Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Z-03125-A Application
APPLICATION FOR REZONING O,ti ,'�G CASE FILE hQ_. Z- A .} PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DOCKETED FOR J �� �� 19 04A L-!LOp.m. Application is hereby made to the Little Rock Board of Directors through the Planning Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 43 of the Code of Ordinances, which was adopted in accordance with the requirements of Act 186, of 1957, Acts of Arkansas, petitioning to rezone the following described area: Z, t W. -7B Title to this property is vested in: l" -A t i desired that the boundaries shown on the _ist�i t Map be amended an,? that this area be reclassified from the present_ !�' FAN t District. to District. Present Use of Property: N11314AMI 3a1UT>t Proposed Use of Property: STI It is understood that notice of the public hearing hereon must he Sent to owners of properties which lie within 200 feet of the subject property in accordance with the requirements set forth in the instructions given ,,,-ith this application, and it is further understood that the ;cost such notice is borne by the applicant. T1` APPLICANT: MAIL ADDRESS: lJ C 2c TELEPHONE : FILING FEE: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Approved: BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACTION: 7` Z Denied: Ordi, ce No. n/ W- 6 Publish one time in the Arkansas Democrat July 21, 1984. Send two proofs of publication and one invoice to the Little Rock Office of Comprehensive Planning, Room 311, City Hall, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 43 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, the following issue has been docketed for a hearing before the Little Rock Board of Adjustment in the Chamber of the Board of Directors, 2nd Floor, City Hall, Little Rock, Arkansas, on July 27, 1984, at 2 p.m. Z -3125-A -°`2500 West 7th Street Name: White Water Tavern Request: An interpretation of the nonconforming use provisions of Chapter 43 of the Code for purposes of determining the nonconforming status of the subject property. All parties interested may appear at the said time and place. The application and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the Office of Comprehensive Planning, Room 305, City Hall, Little Rock, Arkansas. All persons interested are invited to review the subject matter in the said office and discuss the proposal with the Zoning Administrator. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND THIS 19TH DAY OF JULY, 1984. ti ;Richard Wood Office of Comprehensive Planning DAV IS & MQBBS CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS 5301 W 8TH • LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 12204 PHONE: A. C. 501 664-0324 L` Va For: ur. i or r ✓ r _ 4 Ali -T-- x� . x A F/P -,,- 50.0/ Lq� I C,� l V `1 `' Q dale S. I t q Ali -T-- x� . x A F/P -,,- 50.0/ Lq� I i i• . � m �4s: r Par: of Lot ti link �'er..la1e Addit i.o" �U t' e 4� `Y ci Pt,Iaski. y, -r �. W. Corner o Coz,nty, ArkaT`sa-; 3e�cx:i.:,ed as: 'legjmi�nq i3 : u�t.. ❑ t..e 5- 0' , • ti-:ence Soutl- ?.' ; t'-:ence We : -t t;�er:ce Ea_t said Lot F'•; t} e(:ce urt,, C, C I _ This is to certify that the above described land dtlhla tss been surveyed.ornersthe vir_ity,sare marke as shown and are in accordance with existing Certification is Tor• anr, 1 iini ted t(1 N1 ,,artii:`- ;Down hererm_ --: = .}::-�__:.:�,;• , ...-�: � :}.- rte: -;�C'� -� _ ..�•M1• � tee. �. _ ^ma�cc S_`,�: _.>.Z:" �� _ :.'':� •...� - � _ _ �i f I C,� l `' Q dale t I i i• . � m �4s: r Par: of Lot ti link �'er..la1e Addit i.o" �U t' e 4� `Y ci Pt,Iaski. y, -r �. W. Corner o Coz,nty, ArkaT`sa-; 3e�cx:i.:,ed as: 'legjmi�nq i3 : u�t.. ❑ t..e 5- 0' , • ti-:ence Soutl- ?.' ; t'-:ence We : -t t;�er:ce Ea_t said Lot F'•; t} e(:ce urt,, C, C I _ This is to certify that the above described land dtlhla tss been surveyed.ornersthe vir_ity,sare marke as shown and are in accordance with existing Certification is Tor• anr, 1 iini ted t(1 N1 ,,artii:`- ;Down hererm_ --: = .}::-�__:.:�,;• , ...-�: � :}.- rte: -;�C'� -� _ ..�•M1• � tee. �. _ ^ma�cc S_`,�: _.>.Z:" �� _ :.'':� •...� - � _ _ �i f ITEM NO. Owner:t JjE� Applicant: Location: -Z- CO Request: 7D Purpose: -71 > L Size: Existing Use: T H. ST ST C-211 -------------------- --------------------- o. A W. 3RD, ST, 12 m I I1 10 ZS :- I -Z-fWA 12 Z- AON S-00 W. 7Ti4 (WHITEKA7EEF—'\ 4- 0a: Z �- cn Z 0 UjZZW m I I1 10 ZS :- I -Z-fWA 12 Z- AON S-00 W. 7Ti4 (WHITEKA7EEF—'\ 4- 0a: Z ITEM NO. Owner: J!E� h4 N i F151Z Applicant: 'P—;"lC+14 T—"'D'>A�� Location: 7-S00 � • -710:'- C� =' - + Request: 6 T—POt-*1 �t3 Tb U -s Purpose: -j l N [� N..oL /94-M Size: Existing Use: -44,,C� IT- 1L_p E t.A� SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING North - South - �l�ll`�L (te l/ — C, t,4 East - West - F C VvzKA t- T- PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS P 612 636 698 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) ^ Sent to S�CP9d 6 th m a Litteled Rflc�Ce, AR 7220 a a Postage $ W * Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee P 612 636 697 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) C3 Mes H. Keet III 1 Street and No. `o — - - a T 1P.O., State and ZIP Code O d t7 24 h I os age GoSpecial Return Receipt Showing Certified Fee to whom and Date Delivered a Return receipt showing to whom, Restricted Delivery Fee Date, and Address al Delivery o TOTAL Postage and Fees $ U. Cr* Postmark or Date TOTAL Postage and Fees $ E 0 ILLW d P 612 636 697 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) C3 Mes H. Keet III 1 Street and No. `o — - - a T 1P.O., State and ZIP Code O d t7 24 h I os age GoSpecial ► Certified Fee $ Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing to whom and Date Delivered Return receipt Showing to whom, Date. and Address of Delivery TOTAL Postage and Fees ; g Postmark or Date c� E `0 rn a P 505 i37 780 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL PgayiDNO 1 001 FOR INTERNA11ONAE COVERAGEL MAIL �.y ($,e Reverse) I� ^ sant to Lei h G. Wilson � Street and No• P.O.. State and ZIP e o a $ vi Postage =i 4K Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Flestricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing to whor" and Data Delivered a to whom, eo Return Receipt Showing o N Date, and Address of Delivery go g m TOTAL Postage and Fees u. 0 o o Qoatrnark or D+Le w o E Co LL £ a o _ W. CA a P 612 636 696 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Sent to Rebeccaj. Kay decaldo-M. Schuman 1"tSLldn ocgq� AR 72207 Postage $ Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing to whom and Date Delivered Return receipt showing to whom, Date, and Address of Delivery TOTAL Postage and Fees $ Postmark or Date ti rx17(161- \-te1j P 612 636 705 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Set to Wichard T. Kirs el Streettpd W. "All P-,h Stat }rtdpj@_odRock,AR 721 Postage $ Certified Fee paJaAllap ale(] pue woyM of 6ulmoyS ldlaoad wnled Special Delivery Fee aad ti8A!I80 Petolilsad Restricted Delivery Fee aad tianlla(] IeloadS Return Receipt Showing to whom and Date Delivered aad PaU13r80 Return receipt showing to whom, Date, and Address of Delivery a6elsod TOTAL Postage and Fees $ Postmark or Date P 612 636 704 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) ant to beet and No. O., State and ZIP Code N. Little Rock Med $Feeelivery Fee Delivery Feeceipt Showingnd Date Deliveredeipt showing to whom,Address of Deliverystage and Fees g tmark or Date P 612 636 701 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) 'Street and -Vo. P.O., State and ZIP Code Little Ro4ed k AR e d Fee Delivery Fee ed Delivery Feeeceipt Showing and Date Deliveredceipt showing to whom,d Address of Deliveryostage and Fees $ 11 In algia ro Rrewtsod P.O.. State and ZIP Code Little Rock AR 7220 saad pue 66elsod 1V101 $ tieAllaO to sserppV pue 'ales 'woym of 6ulmoys ldlal wnlad Certified Fee paJaAllap ale(] pue woyM of 6ulmoyS ldlaoad wnled Special Delivery Fee aad ti8A!I80 Petolilsad Restricted Delivery Fee aad tianlla(] IeloadS Return Receipt Showing to whom and Date Delivered aad PaU13r80 t a6elsod 0ZZL NZ)OH OT-4--T'I apoO dIZ pue elelS ''O"d u4L •ftN;1Q$Z4S of lugs (aSianaH aaS) IIVW IVNOI1VN831Nl 80d ION 030IAOdd 30V83AOO 30NVUASNI ON IIVW G31dl1d33 dOd 1d1303H Z04 9E9 2'19 d P 612 636 703 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) ^ Sent to 0 Sl Ind9hoshoni Drive 1� P.O., State and ZIP Code a .Little Rock Ar 7211 c7Postage $ '0 # Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing to whom and Date Delivered cc Return receipt showing to whom, Data, and Address of Delivery T TOTAL Postage and Fees LL $ Postmark or Date c°R E 0 LL a P 612 636 700 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Sant to - Street and No. P.O.. State and ZIP Code Little Rock AR 7220 Postage $ Certified Fee Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing to whom and Date Delivered 0 3 m S m Fr CID m N N Co a� a m LL 0 0 28 E a LL N a P 612 636 706 