Property: Industrial
Proposed Use
of Property: Industrial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None have been reported as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to permit a new addition with reduced
setbacks for the front, rear and side yards. The
proposal calls for a zero-foot setback for the rear and
side with a 16.4-foot encroachment for the front yard
which the ordinance requires to be 50 feet. It appears
that the location of the site is the only viable one
available for expansion and any addition to the
existing building would require a variance. The
building was constructed with no rear setback, and the
plan is to maintain that building line. Construction
to property lines is quite common in the area, and
there does not seem to have been any undesirable
impacts from that type of development pattern. This
December 15, 1986
Item No. A - Continued
has occurred because the old Zoning Ordinance allowed
for no setbacks in the industrial district. Staff
feels that reasonable justification has been provided
for the variances and supports the request.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variances as
requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (11-17-86)
Staff informed the Board that the item needed to be
deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the
December 15, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a
vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-15-86)
The applicant, Sam Davis, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Davis spoke briefly. A motion was made to
approve the variances subject to the owner meeting the
conditions set out by the City Engineer's Office. The
motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 1 - Z-3161-A
Owner: Ray Camp
Address: 2017 Kavanaugh
Description: Lot 18, Block 1
Pulaski Heights Addition
Zoned: "C-3"
Variances
Requested: From the off - street parking provisions
of Section 8-101 /3.f to permit less
spaces than required by ordinances.
Justification: The difference between the permitted
nonconforming use and the proposed use
is less than two spaces.
Present Use
of Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
In November of this year, the owner of 2017 Kavanaugh
requested the Board to review a staff's decision
regarding the denial of a privilege license because of
not providing the necessary parking for a certain use,
a beauty salon. The property in question has
nonconforming status because of having no off-street
parking available and any use requiring a parking ratio
of one space per 300 square feet can occupy the
building. A beauty salon has a parking requirement of
one space per 200 square feet, and thus, is not
considered a legal nonconforming use. The Board of
Adjustment reaffirmed the staff's decision at the
November meeting and instructed the owner to file for
the necessary parking variance. The structure has over
3,000 square feet and a majority of the space is
occupied by a florist which is permitted. Of that
total, the beauty salon is currently occupying 800
square feet which requires four parking spaces. An use
December 15, 1986
Item No. 1 - Continued
with a 1 to 300 ratio would require 2.6 spaces. Staff
feels that the difference is so minor and supports the
request. This section of Kavanaugh is not very
congested and there is adequate off - street parking
without impacting the residential streets. A survey
does reflect a garage area so that could possibly be
utilized by an employee and lessen the variance number.
Staff does have a concern and that is the potential
growth of the beauty salon and the demand that would
create for additional parking. Some consideration
should be given to placing a restriction on the number
of chairs permitted. It is the staff's understanding
that currently two chairs are being utilized.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the parking variance
subject to some type of restriction being placed on the
number of chairs.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Ray Camp, was present. There was one
interested resident in attendance. Mr. Camp spoke and
presented some history on the property. He discussed the
beauty salon's operation and expressed some concerns with
the restrictions suggested by the staff. Janet Harney, a
property owner on the block, made several remarks about
parking in the neighborhood. Mr. Camp then addressed the
Board again and discussed the parking situation. A motion
was made to grant the parking variance with a maximum of
four chairs for the beauty salon. The motion was approved
by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 2 - Z-4001-A
Owner: Miles Reeder
Address: 8124 Flint Ridge Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C-4"
Variances
Requested: 1. From the district restrictions of
Section 7-103/c.4 to permit a
temporary waiver of the screening
requirements.
2. From the development criteria
provisions of Section 7-103.4/b.2 to
permit a temporary waiver of the
paving requirements.
Justification: Additional time is needed to correct
drainage and water problems.
Present Use
of Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board is to grant temporary
waivers of the screening and paving requirements of the
ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires an opaque
screening fence be constructed along any side or rear
property line that abuts land zoned for residential
purposes which in this situation would be the north,
south and west sides. Screening is not required along
the entirety of those property lines because the use
under consideration only occupies the western one -half
of the site. On the other one -half there is another
nonresidential use. In addition to the screening
requirements, a portion of the property must also be
paved as per the "C-4" district development criteria.
After the site was cleared in late summer, the
December 15, 1986
Item No. 2 - Continued
applicant realized that a drainage problem existed and
would have to be addressed prior to making all of the
required improvements. To correct the problem, a curb
needs to be installed and completed before the fence
can be erected. To date, approximately 40 percent of
the work has been finished. In the area that the
paving is required, some additional site work is
necessary before it can be surfaced. Due to the nature
of the request and the location, staff supports a
temporary waiver of the two ordinance requirements.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variances for a period
of nine months.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to approve the requested variances for a
period of nine months from the date of approval,
December 15, 1986. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes,
0 noes and 4 absent.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 3 - Z-4772
Owner: R.S. and Buhla Bowen
Address: 72 South Meadowcliff
Description: Lot 346, Meadowcliff Addition
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the height and area provisions
of Section 5-101/f.2.c to permit an
excessory building less than 60 feet
from the front property line.