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Sent to Ar hufi D ERN Street and No. 3716 Lochridge Rand P.O. State and ZIe Code N_ Little Rock,AR 721 Postage $ Certified Fee Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing to whom and Date Delivered Return Receipt Showing to whom and Date Delivered Return receipt showing to whom, Date, and Address of Delivery Return receipt showing to whom, Date, and Address of Delivery TOTAL Postage and Fees $ Postmark or Date P 612 636 702 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) 5WVBert and Alice Rhod s co a Street and No. i$ o P.D.. L i tt�ae zR Code r AR 72420' a D ui 7 Postage $ Cert N Go w m LL Postmark or Date chi 0 LL rn a 4 m P 612 636 699 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) M ito rgil & Janice Smith Street and No. ------------- ified Fee Postage SpejFee Certified Fee Resivery Fee Special Delivery Fee Rett Showing Restricted Delivery Fee to wate DeliveredRetshowing Return Receipt Showing to whom and Date Delivered to whore,Datress Return receipt showing to whom, Date, and Address of Delivery of Delivery TOTAL Postage and Fees TOTAL Postage and Fees $ 7 Postage $ Cert N Go w m LL Postmark or Date chi 0 LL rn a 4 m P 612 636 699 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) M ito rgil & Janice Smith Street and No. P.O., State and ZIP Code Little Rock AR 72204 Postage $ Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing to whom and Date Delivered Return receipt showing to whom, Date, and Address of Delivery TOTAL Postage and Fees $ �o W Q m w ri m a z z m 0 sun i acmwcn: %.ompiete nems t, z, z ano 4. P your address in the "RETURN TO" space on the re se side. Failure to do this will prevent this card from be , returned to you. The return receipt fee will provide you the name of the person delivered to and the data of delivery For additional fogs the following services are available. Consult postmaster for fees and check box(es) low services] requested. 1. AR'Show to whom; date and address of delivery. 2. Q Restricted Drliveliy. 3. Article Addressed to: P.. Leigh G. Wilson 2,120 Lloyd Court - Little Rock, Aransas 72205 4. Type of Service: Article Number ❑ Registered Q Insured , REG151'EREa INSUREo EMertified Q COD []CERTIFIED ❑ OOD ❑ E.Wes small ❑ EXPRESS UAIL AluvaW obtain signature of addressee,9Lagent`arld - DATE DELIVERED. 5. Signature - Addressae x i tore - Agent ate f Delivery 5. DATE u 8. Ad 'i Address ONZY if7BQ oWed and fee • SENDER: Complete items 1, 2, 3, and 4. Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on reverse. (CONSULT POSTMASTER. FOR FEES) Th i. `!€h following service is requested (check one). to whom and date delivered .................... —lP ❑ Show to whom, date, and address of delivery.. —e 2. ❑ RESTRICTED DELIVERY (The rravkud deblery fee is charged in addition ro rhe rrtur+r rmeipr few. ) TOTAL S 3. ARTICLE ADDRESSED -TO: Rebbeca J. Kay Gerald M. Schuman 7001 Rockwood Road 418kE-1 LWR k AR *Q11""NIM , REG151'EREa INSUREo []CERTIFIED ❑ OOD ❑ EXPRESS UAIL (Ahnays oWaln signature of addressee or agent) I have received the article described above. SIGNATURE 11 Addressee ❑ Authorized agent 5. DATE u rosrtuutK , _: a. ABOR SM'S ( j%rrgaau� ��'.. t 7. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: 7a ElsPtj�yEE S ; .. J=Ya_- r SENDER: Complete items 1, 2, 3 and 4. Put your address in the •'RETURN TO" space on the 3 elerSs side. Failure to do this will proven[ this card from ca being returned to you, The return receipt fee will provido ou the name of the person delivered to and the date of delivery For additional Teas thV following services are avaiIaWe. Consult Rosrmastor for fees and check boxlss} for service(s) requasted. . 1. ❑ Show to whom, -da" and address pf j"lvery, 2• Restricted Delivery. 3._ Article.AdOressed to: Roy D. and Stella Fields 2509 W. 6th Little Rock, - AR -72201 4, Type of Service Article Nwnber 11 RstRed 111 diured 1:1Certif ed . - ❑ COD, ❑ Exprgss Wil . Always obtain signature of addresm 94 agent and DATE QELIVEREL7, G 3. Signa are -- ddresxee- ., . 6. Signature - Agent A X M 7: Date of Delivery C - �/� �'�rL1 Z H. Addresye6's Agdress fONL Y ff►equeatedIft � I m m v I 1 N V11 +j SENDER: Complete items 1, 2, 3 and 4. Put your address in the "RETURN TO" space on the reverse side. Failure to do this will prevent this card from being returned to you. The return receipt Sae will provide you the name of the person delivered to and the date of delivery. For additional fees the following services are available. Consult postmaster for foes and check boxlesl: for servic [s} requested, 1. Show to whom, date and address of delivery, 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery. 5., 1krticle.AdOresseo to: - Albert and Alice Rhodes 1864 Howard Little Rock, AR 72202 4i: TYPO of Service' Article Number ' �❑ stf#ed ❑ Iiiisured O I&Tertified ❑ COD, ❑ Express Mail X Always obtain signature of, addressee.2 agent and DATE DELIVERED. 5. Slgnatu X 6. Signature — Agent r ' X 7.. of Delivery 'n 8. Addressee's Addressff i'EgU9V6dazd fee ! SENDER: Complete items 1, 2. 3 and 4. 7n O Put your address in the "RETURN TO" space on The 3 reverse side. Failure to do this will prevent trtis card from W being returned to you. Tha return receipt tea will provide Ou the name of the person delivered to and the data of r delivery. For additionet fees the following services are available. Consult postmaster for fees and check Wx(as) . C for servicats) repueSted, 0 1 . how to wham, dale end address of delivery. W 2'. Q RestrictackDel ivery. 3, Article Addressed to: John M. Reed I& Arthur Reed 3716 Lochridge Road' N. Little Rock, AR 72116 4, Type of Service= Article Number ❑ l,4ed ❑ Irured SENDER: Complete items 1, 2, 3 and 4.-- -' Put Yat r address in the "RETURN 7Q" sAace an the rover" side. Failure t0 do this will prevent this card from w being returned to you. The return racer t fee yilf rovide 11 ou [he name of the person delivered to and the date of deliver For additional f available, ees the following services are S. Consult postmaster for fees end check box(ey) ., for service(s1 reQuested. m 1 r� S+�Ow t0 wham CO date and address of delivery. W. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery. 3: Article Addressed to: Richard T. Kirspel 509 W, "All N. Little Rock, AR 72116 4. Type of Service: Article Number �❑ egistered ❑ Insured SCJ Certified ❑ COD ❑ Express Mail PXM71 s obtain signature of addressee .2_r agent and _ DELIVER :1 p ,9� 39 "'VI M6. Sign tyre — Agent 5 X 7• Date of Delivery m C o� C Z S. Addressee's Addrep aNLii ort a M in i SENDER: Complete items 1, 2, 3 and 4. Put your address in the ••RETURN TO" space on the reverse Side. Failure to do Th is will prevent this Card from being returned to you. The return racer s fee will rovide you the name of the parson delivered to and the dere of delivery. For additional fees the following services are avaitable. Consult postmaster for toes and check boxes) for service(s) requested 1. Show to whom, date and address of delivwy. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery. 3. Article Addressed to: Clifton and Karen Brack #83 Shoshoni Drive North Littlee8ock, AR 7211 4. Type of Service: Article Nurrd)w C] ytegistered ' ❑ Insured CertifiEd Q COD ❑ Express,Mait Always obtain signature. of addressesiaLpWnt Wnd, DATE DELIVERED. � 5. Signet re —addressee X Y� 6. Signature — Agent 3 X n 7. Date of 6alivery D 8� ' Add►W �'-a L Y VTEQtsfiled Wid fCf I! n �s,�u�.:�u:w.......,..... ,- «-__� _..,,, ., .�,—__�..._...- _-•..�-..-�-.-.. �..�.. �...�ic�:�u-: esu... W4 Certified ❑COD,Z12, � e -3 F-1Express Mail c� p / } Always obtain signature of addressee.QLapent and DATE DELIVERED. O S. Sipa tur — Addressee X y 6 ignature - Agent 'n X M m 7. [late of Delivery Z 8. Addressee's Address (ONLY I CSt f f A �,.�..6:.�...,ii;.>�ti.u.Ei•:etawu._,s�:r�i�.-.w>�.,a;s��i.�;.ii.'....,.+..._ .,..�-.a�.wss,. u,.,n...�+ «.y..._ ,.J SENDER: Complete items 1, 2, 3 and 4.-- -' Put Yat r address in the "RETURN 7Q" sAace an the rover" side. Failure t0 do this will prevent this card from w being returned to you. The return racer t fee yilf rovide 11 ou [he name of the person delivered to and the date of deliver For additional f available, ees the following services are S. Consult postmaster for fees end check box(ey) ., for service(s1 reQuested. m 1 r� S+�Ow t0 wham CO date and address of delivery. W. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery. 3: Article Addressed to: Richard T. Kirspel 509 W, "All N. Little Rock, AR 72116 4. Type of Service: Article Number �❑ egistered ❑ Insured SCJ Certified ❑ COD ❑ Express Mail PXM71 s obtain signature of addressee .2_r agent and _ DELIVER :1 p ,9� 39 "'VI M6. Sign tyre — Agent 5 X 7• Date of Delivery m C o� C Z S. Addressee's Addrep aNLii ort a M in i SENDER: Complete items 1, 2, 3 and 4. Put your address in the ••RETURN TO" space on the reverse Side. Failure to do Th is will prevent this Card from being returned to you. The return racer s fee will rovide you the name of the parson delivered to and the dere of delivery. For additional fees the following services are avaitable. Consult postmaster for toes and check boxes) for service(s) requested 1. Show to whom, date and address of delivwy. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery. 3. Article Addressed to: Clifton and Karen Brack #83 Shoshoni Drive North Littlee8ock, AR 7211 4. Type of Service: Article Nurrd)w C] ytegistered ' ❑ Insured CertifiEd Q COD ❑ Express,Mait Always obtain signature. of addressesiaLpWnt Wnd, DATE DELIVERED. � 5. Signet re —addressee X Y� 6. Signature — Agent 3 X n 7. Date of 6alivery D 8� ' Add►W �'-a L Y VTEQtsfiled Wid fCf I! n �s,�u�.:�u:w.......,..... ,- «-__� _..,,, ., .�,—__�..._...- _-•..�-..-�-.-.. �..�.. �...�ic�:�u-: esu... F SENDER: Cotgplate items 1. 2, 3 and 4. Z 9 A sls Put your address in the "RETURN TO" space on the reverse side. Failure to do this will pravent this card from being returned to you. The return recei t fee will rovide you Thu name of the person delivered to and the date of delivery- For additional fees the toliowing services are availabw Consult postmaster for fees and check boated for serve (s) requested. 1. Show to whom, date and address of daIIvery. 2. Q Re*tricted Delivery. 3. Article Addressed to: Gerald F. Hamra/James Kept 200 W. Broadway North Lithe -Roc, X, AR 72114 C Type of Service: Article Number 11Registered ElInsured ❑ Certified Q CPO Q Expreq.. Mail Always obtain signature of addresseeQagesit and DATE. DELIVERED. 5. S' o —,Addy 6.re — Agent x 7. D to a! Ilvery a. Addryswa's Addra7fianYIfmquWeda ee , SENDER: Cpmplete itetrls 1.2, 3 and 4. iO Put your address in the "RETURN TO" space on the reverse side. Failure to do this will prevent this card from WW being returned to you. Ra return recei E fee tivill rovide a ou the name of the person delivered to and the date of . 91EX2r . For additional leas The follows ' ng services are availaWa. Consult postmaster for fees and check boxles! for serve (:) requested. 1, w to whom, date and address of delivery. w 2. ❑ Ralltricted Delivery. 3. Article Addressed to. Cheryl D. Dees ' 2801 Circlewood Little Rock, AR 72207 4. Type of Service: Article Number �rtistered ❑ Insured ' :• ified ❑ COD © l;xprez !Wail '� � � �1 Always obtain signature Of addressee agent and DATE DELIVERED, 6. Sign � Addressee - rd S. Signature , A }C:+lir f: f '0 7. Date of Deli ry C Z8. Addresiee•i drsass j Y jf o- DAVIS & MGBBS Date:. - CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS =- -- - / {,;101 W STH LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS !220-0 SCdle: �!r'•_' G1 - PHONE: A. C. 501 664-0324 — J For: i Z" .�' ? _ zi.o,-----:7k--. - _. ,dor, c:._a,�• 1j I L), Q �l x \ � `'l i7yv� r � � ole Z FSP _ � l m }ez. 3a�e Acl�i ti3O,t r.0 ti e City Of Lj rtle hock, Pi)la<_,ki port c.i Lo z., link ", of tme S. k'. Corner of r Arkar.sa_ 3ercri.. ed as 7e�1Ct11i;C�L13' _' Urt} SOlit ] 1. tnerce We. t �Q i:.•ty, t•.el'1Ce } ,'7 titeT':Ce East ?0 , theTlce smid LOt E:; t, ort. `C I • 7,_5 m This is to certify that the above described lrandurhas been urrveyedRthe 1 Corners are marK( a shown and are it accordance with existing ries shown hereon. c�I-tification is ror and limited ._c� the {)a1 z zos- ;,4 � ��7 114 �� � �-" S� 72- c> 2-�o-3 j4q 5 3s �r U � f7 � V i �9 fl i C? h c-- ---•- -�. !�r � �e- F ITOL) Z tk -430 I2 H � Z- 312,5 z- ntLA H � N {!1 W H O ETA u H W u cc J W. 3h Z -Z 900 WEST FOURTH STREET P.O. BOX 1300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203 (501)374-9977 DaOIJOn LaIV 31=y L10! ATTORNEYS AT LAW July 27, 1984 TO: Board of Adjustment City of Little Rock, Arkansas Re: White Water Tavern and Restaurant CHARLES DARWIN DAVIDSON STEPHEN L. GERSHNER CHARLES PHILLIP BOYD, JR. THOMAS H. McLAIN, JR. The White Water Tavern has been in operation for many, many years. The use of the property has been recognized by area residents and the City of Little Rock. In early 1983 the owners of White Water Tavern had some financial difficulty primarily arising out of a similar facility in Fayetteville, Arkansas. There were disagreements among the partners concerning the method of operation. These problems resulted in the financial difficulties. The restaurant was closed while the problems were to be resolved. This was a temporary situation. All partners concerned always intended to reopen the White Water upon agreement of the partners and financing. Negotiations among the partners occurred and financing was arranged through the summer of 1983. Again all parties intended to reopen the White Water and continue its operation. The problem had been resolved and the lender was prepared to refinance and provide working capital. However, the IRS had placed a lien on the property which affected the financing. With the acquiesence and in fact, encouragement of the lender, White Water filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on October 27, 1983. A Chapter 11 is a reorganization proceeding whereby the Debtor is permitted to operate during reorganization. The purpose of this Chapter 11 was to facilitate the financing so that the White Water could be reopened. However the legal proceedings did delay the reopening. The complication concerning the IRS had been resolved, the bank financing had been agreed upon and in anticipation of coming out of bankruptcy the White Water was reopened in April 1984. The bankruptcy proceeding substantially delayed the reopening of the White Water. The intent of the owners of the White Water property has been to reopen the White Water with substantial improvements to the physical facility and menu. There was never any intent to abandon the use of the property at any time. Very truly yours, C .ARLES A YIIN DAVIDSON CDD/cjl 4147D ES 1258 is exactly what he twenty-first the appellee's untimely. hat the notice incorrect, mis- guage of the be considered ;tate Insurance summons were ',ounty, rather of this cause. otation: "You ►f the date this in below." It is ty within the ering from that misinform the al reasons. The Although the a hearing on devoid of any etter accounted Perse merely for rors unless pre - 192 Ark. 135, it the transmit - ski County was noes indicating for venue. Un - graphical error. 57 S.W. 2d 433 the twenty day tter, we cannot fers from that of 07,425 S.W. 2d ARK.J 123 Joseph B. BLUNDELL Jr. a. CITY OF WEST HELENA, ARKANSAS 75-22 522 S.W. 2d 661 Opinion delivered May 19, 1975 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — ZONING ORDINANCES — CONSTRUCTION. — Zoning ordinances,, being in derogation of the common Iii Or roust be strictly construed jn favor of the pro Ll y mor a under the Constitution -the rsgh€ of private property is regarded as before and higher than constitutional sanction. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — PREEXISTING USES, DEPRIVATION OF — EFFECT. — Attempts to deprive an owner of a preexisting use have been regarded as unconstitutional as a taking of property without compensation or in violation of due process of law. 3. ZONING — EXIST" — Tt35± t�i.. AT#It►4l. — In determining w1-iether the use of prapertyis a� exisfln` g use at the time of adoption of a zoning ordinance to the extent that the use may be continued thereafter, the test employed is "s}j.§>tf 1 use" which requires that steps taken toward implementatia� ol',3 substantial nature,gr involve substa ' 4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — DUE PROCESS — REGULATION OF USE OF PROPERTY. — The mere ownership of property which could be utilized for the conduct of a lawful business does not constitute a right to so utilize it which cannot be terminated by the enact- ment of a valid zoning ordinance. 5.. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — VESTED RIGHTS — ESTABLISHMENT. — Thejigjt_LQ utilize one's property Irr the conduct of a lawful business not ininiicable"ta the }iealth, safety, or morals of the community becomes vested when, prior to enactment of such Igstrictions, the owner has in good faith substantially'cntgec 4 upon the performance of a -series of actp CICAMajoAlk- complishment of the end intended. 6. ZONTNCOF — BURDEN OF PROOF. — The burden of proof is upon a property owner who claims rights by virtue of a nonconforming use. 7. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — NONCONFORMING USE OF PROPERTY — REQUISITES FOR ESTABLISHING. — A mere Contemplated use of property without active steps beyond preliminary work or plan- ning or substantial investment to effectuate it is not sufficient to invest a property owner with property rights in a nonconfor- ming use, or .with a right to extend a nonconforming use. 8. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — NONCONFORMING USE OF PROPERTY — ESTABLISHMENT. — F i 124 BLUNDELL U. CITY OF WEST HfrLENA 1258 rot of a substantial nature is not suf7irient to establish a vested right, and t#tC mere purchase of property with intention to devote it to a use is not sufficient in spite of preliminary work sttch as clearing, grading and excavating, if that work is not of a substantial nature, or if the. owner has not incurred substantial uitg_di=tl}t to the use of -the property. 9. ZONING - NONCONFORMING USES - ABANDONMENT. — The mere fact that landowner's development of particular mobile home spaces extended from September 1971 to,january 1974, or that there was no demand for the spaces, did not constitute an aban» donment of the nonconforming usc. 10. ZONING - NONCONFORMING USES - REGULATION. - With respect to the validity of zoning ordinance provision terminating preexisting nonconforming uses, no distinction can be made between the use of land and the use of buildings. Appeal from Phillips Chancery Court, George K. C.'racraft, Chancellor; affirmed in part; reversed in part. David Solomon, for appellant. Ralph C. Murray, for appellee. JOHN A. FoCtEMAN, justice. This appeal brings into sharp focus the conflict between private property rights and the right of municipal government to control the owner's use of property. The particular question is the extent to which an owner has freedom to the use of his property after the adop- tion of a zoning ordinance which results in the use not being in conformity with uses permitted in the area in which it is located.. The particular question is without precedent in this state and it presents the usual difficulties experienced in achieving the appropriate balance between right of an in- dividual to free use and enjoyment of his property and equal- ly important rights of society in the interest of the public welfare. On August 3, 1965, appellant purchased a five -acre tract of land lying along Springdale Road between the city limits of Helena and those of West Helena. In 1966, he began develop- ing the tract as a mobile home park. The topography of the tract was such that development was started on the east side, where 12 mobile home spaces were first laid out, after which a 20 -Foot road to serve these lots and 13 others was con - Aim.) strutted and tl west side of thi of these spaces placed in this Sometime placed on one o lots by a tonne was also availal sewer system ai cupancy to no n sewer system aI system. Appella sewer system p were available. Sometime i Consulting Engi 1968, for further was then named consist eventuall mitted to the Ai 1968, and app Engineering on On Februa appellant's prop Helena and the c on February 22, 1123, 463 S.W. 3 Helena adopted annexed area. B Blundell was cla as a mobile hom are permitted o. West Helena sev in September 19' easement for the., system and mad continued devele tion to the City c connection, i.e.; ARK.] BLUNDELL V. Crry OF WEST HELENA 125 structed and the 13 additional spaces were laid out on the west side of this road. The ground level was much lower west of these spaces and a septic tank to serve these 25 spaces was placed in this area. Sometime in October, 1966, the first mobile home was placed on one of the first 12 lots. Water was available to these lots by a connection to the Helena water system. Electricity was also available. Problems developed with reference to the sewer system and the state health authorities restricted oc- cupancy to no more than four mobile homes with the existing sewer system and recommended connection to a city sewer system. Appellant found the cost of connection to the Helena sewer system prohibitive and no West Helena sewer lines were available. Sometime in 1968, appellant employed Cline -Frazier Consulting Engineers, who completed detailed plans injune, 1968, for further development of appellant's property, which was then named Springdale Village Trailer Park, and was to consist eventually of a total of 44 lots. These plans were sub- mitted to the Arkansas State Board of Health on June 13, 1968, and approved by its Bureau of Environmental Engineering on June 17, 1968. On February 17, 1969, the County Court annexed appellant's property, with other lands, to the City of West Helena and the order of annexation was finally affirmed here on February 22, 1971. See Kalb v. City of West ffelena, 249 Ark. 1123, 463 S. W. 36S. On December 8, 1971, the City of West Helena adopted Ordinance 1020 to govern zoning in the annexed area. By this ordinance, this property of appellant Blundell was classified as "Residential R -A" making its use as a mobile home park non -conforming because such parks are permitted only in commercial zones in West Helena. West Helena sewer lines had been extended to the property in September 1971, and appellant granted the city a 20 -foot easement for these lines. He then disconnected his septic tank system and made connection with the city sewer line. After continued development of the property, Blundell's applica- tion to the City of West Helena for a permit for an electrical connection, i.e., for the placing of a meter and furnishing of 126 BLUNDELL V. CITY OF WEST HELENA [258 electricity on one of the first 25 lots laid out, but not one of the first 12, was rejected in January 1974, on the ground that this would be an extension of a non -conforming use. Blundell then brought this suit to require the issuance of the permit and to establish his right to continue his development of his entire tract of land, or in the alternative, the first 25 lots, as a mobile home park. The chancery court resolved the conflict in favor of the community's interest in public welfare and development and against Blundell's interest in the use of his property, denying him any relief and holding that the extension of the use of the facilities beyond the first 12 lots would be an impermissible extension of a non -conforming use. We disagree with the learned chancellor as to the particular space involved and as to all the first 25 lots but not as to any contemplated use of the remainder of the property for mobile home spaces. The chancellor is to be commended for his exhaustive study of legal authorities and of the record. As a result the issues are brought into sharp focus. Portions of his opinion set ottt Pertinent facts and,issues. Among other things, he said: ....it is apparent that the plaintiff purchased this five - acre tract with the intention of utilizing all of it' as a trailer park to accommodate some forty-four trailers. All his actions in employing engineers to plan and advise and prepare a plat for that development confirm this. At the time his land was annexed and zoned by the City of West Helena... he had only four or five lots actually in use for the intended purpose. His delay in extending further by that time was due in part to difficulty en- countered with septic tank systems and financial inabili- ty to connect with existing sewer lines. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that at the time of the enact- ment in question his actual use was thus limited and he has extended that use since that date to include 12 such lots, all located on a line extending north and south along his east line.. . It is plaintiff's position that his purpose at the time of purchase coupled with investment of funds in his con- templated expansion extends his use to the full limit of ARK.] BLUNDELL V. the tract. It is the posi the area actually appy the enactment. These basic cora here. What plaintiff 4 the City to restrict hi: prior to the enactme cannot so restrict him the circumstances pe full limits of his tract part of the tract for coupled with his cant give him that right. ... [TJ he vast weight view that the purpose the growth and deve best interest of all its though permitted t( restricted and discou; panded. The courts appe tention and purpose 1 enactment and if cle effect in accomplisl therein expressly pn The courts app that such legislation law, must be constru downer in every resp the restriction and i We differ with the c. ciples he stated. The reg application of these print chancellor's opinion is t language of the West He MA [258 not one of the ound that this use. Blundell of the permit ipment of his t 25 lots, as a i favor of the lopment and -rty, denying he use of the npermissible nee with the olved and as plated use of spaces. is exhaustive a result the s opinion set -igs, he said: red this five - all of itasa r trailers. All i and advise (firm this. At y the City of is actually in in extending Efficulty en- ncial inabili- Vhatever the of the enact- nited and he lude 12 such h and south e at the time is in his con - full limit of ARK. BLUNDELL 1'. CITY OF WEST HELENA 127 the tract. It is the position of the city that he is limited to the area actually appropriated for that use at the time of the enactment. These basic concepts are not seriously questioned here. What plaintiff does question here is the power of the City to restrict his prior use to the area of actual use prior to the enactment. It is his position that the City cannot so restrict him but must under the ordinance and the circumstances permit him to enlarge his use to the full limits of his tract; that his actual appropriation of a part of the tract for this use prior to the enactment, coupled with his contemplated full use and expenditures give