Justification:
1. The lot is of unique shape and size. There is an
elevation difference of 6 1/2 feet from the back
foundation of the house to the street level on Sheraton
Street. There is also an elevation difference of six
feet from Meadowcliff Drive to the front foundation of
the house. The foundation of the carport would be five
feet to get a level foundation and a 10' x 10' metal
utility building would have to be disposed of. There
is no other suitable location for it. The existing
concrete steps and a retaining wall would have to be
relocated. Three ornamental trees and a large oak tree
valued for its shade would have to be removed. The
area for the proposed carport has been level using
earth moving machinery and is presently used for
parking. Windows and doors would face the carport
foundation.
2. The existing carport, an one car size, on the front of
the house has been glassed in making an attractive sun
room for plants. Again, the configuration shape of the
lot would make building carport either on the front
(south side) out of variance or on the side (the east
side) would require removing three large oak trees
valued for their shade. The water line would have to
be covered or a sewer line would have to be covered.
Due to the hilly configuration, building a carport on
the east side of the house would place it well above
the patio and would be unattractive to the property.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 3 - Continued
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineerinq Issues
No issues have been reported.
B. Staff Analvsis
The request is to permit a carport to be placed less
than 60 feet from a front property line. The Zoning
Ordinance requires accessory structures in the "R-1"
through "R-4" districts shall not be located closer
than 60 feet to a front property line. On the corner
lot, both street frontages are considered to be front
property lines. The proposal is to have an open
carport with a 9' x 20' storage area in the back of it.
The owners also have mentioned the possibility of
attaching the carport to the residence with a covered
walkway. This point needs to be clarified in terms of
the walkway's construction, size and how it will be
attached to the various structures. The lot does have
some unique characteristics, and it appears that almost
any type of new construction would require a variance
because of being on a corner and its shape. As the
owners have pointed out, there is approximately 6 1/2
foot difference in elevation from the east side of the
property to where the house is located on the lot, and
this does create somewhat of a hardship. Any
construction closer or attached to the residence would
require major site work and detract from the visual
appeal of the lot. The location selected by the owners
is the most reasonable and there already exists a
gravel surface area so some parking has been taking
place. Adequate justification has been provided, and
the staff supports the variance request. To ensure
that the carport is open as much as possible, staff
suggests that the storage area be reduced from what the
owners have proposed.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance for an open
carport subject to the storage area not being greater
than 9' x 10' in size.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 3 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
request was discussed briefly. A motion was made to grant
the variance subject to the storage area being 9' x 10'.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and
4 absent.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 4 - Z-4775
Owner: Joe McCormik
Address: #5 Butterfly Cove
Description: Lot 176, Phase II B
Otter Creek Subdivision
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/d.3 to permit an addition with
a 5 -foot encroachment into the rear
yard.
Justification: 1. Additional area is needed to
increase the available storage space
in the house. The house was
originally designed with too few
storage spaces and the internal
structure prohibits adding
additional closets, etc., inside
the house.
2. The structure of the house
prohibits adding a second floor
or expanding the existing attic for
storage area.
3. The narrow boundaries of the lot
prohibit additions on the sides of
the house.
4. The proposed addition located at the
back of the house is not visible
from the street. The area in the
back of the house is enclosed with a
wooden fence and, therefore, will be
unoffensive to the view of
neighbors.
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
December 15, 1986
Item No. 4 - Continued
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
No issues have been identified.
B. Staff Analysis
The variance request is to allow a 12' x 22' addition
to the rear of the house. The new construction will be
attached to the existing garage and be used primarily
for storage. The "R-2" district requires a rear yard
area of 25 feet. The variance, if granted, will create
an encroachment of five feet. The addition will not
have an effect on the lot to the east because there is
a platted 20-foot common /open area between it and the
property under consideration. Because of the type of
addition, the proposed location is most logical and the
least disruptive to the lot. Adequate yard area will
still remain and the visual impact will be minimal
because of being situated at the back of the residence.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the variance be approved as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The
motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 5 - 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.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 5 - Continued
Present Use
of Property: Office
Proposed Use
of Property: Office
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
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.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 5 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
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.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 6 - Z-4777
Owner: James E. and Patsy J. Jones
Address: #46 Point West Circle
Description: Lot 88, Point West Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variances
Requested: From the height and area provisions of
Section 5-101/f.2.c to permit a
satellite dish less than 60 feet from
the front property line.
Justification: The satellite dish has been sitting
at this location since it was first
installed in December 1984. The reason
it was placed at this location was due
to the numerous trees that are present
in the neighbor's backyard. It would
be almost impossible to get a good
picture if it were placed in any other
location.
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
No issues have been identified.
B. Staff Analysis
This application was filed because of a complaint and
then the follow -up enforcement action by the City. The
request is to permit a satellite dish, an accessory
structure, to remain less than 60 feet from the front
property line. In the "R -2" district, accessory
buildings cannot be located less than 60 feet from the
front property line. Because of the technical aspects
of siting a dish and the shape of the lot, the location
appears to be the most reasonable. The dish is
approximately 40 feet from the front property line and
screened a little bit by several trees. The location
is the high point with the lot decreasing in elevation
December 15, 1986
Item No. 6 - Continued
to the south and southwest. Because of this and some
trees in the yard area next door, placing the dish in
the rear yard would be unrealisitic because the
receiving signal would be disrupted. Staff feels that
the applicant has offered adequate justifications for
the request with the condition that additional
landscaping materials be planted to provide more
screening.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the variance be granted subject
to the condition described in the analysis.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, James Jones, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Jones spoke briefly and said he had no
problems with the staff's re -commendation. A motion was made
to grant the variance with the condition that additional
landscaping be provided for screening purposes. The motion
was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 7 - Z -4779
Owner: Harry and Norma Galusha
Address: 2015 Hillsboro Lane
Description: Lot 2, Hillsboro Subdivision
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the height and area provisions of
Section 5-101/f.2.c to permit an
accessory building less than 60 feet
from a front property line.
Justification: The building is virtually completed,
needing only to finish the siding and
placing some shingles on the roof.
We have no neighbors to the rear because
our lot drops off to about a 20-foot
cliff down to Hinson Road. The
building cannot be seen from inside the
Hillsboro Subdivision and only partially
by looking up while driving on Hinson
Road. We have tried to find other
locations for the building, but because
of the size and shape of our lot, the
cliff to the back and the drastic drop
in terrain to the east side, there is no
spot outside of 60-foot setback suitable
for even this small building. The one
area available is on the east slope next
to our neighbor's house, and the
building would be about eight feet off
the ground to the back.
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT
A. Enqineerinq Issues
None reported.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 7 - Continued
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to allow an accessory building to be
located less than 60 feet from the property line. This
is a double frontage lot, and the Zoning Ordinance
states that each line separating such lot from the
street shall be considered a front lot line, and that
accessory structures shall not be located closer than
60 feet to the front property line. If this was a
conventional rear yard with no street frontage, then
the setback requirement for the structure would be
three feet from the rear property line. If the 60-foot
provision is enforced, then the shed would be located
several feet from the residence and the rear yard area
would be impacted. The lot is unique because of its
shape and the dramatic decrease in elevation to the
north (Hinson Road) and to the east. Because of this,
there are very few locations on the lot that would not
require either a setback variance or a building line
waiver. (A building line waiver has also been filed,
and the Planning staff is supporting it.)
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The
motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 8 - Z-4780
Owner: Tom McCann
Address: #10 Shawbridge Lane
Description: Lot 24, Block 15
Pleasant Valley Addition
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the height and area provisions of
Section 5-101/f.2.e to permit an
accessory building less than three feet
from the side property line.
Justification: We are requesting that two permanent
structures extend into the three foot
side yard setback. It is not intended
to infringe upon or take advantage of
other adjoining property owners or
violate any provisions of the Bill of
Assurance of the subdivision, but is the
result of an effort to place a newly
constructed swimming pool a safe
distance from another preexisting
permanent structure. This adjustment
would provide a more safe environment
for family and friends. The structure
will encroach two feet into the 3-foot
setback and consist of a deck on the
east end of the pool and two gazebo
style structures used for dressing and
spa facilities. These structures will
be constructed of cedar and continue the
theme of the preexisting structures.
Also, a privacy fence will enclose the
entire addition.
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
No issues have been identified.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 8 - Continued
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to grant a setback variance for two
accessory structures to be located on the east side of
the lot. The Zoning Ordinance requires an accessory
building to maintain at least a 3-foot setback from any
side property line. The proposal is to construct two
gazebos with approximately 2-foot encroachments into
the setback. The rear yard area has experienced a
major transformation with a new pool and several other
structures. An effort has been made to concentrate
those improvements in one area, and also to provide for
some undisturbed rear yard space. The gazebos are to
complement the pool area so the locations have been
dictated by that and by safety. Locating them on the
west side of the pool would be undesirable and take
away from the attractiveness of the yard area. Because
of the type of structures and the construction, there
will be very little effect on the lot to the east. A
privacy fence is also being proposed so that will help
any reduce any potential impacts.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to
the new construction being open structures as much as
possible.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff
informed the Board that only one gazebo was involved with
the variance request. A motion was made to grant the
variance subject to the structure being opened as much as
possible. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes,
0 noes and 4 absent.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 9 - 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. Enqineerinq 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.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 9 - 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:
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.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 10 - Z-4783
Owner: Stewart and Debbie Noland
Address: 5210 Sherwood Road
Description: Lot 73, Prospect Terrace Addition
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the height and area provisions of
Section 5- 101 /f.2.c to permit a garage
to occupy more than 30 percent of the
required rear yard.
Justification: To construct a garage in such a manner
as to save three large trees.