him that right. ... [TIhe vast weight of authority supports the sounder view that the purpose of all such legislation is to channel the growth and development of the community for the best interest of all its citizens, and that prohibited uses, though permitted to remain, should b,6 diminished, restricted and discouraged rather than nurtured and ex- panded. The courts appear to be in agreement that this in- tention and purpose must be found within the particular enactment and if clearly stated therein should be given effect in accomplishing that purpose to the extent therein expressly provided. The courts appear to be in universal agreement that such legislation, being in derogation of conu?ag law, must be construed most strictly in favor of the laar downer in every respect, including ft_ckl We differ with the chancellor very little as to the prin- ciples he stated. The real basis of our difference is in the application of these principles to the facts in the case. The chancellor's opinion is bottomed to a great extent upon language of the West Helena zoning ordinance relating to 128 BLUNDELL V. CITY OF WEST HiELENA 1258 Aimj BWNt non -conforming uses. Pertinent provisions are as follows: di su Section 2. Definitions. M — Non -conforming. A at at th building or a use of land existing at the time of enact- ment of this Ordinance, and which does not conform to The chancel the regulations of the District or the Zone in which it is, dinance relating situated. emphasis upon t structures separa non -conforming i *�w+ Section 18. Non -conforming Use and Structures. the significance I to discontinuano 1. Alterations, repairs, restoration: as we see them, A. Any non -conforming structure or portion use in this case. thereof declared unsafe by proper authorities Let it be cle may be restored to a safe condition after being either the intent recommended by the Planning Commission mobile home pa and approved by the City Council. sufficient to est; B. Any non -conforming structure may not be reconstructed or structurally altered during The. first 2 its life to an extent exceeding an aggregate and the road I cost 66% of the appraised value at the time of 1966. Gravel fo the construction of the building, unless said then provided a building is changed to a conforming use. provided by th water and sews C. No structure damaged by fire or other y things the only causes to the extent of more than 66% of its t lots mobile fair sales value immediately prior to damage absence of an shall be repaired or rebuilt excepting to con- this until the si form to the regulation of this Ordinance. ing of all the fr 2. Extension of Non -conforming Use: t ti after all this A. A non -conforming use shall not be extend- limited actual i ed, but the extension of a lawful use to any ditions and ad portion of a non -conforming structure which city sewer line existed prior to the enactment of this Or- dinance shall not be deemed an extension of September 191 was paved wit such non -conforming use, were poured f paved because I Discontinuance and Change lines and rnanl A. Whenever a non -conforming use has been Blundell s ELENA [258 are as follows: on -conforming. A the time of enact - )es not conform to Eone in which it is and Structures. tion: -ucture or portion proper authorities ndition after being ening Commission Council. ucture may not be Ily altered during ding an aggregate °alue at the time of ilding, unless said onforming use. . I by fire or other -re than 66% of its y prior to damage t excepting to con - :his Ordinance. ng Use: hall not be extend - lawful use to any ng structure which tment of this Or- ied an extension of ARK.] BLUNDELL V. CITY OF WEST HELENA . 129 discontinued for a period of six (6) months, such use shall not thereafter be reestablished, and any future use shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance. The chancellor emphasized the language in the or- dinance relating to non -conforming structures, but we place emphasis upon the title of Section 18 designating use and structures separately and the fact that only an extension of non -conforming use is prohibited. Likewise, we do not attach the significance the chancellor did to the provisions relating to discontinuance of a non -conforming use, because the facts, as we see them, do not disclose any such discontinuance of use in this case. Let it be clearly understood that we do not consider that either the intention of the landlord to use the property for a mobile home park or the development of }dans for doing so is sufficient to establish a permissible non -conforming use. The first 25 spaces were actually levelled and laid out and the road between them constructed and gravelled in 1966. Gravel for driveways, sewer lines and water lines were then provided and connected to the first 12 spaces. Water was provided by the Helena system. Blundell testified that the water and sewer were available to the other 13 lots and that the only things that would have prevented occupancy of these lots by mobile homes were the sewer problem and the absence of an electrical connection. It was useless to provide this until the sewer problem was solved. Grading and levell- ing of all the First 25 lots by bulldozer was done at the same time. The septic tank was also constructed at this time. It was after all this was done that the State Health Department limited actual use to thrcc or four spaces, because of soil con- ditions and advised Blundell that he should connect to the city sewer line. After the sewer connection was made in September 1971, the road on which the 25 lots were located was paved with concrete and concrete driveways and patios were poured for the first 12. Lots had not been previously paved because of uncertainty about ultimate location of sewer lines and manholes to effect the connection to the city system. -ming use has been I Blundell said that some fill had been necessary on lots 13 130 BLUNDELL V. CITY OF WEST RELENA 1258 through 25 due to the rugged terrain and to the fact that he had experienced some difficulty with soil washing there, due in part to the fact that they were unoccupied. He said that the weight of house trailers would pack the soil. He also testified that when the connection with the city sewer system was made, the existing sewer line did not have to be moved or repaired except in one spot. He also testified that he had worked continuously to improve the looks of the park by growing grass and planting shrubs. Blundell testified that he had a total investment of $50,000 in the whale five -acre tract and that he had obtained financing for development by borrowing from a bank. He said that the present value of the property represented one-third to one-half of his investment and that the actual money invested amounted to $30,000, about $25,000 of which was for improvements. Of this about $8,000 to $10,000 was spent for concrete after the passage of the ordinance. The lower lands on the west side had been merely clean- ed out and a road used only for ingress and egress placed there in 1966. Nothing further had been done to develop the property at the'time of the trial. In construing the city ordinances Wand their effect, we must remember t4at zoning ordinances, being in derogation of the common law, roust be strictly construed in favor of the property -owner and that, under our constitution; the "right of private"-propertylirregarded as before and higher than con- stitutional sanction. See City of Liale Noy Y. Williams, 206 Ark: 861, 177 S.W. 2d 924; Poole v. Stale, 244 Ark. 1222, 428 S.W. 2d 628; Art. 2, § 22, Constitution of Arkansas. Attempts to deprive the owner of a preexisting use have been regarded as unconstitutional as a taking of property without compen- sation or in violation of due process of law. Silver Y. Zoning Board of Adjuslmenl, 435 Pa. 99, 255 A. 2d 506; Hoffmann v. Kinealy, 389 S.W. 2d 745 (Mo., 1965); McCashn v. City of Mon- lerey Park, 163 Cal. App. 2d 339, 329 P. 2d 522 (1958); City of Corjxts C:hrislr v..411en, 152 Tex 137, 254 S.W. 2d 759 (1953); O'Connor v. C:il-y of .ifoscon-, 69 Idaho 37, 202 P. 2d 401, 9 ALR 2d 103 (1949). See City of Liale Rw-A v. Sun Building & Develop- nirnt Co., 199 Ark. 333, 134 S.W. 2d 582. See also, 4inereihn v. Kolras, 194 Md. 591, 71 A. 2d 865 (1950); People v. Miller, 304 Alm.] UK N.Y. 105, 106 N When we a what has been determining wi the time of ado the ux may b At the tirr street on whicl Water and sew about sewage t property had these spaces h first 25 spaces time, constitut under this tes It is wide rights in a na ticulation of ti we apply it to language of tl Board of Caunr ...Thi utilized constitul Ropkinsv be term dinance contrad the righ lawful t morals stitutiol restrict) "vested prior u has in I mance meet 0 .ENA [258 the fact that he ,king there, due He said that the -1e also testified rer system was to be moved or -d that he had of the park by testified that he e five -acre tract evelopment by ent value of the his investment ted to $30,000, s. Of this about r the passage of n merely clean - i egress placed to develop the their effect, we g in derogation I in favor of the ion, the right of igher than con - Williams, 206 Ark. 1222, 428 insas. Attempts been regarded ithout compen- Siloer v. Zoning 06; Hoffmann v. n v. City of Mon - 1 (1958); City of 2d 759 (1953); 2d401,9ALR 'ding & Develop- ilso, Amereihn v. ,le v. Miller, 304 ARK.] BLUNDELL V. CITY OF WEsT HELENA 131 N.Y. 105, 106 N.E. 2d 34 (1952). When we consider this ordinance, in this light, we ptzfef what has been referred to as the "substantial use" test 60r� determining whether the use of property is -an existing use -NO the time of adoption of a Zoning ordinance to . It be cvrttin At the time of the adoption of the zoning ordinance, the (,,these eet on which spaces -J 3 to 25 were located had been paved. ater and sewer service were available to them. The problem out sewage disposal which had prevented occupancy of the operty had been solved. Although it is true that none of spaces had ever been occupied by a mobile home, the first 25 spaces, considering their state of development at that time, constituted a use of the property for a mobile home par under this test. it is widely recognized that a property owner has vested rights in a non -conforming use of his property. An apt ar- ticulation of the rule governing the vesting of such rights, as we apply it to the facts of this case, is found In the following language of the Kentucky Court of Appeals in Darlington V. Board of Counrilmrn, 282 Ky. 778, 140 S.W. 2d 392 (1940); The mere ownership of property which could bg utilized for the ;conduct of a lawful . igsWAQMnvt constitute a right to so utilize 4 (Cayce v. City of linpkinuillr;"217 Ky. 135, 289 S.W. 223} which Gant t be terrninay-4 by. the enactment of t YA-id z, } .pr" dinancC, as such'a concept—involves an irreconcilable `contradiction of terms. It would seem, therefore, that the right to utilize one's property for clic lawful business not` inimicable to the health, safety, or morals -of -,the'Acornmunity, O.C.comp entitled to con- stitutional protection against otherwise valid legislative restrictions as to locality, or, in other words, becomes - 49 ve3ted" ecomes-49veated" within the full meaning of that term, when; prior to the enactment of such restr�tiVm., 3.11<°' haygoad faith substantially entered upon the periu- mance of the series of acts_ Cyt he n; of tie e� �tert�i-5�• 132 BLUNDELL V. CITY OF WEST HELENA 1258 1 R The substantial use test requires that the steps taken toward irQpLjementaIion 14 of 4IUJAW ttial nature or involve substan- tipl lnvest%pt or substantial obl%#l���#�.�� the See `cases -'cited infra.1^`1 Particular applications of the constitutional principles governing vested rights in non -conforming uses have been applied in cases involving mobile home or trailer parks. Vested rights entitled to constitutional protection have been held to exist when there has been a substantial establishment and development of land for use as such a park. Kessler v. .SmIlh v. l'1l1ggt rf Glenwillow, 104 Ohio App. 213, 142 N.E. 2d 231 (1957) aff'd. sub. nom; Smith v. Pillage of C:lenwillow, 146 N. E. 2d 308 (Ohio 1957).1 The vested property right has been recognized in such developments where the utilization of the premises is such that they may be known in the neighborhood as being employed for the conduct of that business, and where a trailer court project is partially completed when zon- ing regulations become effective and evidence as to the extent 'Some of the Cases cited supra involve the principle here stated but relate to buildings. There is no sound reason why any distinction, insofar as legal principles are concerned, should be made between non -conforming use of land and non -conforming use of buildings, as tfie property rights of use and enjoyment are the same and are entitled to the same constitutional protection. ftnffinieum v. A'Mraty, 389 S.W_ 2d 745 (Mo., 1965). Mobile home parks, used car lots, automobile parking lots, lots for opens storage of building materials, construction equipment and airplane landing strips are all examples of uses and enjoyment of property which may prove mare valuable to the owner when there arc no buildings on them than when there are. qn Kessler, the owner had expended substantial sums of money and considerable effort in the purchase and development of an eight -acre tract for trailer park purposes. When he purchased the property and commenced development the area was not subject to any building ordinance or zoning law. He had obtained approval of plans for sewage treatment and had employed a firm of architects to prepare a complete set of plans for con- struction. He had purchased a well digger and concrete pipe for water supp- ly and sewer facilities and brought in a bulldozer to fill a ditch and grade the land, and purchased concrete blocks for construction of a utility building, a septic tank and filter bed. At the time of the passage of the ordinance, the utility building had been cornpletcd and the foundation constructed for the filter bed and the foundation and part of the walls of the septic tank had been built. The pians provided for 200 trailer spaces, but the operation was to start with only 28, which had been laid out and approaches for use corn- pleted with a road between 1600 and 1700 feet in length. Aim.) Bw1 of the project is the scope of the migiomrs V. IWA We conside spaces' prior to It stantial and to t tent that he is a non -conforming We are ung than the first 2' actual use suib it far occupanc, no evidence to not properly Blundell testifit 25 lots, that th, ed and that,as here as a third area as the Val drainage probl unsuccessful el thropgh oRe sl The burl claims rights Saunders v. Ada mere conterr preliminary N effectuate it is property righl tend a non-ct Gooperative v. E 31n Petsch, 25 which 59 spaces Septic tanks had power and telep were installed a power, telcphon without any sere with telephone, W beca proved (258 Nalm toward wok substan- the part of the hitional principles 1; uses have been or trailer parks. flection have been tial establishment a park. !Nessler v. 213,142 N.E. 2d f Glenwillow, 146 ty right has been utilization of the he neighborhood it business, and Meted when zon- as to the'extent pie hen: stated but stinction, insofar as non -conforming use Dperty rights of use lame constitutional 965). Mobile home )r open storage of e landing strips are h may prove more .tet than when there ums or money and an eight -acre tract ty and commenced ordinance or toning treatment and had -t of plans for con - Ape for water mupp- ditch and grade the a utility building, a r the ordinance, the constructed for the the septic tank had it the operation was oaches for use corn - oh. ARK.] BLUNDELL V. CITY OF WEST HELENA 133 of the project is clear, the completed project will determine the of rntssionerrssCv. P iscnon-conforming h 172Neb 26) 109 N W Board 2d 388 (1961) We consider the steps taken by Blundell on the first 25 spaces prior to the passage of the ordinance to have been sub- stantial and to have involved substantial investment to the ex- tent that he is entitled to use them as a mobile home park as a non -conforming use under the ordinance. We are unable, however,, tacl` theyany of the mabile hamets other pa k in than the first 25 spaces as a parto actual use sufficiently to vest any right in Blundell to develop it for occupancy by mobile homes or house trailers. There is no evidence to indicate that such a use of the property was not properly categorized as a long-range future plan. Blundell testified that the land was much lower than the first 25 lots, that there was a serious drainage problem to be solv- ed and that,as a contemplated use, spaces would be laid out here as a third phase of development. Blundell referred to the area as the Valley. He proposes to fill the area in solving the drainage problem. The only attempt to snake it usable was an unsuccessful effort to establish a nursery, which lasted only through one spring and summer. The burden of proof is upon a property owner who claims rights by virture of a non -conforming use. County of Saunders, v. Unore, 182 Neb. 377, 155 N.W- 2d 317 (1967): A rpere contemplated use �► Xhout active steps bcyond' ,preliminary work pr planning or substantial investment to it is not sufficient to invest a property owner ►VAth property tights in a tort-c�tt r Al 4& ",,a tend a ti ming,mse. Ohio Slate .5[�rdP �`''nofrrin[rrr v. Franklin Counly, 123 N.E. 2d 286 (1953) affd., 123 'In Pasch, 29 trailer spaces had been put to use on a three -acre tract on which 59 spaces had been staked out. Water and sewer mains had been laid. Septic tanks had been installed consistent with use of the entire tract and power and telephone service were available to all 59 spaces. Eight trailers were installed on a north strip, five of which had been connected with power, telephone, water and sewer facilities, one with power and two without any services. in the northwest strip, five trailers had been installed with telephone, power, water and sewer connections. Sewer and water taps had been provided for 29 spaces in these two strips. 