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to grant relief from the Zoning
Ordinance provision that prohibits accessory structures
to occupy more than 30 percent of the required rear
yard. The proposal is to construct a 24' x 36' garage
that will also have storage and a porch area at the
southeast corner. The required rear yard in this
situation is an area approximately 25' x 81' or 2,025
square feet. As the new structure is being proposed, a
portion will extend beyond the 25 foot line,
approximately four feet. Because of this, a
construction area of 20' x 36', 720 square feet, will
occupy the required rear yard. This calculates to a
35.5 percent coverage and staff feels this is not
excessive because an adequate open area will remain
between the residence and the proposed garage. In
addition, the owners' desire to save several trees is
reasonable justification. (The 40-foot outbuilding
line identified on the sketch is not an issue with this
action because it is a Bill of Assurance item which
restricts the placement of accessory structures.)
ecember 15, 1986
Item No. 10 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to
the new construction being a one story structure for a
garage and storage.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to approve the variance subject to the new
construction being a one story structure only. The motion
passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 11 - Other Matters
Owner: Heavrin Construction Company, Inc.
(The Fishing Hole)
Address: 9823 Hilaro Springs Road
Request: Appeal of the Zoning Enforcement Office
decision to deny a privilege license
for The Fishing Hole.
STAFF REPORT:
The primary issue is to determine whether The Fishing Hole,
a "for pay" fishing facility, is an expansion of a
nonconforming use. At the time of annexation, a
contractor's storage yard was on the property, and it came
into the City as a nonconforming use. The contractor's
operation, Heavrin Construction Company, still occupies the
site which is zoned "R-2." The Enforcement staff's position
is that The Fishing Hole is an illegal expansion and
requires a "C-4" reclassification for outdoor amusement.
The Zoning Ordinance provides
of nonconforming uses, and the
found in Section 5-101.c.
1. Expansions
A nonconforming use shall not be extended, expanded,
enlarged, or increased in intensity to any structure
or land area other than occupied by such
nonconforming use on the effective date of this
ordinance or any other amendment hereto which causes
such use to become nonconforming.
2. Change in Use
If no structural alterations are made, a
nonconforming use of a building may be changed to
another nonconforming use of the same or more
restrictive classification. In no case, however,
shall such use of a building be reverted back to a
more intensive nonconforming use.
The Planning staff is still reviewing this issue and will
provide additional information at the time of the hearing.
(Attached are various written materials between the City and
Heavrin Construction Company /The Fishing Hole.)
December 15, 1986
Item No. 11 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (11-15-86)
A representative of The Fishing Hole was not present so
staff recommended that the issue be deferred. A motion was
made to defer the matter to the December 15, 1986, meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes,
3 absent, and 1 open position.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-15-86)
Roy Clark, representing The Fishing Hole, was present.
Staff reviewed the issue and discussed the floodway
involvement. Mr. Clark spoke and said that there were no
issues other than the status of The Fishing Hole which he
described as a family oriented facility. He went on to say
that a storage building had been remodeled for The Fishing
Hole and that the lakes had received the necessary licensing
from the Game and Fish Commission. There was a long
discussion, and Mr. Clark indicated that he did not want to
try to rezone the property to "C-4." Stephen Giles of the
City Attorney's Office made several comments and suggested
that the item should be deferred because of the floodway
issue. Jim Hathcock of the City's Enforcement staff said
that the lakes and construction company were in place prior
to being annexed, but by offering the "fish for sale," a
retail establishment, expansion of a nonconforming use had
occurred. A motion was made that reaffirmed the Zoning
Enforcement staff's decision to deny the privilege license
because the nonconforming use had been expanded. The motion
was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
HEAVRIN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
9823 Hilaro Springs Road
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72209
TELEPHONE:
565 -5521
October 20, 1986
Board of Adjustment
Office of Comprehensive Planning
Room 311 City Hall
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: The Fishing Hole
9823 Hilaro Springs Rd.
ATTN: Mr. Antoni Bozynski
On May 29, 1986 I contacted and was assured by the City Collector's
Office that we did not need a Privilege License. The reasons given
were three fold - 1) Our present license, #02049 is the most expensive
and extensive we could purchase, costing us $535. 2) No new buildings
have been constructed (only a remodeling of an old oil storage building)
and both lakes existed prior to being annexed into the city 3) The
Fishing Hole and Heavrin Construction have the same address - on the
same piece of property.
On September 24, 1986 Maxine Biggers sent a letter to us stating, "Mr.
Heavrin, I am very sorry you were given incorrect information. Your
'Fishin' Hole' sounds like an excellent family recreation and I hope
you will be able to continue its operation. It would be a shame to
let $156.75 deter this activity."
On September 30, 1986 we sent a check for $156.75 to the City Collector.
They have returned the check and if we do not file for a waiver, they
will close our doors in 30 days.