134 BLUNDELL V. CITY OF WEST HELENA 1258 N.E. 2d 542 (Ohio App., 1953); Luli v. New Albany City Plan Commission, 230 Ind. 74, 101 N.E. 2d 187 (1951); Board of County Commissioners v. Petsch, 172 Neb. 263, 109 N.W. 2d 388 (1961); .-Vnv York Trap Rock Corp. v. The Town of Clarkstown, 1 A.D. 2d 890, 149 N.Y.S. 2d 290 (1956) a€fd., 3 NYS 2d 844, 144 N.E. 7d 725 (1957); Smith v. _7uilleral, 161 Ohio St. 424, 119 N.E. 2d 611 (1954). Preliminary contracts or work which is not of a substantial nature is not sufficient to establish a vested right. County of Saunders v. Moore, supra.4 The mere purchase of property with intention to devote it to a use is not sufficient in spite of preliminary work, such as clearing, grading and excavating, if that worts is not of a substantial nature, or if the owner has not incurred substantial obligations relating directly to the use of the property. City of Omaha v. Clissman, 151 Neb. 895, 39 N. W. 2d 828. Appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof to establish A permissi- ble nonconforming use for trailer spaces in Lots 26 through 44. That use would constitute an extension prohibited by the zoning ordinance. Appellee argues that since appellant waited as long as he did to extend the actual use pf spaces -13 through 25, he ahan- docted and discontinued any non -conforming use, for more I t#samzzix'months, an& -that the placing of mobilt homes on. theme Spaces constitutes -0 prohibited reestablishment of that use under the ordin4nce. Ta embrace this theory would be in- constswnt with. the underlying theory of our holding on Oe tlq'n of -existence of -a port -conforming u§e. Blundell con- tinued with his'development of these spaces after the passage ofthtt-ordinance. His occupancy, prior to that time, had never exceeded eight units. The rqgMfitct that his development of the me � 4m plgoJ�jjajai�M;'. , wa tlChA �l _p4ppMWt. Neither was the fact that there was apparently no demand for these spaces. To sustain the city's argument would require that we hold that in order to constitute use of the property in the sense of the ordinance, 4In Moore, there was one electric pole on the northeast corner of the property, and a well on a tract on which the owner had planned 110 lots. Preliminary work laying out roads had been done with a grader. There were no trenches, water or sewer pipes or poured concrete, no trailer houses were present and only one had ever been there. No trailer stalls had been com- pleted and no water, electrical, 'telephone or sewage connections were available. 65 CR iso: z. 0 Cu"a am 4 R VLW. ,. h i<A dtta a ttmb 41. cumola" am" lem4lucil wch a rc%icr I deprive the Stats covered c trur. CRIMMU LAW Cott;olid�tioa tat where each ct different data, trent, all three witneu testirk dates, and the decision. CRIMINAL LAW The trial co, appeal, or to appeal was U conclusion of appellant to CLUMINAL tAt Failuro to w ' 1258 rCloy NM Awd of Ir YM 2d 389 4raff6*00,1 M 2d 844, R 161 Ohio St. 424, am or rock which Bent to establish a mpra.' The mere to it to a use is not such as clearing, t of a substantial rred substantial property. City of d 828. Appellant iblish A permissi- Lots 26 through Irohibited by the ted as long as he ugh 25, he aban- ,ig use for more lobile homes on lishment of that ory, would be in - holding on the e. Blundell con- Ifter the passage time, had never development of to January 1974 as the fact that aces. To sustain ,Id that in order If the ordinance, heast corner of the d planned 110 lots. grader. There were trailer houses were ails had been com- connections were ARK] TATE 1'. STATE 135 the use must be actual in .the sense that the spaces must have bean 'physically occupied by_ mobile homes.. 5110 A-canstratc- tion would.bc uq"lr jllrvguLaMaM a- rict-construction7avor- e decline to give it this construction. The decree is affirmed as to spaces 26 through 44 but reversed as to spaces 1 through 25. The cause is remanded for entry of a decree consistent with this opinion. HARRIS, C.J., dissepts as to the reversal. David H. TATE v. STATE of Arkansas CR 75-8 524 S.W. 2d 624 Opinion._ delivered May 19, 1975 1. CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL & ERROR - SC:OPE & EXTENT OF REv1Ew. — It is not the function of the Supreme Court to con- duct a search of the entire record to determine whether ac- cumulated errors show a violation of due process as con- templated by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for such a review would be wasteful of judicial resources and deprive the State of any means of advocating its position on dis- Fovered error. 2. CRIMINAL LAW — TRIAL — CONSOLIDATION OF INFORMATIONS. — Consolidation of three separate informations was not erroneous where each charged appellant with delivery of heroin on different dates, the cases were consolidated by specific agree- ment, all three had been set for trial on the same day, the same witness testified he had purchased heroin on three different dates, and the agreement to consolidate was obviously a tactical decision. 3. CRIMINAL LAW — PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JUDGMENT — REVIEW. The trial court's failure to advise appellant of the right to appeal, or to fix or deny bond was not prejudicial where timely appeal was taken, appellant was remanded to the sheriff at the conclusion of trial, and after notice of appeal the court admitted appellant to bail. 4. CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JUDGMENT - REVIEW. - Failure to accord appellant the right of allocution [Ark. Stat. IsCity of Little Rock Department of 701 West Markham Public Works Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 371-4800 M_E M—O_R_A—N_D—U—M July 18, 1984 TO: Richard Wood, Office of Comprehensive Planning FROM: Jim Hathcock, Environmental Codes Chief SUBJECT: Whitewater Tavern Rezoning (Z -3125-A) a d Code Enforcement on Loss of Nonconforming Status Per your request I submit to you the chronological history of the Environmental Codes involvement with this case: April 6, 1984 Our office received a petition signed by 31 citizens requesting we enforce the loss of nonconformity on the Whitewater Tavern. April 6 thru April 29, 1984 This office was conducting an investigation to determine if the Tavern had been closed for one year or longer. We contacted the following offices: A. Little Rock Water Company - Advised water service was removed on June 1, 1983 and reactivated on March 20, 1984. B. City Collectors Office - No privilege license issued in 1983. Last license expired on December 31, 1982. C. Arkansas Alcohol Beverage Control Board - Permit cancelled by ABC on March 28, 1983 with the Enforcement Division attempting to serve a permit revocation order on April 23, 1984. ABC records include a statement by the officer that a sign on the door on that date stated that the business was closed. April 27, 1984 The Arkansas Democrat alluded to the Tavern being closed for more than a year (see exhibit A). Page 2 April 30, 1984 I sent a letter to Mr. Daes and Ms. Garrison (see exhibit B) informing them that they had lost their nonconforming status and the operation of their business was illegal. May 3, 1984 Mr. Daes visited my office and was advised that if he could show proof that business had been conducted within the one year period, I would rescind my letter of April 30. He advised that he would bring me the proof within two weeks. As of this date I have not received this information. May 16, 1984 I discussed this issue with Hugh Brown in the City Attorney's Office who felt we had a good case of "lost nonconformity" (see exhibit C) . May 24, 1984 The owners of this business applied for rezoning and our enforcement activities were suspended pending the outcome of this action. JRH/ps cc: File fx6,G,f /� rucR Braes, co-owner of the Whitewater Tavern t■ "ItewaterTavem reopens doors with n e w's e, &inks and m e � nu BY CINDY FRIBOURGH mission is $3. Democrat sten wriw After more than a year's hi_ Patrons should note that Thayer Street is closed for I atus, the Whitewater Tavern FSeventh and Thayerstreets, road repairs- from Markham Street south to the Whitewater. reopened Thursday evening New owners -4R ` C?9 and The club's kitchen opens Ale ferinstalled a today and will serve burgers, stage in the space that was for- steaks, salads and nachos. snerly a game room and the club now serves mixed drinks and wine in addition to beer, TMEATM Tim and Burger will per- form from 8 P.M. to Cl05iIIgf�lY4t. FR+eAr crr�x''� Way and Saturday. Cover charge is $1 620 720 ego Silverheels will play from 8 wiao ry HOLDJRa.