We request a review of the staff decisions and want to appear before
your board to clarify the facts about this matter. If would be a
shame to have to close a business that - 1) Reinforces the family unit
by providing a place where parents /grandparents can bring their children/
grandchildren for a family outing and be confident they will catch fish,
which is clean fun and more fish needs to be a part of the family diet -
fun, health, family bonds and safety are of prime importance to us.
2) It brings in much needed tax dollars for Little Rock.
We appreciate your consideration.
Rectfully,
Roy Dale Clark
The Fishing Hole
II Cor. 13:14
City of Little Rock
Office of the
City-Collector
100 City Hall
Markham at Broadway
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
371.4566
September 24, 1986
Mr. Jimmy Heavrin
9823 Hilaro Springs Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
Dear Mr. Heavrin:
I wanted to clarify certain parts of the Privilege License Ordinance for you.
1. Any person, firm or corporation engaging in more than one business,
occupation or profession shall be required to obtain a license and pay
the tax for each such business, occupation or profession. ..(Sec. 21-3)
2. Mistakes in computation or incorrect information given verbally shall
not prevent or prejudice the collection by the city of what is actually
provided for as due under the provisions of this article. (Sec. 21-9a)
Mr. Heavrin, I am very sorry you were given incorrect information. Your
"Fishin' Hole" sounds like an excellent family recreation and I hope you
will be able to continue its operation. It would be a shame to let $156.75
deter this activity.
If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me.
Yours truly,
G�IC.YiLs..
Maxine E. Biggers
City Collector
cc: Charles Alale, Revenue Collector
MEB /cc
City of Little Rock
Office of the
City Collector
100 City Hall
Markham at Broadway
Chile Rock, Arkansas 72201
371.4566
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Jim Hathcock, Environmental Codes Chief
FROM: Maxine E. Biggers, City Collector
SUBJECT: Privilege License Application -The Fishing Hole
DATE: October 7, 1986
Attached is a letter to the owner of "The Fishing Hole ". This business has
been operating for several months and has had a most favorable newspaper
article written about it.
It was with great difficulty that we were able to secure payment for this
new business. Mr. Alale and I each had to do much convincing to have them
not be completely hostile to the city and take up the matter with the
City Manager.
I would appreciate your reviewing this application. Hopefully, you will
be able to approve it. If you are unable to do so I wanted to alert you
to all possible ramifications.
Please advise your decision as soon as possible.
Enclosures
cc: Charles A. Alale
MEB /cc
Engineering Division
Department of
Public Works
701 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
371-4000
M E M O R A N D U M
October 9, 1986
TO: Maxine Biggers, CIty Collector
FROM: Jim Hathcock, Environmental Codes Chief Y-4
SUBJECT: "The Fishing Hole ", 9823 Hilaro Springs Road
Upon investigation of the above situation, it has been determined that
there is an illegal expansion of a non-conforming use at this location.
When this property was annexed there was a contractors operation at this
location, which was annexed as non-conforming. With the development of
the pay to fish operation the expansion occurred. Therefore, the only
alternative the owner has is to request a re-zoning of the entire property
to C-4. The application process for this request should be initiated with
a visit to the Office of Comprehensive Planning.
Until this particular issue is resolved we cannot approve a privilege
lidense for this business.
JRH /ps
cc: Enforcement File
October 13, 1986
The Fishing Hole
Mr. Jimmy Heavrin
9823 Hilaro Springs Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
Re: The Fishing Hole, 9823 Hilaro Springs Road
Dear Mr. Heavrin:
This letter is to inform you that the -above referenced
property is zoned "R-2" (Single Family) with a nonconforrning
"C-4" (Open Display) use. A site inspection revealed a
mobile home and a contractor's business which existed prior
to annexation. Since that time, you have erected another
building primarily to sells chips, bait, etc., for The
Fishing Hole.
Please be informed, you would need to apply to the
Little Rock Planning Commission for a site plan review in
order to have multiple structures on property zoned "R-2."
Also, for expanding a nonconfotming use, you would need to
contact Richard Wood, 3rd Floor, City Hall, Markham and
Broadway, 371-4790.
If you so desire to not file for a waiver, please consider
this as a 30-day courtesy letter to cease the operation of
The Fishing. Hole and remove all newly erected buildings
within 30 days of receipt of this notice. If you have an
questions and/or information pertaining to this matter,
please call Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
371-4865
Respectfully,
M. Brown
MB:jm4
cc: Jim Hathcock
Kenny Scott
File
December 15, 1986
Item No. 12 - Other Matters
Owner: Fred Baresch
Address: 5911 "H" Street
Request: To review the "O-3" district and to
determine if an unlisted use is
compatible.
STAFF REPORT:
The use in question is a surveying instrument repair
facility. The space is a part of a small office building
and would be divided up between an office in the front and
the repair operation in the rear. The work would be similar
to watch repair and originate from customers across the
United States who would ship the instruments needing the
repair work. There would be minimal walk -in business.
Attached is a copy of the "O-3" district from the Zoning
Ordinance with the permitted, accessory and conditional
uses.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (11-15-86)
Mr. Fred Baresch was not present. A motion was made to
defer the item to the December 15, 1986, meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of a 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent,
and 1 open position.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-15-86)
The item was removed from consideration.
SECTION 7-102.3 "O-3" GENERAL OFFICE DISTRICT
(a) PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The "O-3 "General Office District is established to accommodate
offices and associated administrative, executive and professional
uses in new and existing structures together with specified
institutional and accessory uses. The "O-3" District is
characterized by freestanding buildings and ancillary parking,
and shall be limited to arterial street locations in developed
areas of the City and other carefully selected areas where public
utilities, community facilities and other public services are
adequate to support general office development.
(b) USE REGULATIONS:
1. Permitted Uses
a. Bank or Savings and Loan
b. Church
c. Clinic (medical, dental or optical)
d. College Dormitory
e. College Fraternity or Sorority
f. Community Welfare or Health Center
g. Convent or Monastery
h. Day Nursery or Day -Care Center
i. Duplication Shop
j. Establishment for Care of Alcoholic,
Narcotic, or Psychiatric Patients
k. Establishment of a Religious, Charitable
or Philanthropic Organization
l. Laboratory
m. Library, Art Gallery, Museum or Other Similar
Use
n. Lodge or Fraternal Organization
o. Mortuary or Funeral Home
p.O Nursing Home or Convalescent Home
q. Office (general and professional)
r. Photography Studio
s. Private School, Kindergarten or Institution
for Special Education
t. Rooming, Lodging and Boarding Facilities
u. School (business)
v. School (public or denominational)
w. Studio (broadcasting and recording)
x. Studio (art, drama, speech, dance or similar
skills)
y. Travel Bureau
2. Accessory Uses
The following accessory uses are permitted only in
90
conjunction with an allowable use or uses in the "O-3"
District and shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the
total floor area on this site.
a. Antique Shop
b. Barber or Beauty Shop
c. Book and Stationery Store
d. Camera Shop
e. Cigar, Tobacco, or Candy Store
f. Clothing Store
g. Custom Sewing or Millinery
h. Drug Store or Pharmacy
i. Eating Place without Drive -in Service
j. Florist Shop
k. Health Studio or Spa
l. Hobby Shop
m. Jewelry Shop
n. Key Shop
o. Tailor Shop
3. Conditional Uses
a. Barber and Beauty Shops
b. Animal Clinic (enclosed)
c. Cemetery or Mausoleum
d. Health Studio or Spa
e. Job Printing, Lithographer, Printing or
Blueprinting
f. Parking, Commercial Lot or Garage
g. Multi- family Dwellings (as per "R -5" District)
h. Orphanage
i. School (commercial, trade or craft)
j. Studio (music, dance or ceramics)
December 15, 1986
Item No. 13 - Proposed Change in Filing Fees
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (11-15-86)
The Board deferred action on the proposed filing fee changes
to the December 15, 1986, meeting.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-15-86)
No discussion was held on this matter because of the City
Board of Directors action approving changes in the filing
fees.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 14 - Other Matters
Owner: Richard C. Newberg
Address: 124 North Pine
Request: Appeal the Home Occupation Review
Committee's denial of an accessory use
permit.
STAFF REPORT:
Richard C. Newberg, resident and owner of 124 North Pine, is
requesting the Board of Adjustment to review his application
for and denial of an accessory use permit for a home
occupation. Mr. Newberg is a certified public accountant
with only four clients and has no walking customers. (A
copy of Mr. Newberg's letter is provided).
The Zoning Ordinance addresses home occupations in Section
7-101 /b.6 as part of the use regulations for the single
family districts. The ordinance lists certain criteria that
a home occupation must meet along the permitted and
prohibited home occupations. When an use, such as a
certified public accountant's office, is not specifically
mentioned in either list, then an accessory use permit must
be applied for. The Public Works Department through the
Home Occupation Review Committee denies or approves the
applications with appeals being made to the Board of
Adjustment.
With this particular denial, the Committee determined that
the nature of the business was inappropriate as a home
occupation and requested the Planning Office to review for
possible Board of Adjustment action.
Attached is the home occupation section from the Zoning
Ordinance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Richard C. Newberg was present and spoke briefly. He said
that he only prepares four monthly statements and utilizes
120 square feet for the office. There were several comments
made by the Board members and staff. A motion was made
which stated that the Certified Public Accountant's office
at 124 North Pine meets the home occupation provisions as
set out in the Zoning Ordinance. The motion was approved by
a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
RICHARD C. NEWBERG
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
124 N. PINE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72205
November 14, 1986 NOV 17 �gg1g.I1'+Ii�
MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE
OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
Mr. Antoni Bozynski w
Zoning Administrator
Office of Comprehensive Plalming
Rm. 311, City Hall
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Mr. Boznyski :
In reference to our conversation of yesterday regarding the November 12,
1986 disapproval for home occu»ation accessory use permit, see attached notice,
I would appreciate your informing the Board of Adjustment of the following:
1. I have no employees nor do I display any signs.
2. My "monthly financial statement work" consists of four clients, one of
whom is my brother— in — law in Hot Springs. In all cases I pick up
and deliver the monthly work.
In summary, it would viork an undue financial hardship on me to open and
maintain an outside office. As previosly mentioned I have no work staff, see no
clients but simply prepare the v;ork in my small office (wliieli only has my desk
and one chair for me). mr primary source of income comes from my late aunt
and father's estates, both domiciled in Michigan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Richard C. Newberg
Certified Public Accountant
enclosure
(6) Home Occupation:
1. Home occupations shall be permitted that will not:
a. Change the outside appearance of the dwelling
or provide product display visible from the
street.
b. Generate traffic, parking, sewage or water
use in excess of what is normal in the
residential neighborhood.
C. Create a hazard to person or property,
results in electrical interference or becomes
a nuisance.
d. Result in outside storage or display of any
material or product.
e. Involve accessory buildings.
f. Result in signage beyond that which may be
required by other government agencies.
g. Limited to 500 square feet in area, but in no
case more than 49 percent of the floor area
in a dwelling.
h. Stock in trade shall not exceed 10 percent of
the floor area of the accessory use.
2. The following are permitted home occupations
provided they do not violate any of the provisions
of the previous paragraph:
a. Dressmaking, sewing and tailoring.
b. Painting, sculpturing or writing (artistic
endeavors).
C. Telephone answering service or radio
monitoring service.
d. Home crafts such as model making, rug weaving
and lapidary work.
e. Tutoring limited to two students at a time.
f. Music instruction limited to two students at
a„ time.
g. Home cooking and preserving.
h. Computer programming.
i. Clock or watch repair.
65
j. Personal or home care products marketing
without stock in trade on premises.
3. The following are prohibited as home occupations:
a. Barber shops and beauty shops.
b. Animal hospitals.
C. Dance studios.
d. Mortuaries.
e. Nursery schools.
f. Private clubs.
g. Small appliance repair shops.
h. Restaurants.
i. Stables or kennels.
j. Animal grooming.
k. Engine or motor repair shops.
l. Paint shops.
4. Any proposed home occupation that is neither
specifically permitted by Paragraph 2, nor
specifically prohibited by Paragraph 3. shall
require an accessory use permit and be granted or
denied by the Public Works Department upon
consideration of those standards contained in
Paragraph B.6. Appeals from determinations of the
Public Works Department shall be to the Board of
Adjustment. Any proposed use requiring employees
who are not residents of the dwelling shall be
approved -by the Board of Adjustment prior to
issuance of permits.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 15 - Other Matters
Owner: Dorothy Barry
Address: 3924 Burris Lane, #3 (Zoned "R-2 ")
Request: To review the staff's decision regarding
possible expansion of a mobile home
park.
STAFF REPORT:
This request involves a storage building and is being made
as a result of an enforcement action by the City because the
owner having no building permit and questions regarding the
status of the new construction. In addition to the
structure in question, there are six mobile homes located on
the property, and the issue is whether the new construction
is an expansion of the mobile home or just an accessory
building. The Enforcement staff has also expressed some
concern with the size of the building, 12' x 40', and the
possibility of being used for residential purposes.
Ms. Barry has stated that the building will be used for
storage of tools and other items with a shop area in one end
of it.
Section 5-101, Nonconformities and Exceptions, states that:
A nonconforming use shall not be extended, expanded,
enlarged, or increased in intensity to any structure or
land area other than occupied by such nonconforming use
on the effective date of this ordinance or any amendment
hereto which causes such use to become nonconforming.
After reviewing the issue, the Planning staff offered
Ms. Barry two options:
1. File for site plan approval and rezoning in order to
expand a mobile home park.
2. File an appeal with the Board of Adjustment.
Ms. Barry requested that the item be forwarded to the Board
of Adjustment for review.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 15 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Dorothy Barry was present and addressed the Board.
Ms. Barry said that she resides in the mobile home park and
that the building in question will be used for her own
personal storage and other items. In addition, part of the
structure is to be utilized as a workshop. There was a long
discussion about the issue. A motion was then made which
stated that the building was not an expansion of the
nonconforming use and was an accessory structure to the
residence. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes,
0 noes and 4 absent.
Staff reminded Ms. Barry that the structure could not be
used as a dwelling or converted to any other nonresidential
activity.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 16 - Other Matters
Owner: William H. Hathcote
Address: 2204 West 10th Street (Zoned "R-4 ")
Request: To review the status of a recently
constructed carport /garage and to
determine whether expansion of a
nonconforming use has occurred.
STAFF REPORT:
An application for a building permit was filed for 2204 West
10th which stated that the proposed new construction would
be used for vehicle storage only. The building permit was
issued for a metal carport /garage to be attached to the
existing structure. After inspecting the site, the
enforcement staff informed Mr. Hathcote that he was in
violation of the Zoning Ordinance because the new
construction expanded a nonconforming use, an upholstery
shop, by utilizing the garage for furniture repair and
storage of materials. The owner's position is that the area
in question has been used for some type of nonresidential
activity since 1920 with Hathcote Upholstery, occupying the
property since 1960. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits
expansion of nonconforming uses and states:
A nonconforming use shall not be extended, expanded,
enlarged or increased in intensity to any structure or
land area other than that occupied by such nonconforming
use on the effective date of this ordinance or any
amendment hereto which causes such use to become
nonconforming.
Attached is a copy of Mr. Hathcote's letter and, Kenny Scott
of the Enforcement staff will be present at the hearing to
provide additional information.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
William Hathcote was present and represented by Josh
McHughes, an attorney. Mr. McHughes spoke and said that the
addition in question was a replacement for an existing
structure, a carport which had been removed. Mr. McHughes
pointed out that the area had always been used for a work
space and that no new machinery, people, or inventory was
added. He then stated there was no violation of
December 15, 1986
Item No. 16 - Continued
Section 5-101 /C.1 because the degree of nonconformity had
not increased. There was a long discussion about the
various issues. Mr. Hathcote then addressed the Board. He
said that no expansion had occurred, but because of problems
with fires in the neighborhood, he had just enclosed the
area. A motion was made which stated that the addition was
not an expansion of the nonconforming use as per the Zoning
Ordinance. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0
noes, and 4 absent.
And finally, a list of improvements following the construction
of an all-metal carport which is attached to the existing
structure.
1. Reduction of a fire hazard because materials will be
housed in an all-metal building.
2. Removal of unsightly garbage cans. Garbage is now
being disposed of off the street in a "Dumpster ".
3. Loading and Unloadinp now is being done off the
street.
4. Parking space for neighborhood residents has been
increased.
To summarize, the utilization of off-street loading and unloadinc,
off-street narking* and garbage pick-up, not to mention the reduced
fire hazard, add up to definite improvements for the neighborhood.
Pherefore, I would like to request we continue to exist as we are
under the present zoning .
Thank you for your consideration.
Gilliam H. Hathcote
December 15, 1986
Item No. 17 - 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.
STAFF 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.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 17 - Other Matters
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
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.
December 15, 1986
Item No. 18 - Other Matters
Owner: Joy Haggard
Address: #52 Rosemoor
Request: Use interpretation for a home
occupation permit.
STAFF REPORT:
The owner applied for a home occupation accessory use permit
for a furniture restoration business. The proposed use
involves buying old furniture which she then restores a
piece at a time. After that is completed, the item is taken
to a flea market to be sold on a commission basis. The work
would take place in a storage building and in the den of the
house. The old furniture would be the only stock stored on
the premise.
The Home Occupation Use Committee reviewed the application
and denied it. They determined that the use was
incompatible with the home occupation provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance and needed to be addressed by the Board of
Adjustment.
Attached is a copy of the home occupation section from the
ordinance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The item was removed from consideration.
j. Personal or home care products marketing
without stock in trade on premises.
3. The following are prohibited as home occupations:
a. Barber shops and beauty shops.
b. Animal hospitals.
C. Dance studios.
d. Mortuaries.
e. Nursery schools.
f. Private clubs.
g. Small appliance repair shops.
h. Restaurants.
i. Stables or kennels.
j. Animal grooming.
k. Engine or motor repair shops.
l. Paint shops.
4. Any proposed home occupation that is neither
specifically permitted by Paragraph 2, nor
specifically prohibited by Paragraph 3. shall
require an accessory use permit and be granted or
denied by the Public Works Department upon
consideration of those standards contained in
Paragraph B.6. Appeals from determinations of the
Public Works Department shall be to the Board of
Adjustment. Any proposed use requiring employees
who are not residents of the dwelling shall be
approved,by the Board of Adjustment prior to
issuance of permits.
(6) Home Occupation:
1. Home occupations shall be permitted that will not:
a. Change the outside appearance of the dwelling
or provide product display visible from the
street.
b. Generate traffic, parking, sewage or water
use in excess of what is normal in the
residential neighborhood.
c. Create a hazard to person or property,
results in electrical interference or becomes
a nuisance.
d. Result in outside storage or.display of any
material or product.
e. Involve accessory buildings.
f. Result in signage beyond that which may be
required by other government agencies.
g. Limited to 500 square feet in area, but in no
case more than 49 percent of the floor area
in a dwelling.
h. Stock in trade shall not exceed 10 percent of
the floor area of the accessory use.
2. The following are permitted home occupations
provided they do not violate any of the provisions
of the previous paragraph:
a. Dressmaking, sewing and tailoring.
b. Painting, sculpturing or writing (artistic
endeavors).
C. Telephone answering service or radio
monitoring service.
d. Home crafts such as model making, rug weaving
and lapidary work.
e. Tutoring limited to two students at a time.
f. Music-instruction limited to two students at
ar t ime .
g. Home cooking and preserving.
h. Computer programming.
i. Clock or watch repair.
65
December 15, 1986
There being no further business before the Board, the
meetin was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Chairman Secretary
Date