�owW► OF 7i� 530 catelr P.m. to closing next Thursday egs:}S7;T5•B 1S hrough Saturday, May 3-5. Ad i is 17ME t+rt*�r Fpp>�OMEDS 7:109:S" 7a 9.05 -!!:71 ...r i $P(d M ® POLir.E AGAF7ENY(7:15 9:15 5'S 7:45 9:45 Ommt»r mF tsrH rMML CHAPTER 5.1 5 Plans are to expand the menu in about a month to include Plate lunches and specialty items such as frog ' legs and trout. I. AW H,rAe r11 Avovco :2 foQJ r Sale NAUTILUS and more... 8324 Hwy. 107 NLR 834-1522 1428 MERRILL DR., LR 227-6401 P BY J C fera chaf eigh cook weel goin, Club T 8p try Piec coa 4700 Win be $ T fro at t _ � r :ity of little HOCK April 30, 1984 Mr. Rick Daes and/or Ms. Jennifer Garrison c/o Whitewater Tavern 2500 West 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Mr. Daes and Ms. Garrison: I have received information that you are in the process of reopening the Whitewater Tavern after it having been closed for more than a year. Article 5, Section 5-101 (c) (3) of the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance states that when a non -conforming use has been discontinued for one year or longer, such use shall not be reestablished or resumed without proper rezoning. Therefore, you are hereby notified that the operation of this business is hereby considered illegal and the property must be rezoned prior to reopening after repair of the damage that occurred on April 29, 1984. If you wish to rezone the property, you must make an application with the Office of Comprehensive Planning, on the 3rd floor of City Hall. Sincerely, z Jim Hathcock Environmental Codes Chief JRH/ps CC: Susan Fleming, City Manager Jack Magruder, City Attorney Bill Davies, Director Nat Griffin, Director of O.C.P. City of Little Rock R. Jack Magruder III City Hail City Attorney Markham at Broadway fx� t Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 371-45?7 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Jack Magruder III Little Rock City Attorney FROM: Hugh L. Brown Assistant City +Atorney DATE: May 17, 1984 RE: White Water Tavern 2500 Block West 7th Street Jack: Jim Hathcock came by to see you while you were visiting the Mayor, so while you were unavailable, he spoke to me. Jim related to me the history of the White Water Tavern, the fact that once before it was destroyed by fire, but was allowed to rebuild and again operate in a non -conforming use capacity. Jim has documentation that the Tavern has been out of business for over a year --and he thought they had ceased to operate all together. However, immediately before the recent fire on that premises, he learned of the reopening of the Tavern. He wrote them to advise them that under City code the Tavern had lost its non -conforming status. The fire occurred on the same date that the operator received Jim's letter. The operator has approached Jim Hathcock, advising that he had contractors ready to start reconstruction. The neighborhood residents have been in contact with Jim and stated their position in opposition to the reopening of the Tavern. Jim wants directions from this office on the matter. He has no personal preference. However, based on the code (and general land use law), and upon the evidence he has of non -operation for more than a year (he gave the operator the opportunity to produce evidence to the contrary, and the operator has not done so). Jim feels the operator should not be allowed to again start operation of the Tavern. As a matter of general administrative procedure, Jim should deny the .right to again begin operations of the Tavern, and allow the operator to exercise his administrative appeal right. Of course, there may be some matters regarding this Tavern that I am unaware. Please advise Jim Hathcock on this matter as soon as possible. HLB:dr e rrry Halt i -Place o +Wrtlh8n3iV© ARwr�i�Jllm AI i;r�+9d• �Y LIttf a P --k. ArkW':si 72 1 rining 371.47W C,w s e No.- Z-1 Address Dear , This is to advise you that in connection with your application for District to a change in Zoning from District, the fo �-ec tion gran h the Pls:taiaa OOaseiasiop at its meeting an i (a) Deniod your regzzast an subsitted. (b) ✓ Re cclssaex aid a"rcva l as applied for. (c) Recommrndrd approval • PrOvLdod - (d) Itew=randed rewnivg to (e) �Y _ Deferred to (at your request) An ordlntnca effecting this r3wniaz mill (vj-U-pot) be submitted to c1ne iosrd of Directors for its ca-!nideratimt at its R"ti • Tours vary truly, OfOffg ire t�siva Planning Be Agenda July 17, 1984 Page 3 5. ZONING PETITIONS - Approved by Planning Commission: Z-4257 - To rezone 1505 Welch Street, from "R-4" Two-family to "R-5" Urban Residence District. (P. C. approved by vote of 9 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent; Staff approved; No R -O -W Issues.) Z-4258 - To rezone the S/W Corner of I-30 and Production Drive, from "R-2" Single-family to "C-3" General Commercial District. (P. C. approved by vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent; Staff approved; No R -O -W Issues.) ORDINANCE Reclassifying various properties in the City of Little Rock; Amending Chapter 43 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock. 6. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE - To rezone 1510 Schiller Avenue, from "R-4" Two-family District to "MF -18" Multi -family District (Z-4209). (Denied by Planning Commission) 7. ORDINANCE Adding Corondelet as a collector street to the Master Street Plan. 8. ORDINANCE Adding Sibley Hole Road and Nash Lane as collector streets to the Master Street Plan. G. MISCELLANEOUS: 9. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE Renewing Taxicab Operator Permits for Black and White Cab Company. H. ROUTINE BUSINESS: I. APPOINTMENTS: 10. RESOLUTIONS Making appointments and reappointments to various- Boards amd Commissions. STREET RIGHT -OF --WAY AGREEMENT J CASE NO. Z-317,5-ALOCATION/ADDRESS 7�920 N%4. , DATE —2�4 18,-T DOCKETED FOR MEETING ON I�l� - (9LY _ �Ct" _] _ arc do hereby agre disagree to dedicate to thepublic any needed right-o-wwaayy as required by the Master Street Plan for a public street abutting property on which I am requesting rezoning. pu 1\lY,�• gre disagree to provide at my expense an easement deedand or other documents as necessary conveying such right-of-way to the public. APPLICANT/OWNER E (1F THE ABOVE SIGNATURE REPRESENTS AN APPPLICANT, ATTACHMENT OF A LETTER IS REQUIRED AUTHORIZING THIS PERSON Ta ACT IN BEHALF OF THE TITLE-HOLDER.) July 13, 1984 TO: Susan Fleming, City Manager FROM: Richard Wood, Office of Comprehensive Planning SUBJECT: Finkbeiner Property Rezoning Procedure Z -3447-A I have performed a review of the subject case file on the Porcelain Pig at Beechwood Road and Woodlawn Street. That file reflects the following information: the subject site was filed for rezoning to "C-1" Neighborhood Commercial on February 26, 1980. The application was docketed for a Planning Commission public hearing on March 25, 1980. Mr. Don Venhaus represented the owner before the Commission. The Planning Commission, after much discussion of the matter, was unable to reach a motion and vote which resulted in the required majority vote to approve or deny. The Commission determined that the split vote of 4 ayes and 4 noes required that the item be forwarded to the Board of Directors without a recommendation. A motion to do so passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. The Planning staff recommendation was opposition to the rezoning in every respect. The application was forwarded to the Board of Directors for a public hearing on April 15, 1980. At that meeting, Mr. Don Venhaus, representing the owner, introduced the procedure which called for the Board approval of the request for "C-1" zoning with a provision attached that the property be down zoned in six months. The down zoning would return the property to the original "R-2" Single Family District. The Board determined that a letter was appropriate which would state the property owners position relative to acceptance of the "R-2" classification after the creation of their nonconforming occupancy. A letter of this nature was received and filed for record. The Board of Directors accepted the approach requested and by Ordinance #13,806 rezoned the property to "C-1" Neighborhood Commercial. Approximately six months later, the Planning staff forwarded the required materials including a Planning Commission recommendation of approval to the City Board for the down zoning action. The Board of Directors by Ordinance #13,910 returned the property classification to "R-2" Single Family on November 18, 1980. The owner of the property occupied the site in the given time period and established the nonconforming use which is now in place. The above procedure has only occurred on two occasions. On both of these occasions, the properties involved sensitive locations wherein there were significant neighborhood objectors in attendance at the public hearings. In both instances, the Planning staff filed recommendations opposing such a procedure. I trust the above information is what you were seeking. If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. RW: af11 cc: Jim Lawson Case File Z-3447 'i U ne .i. 1984 Item No. 1 - Z -3125-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Jennifer Garrison Richard Daes 2500 West 7th (Thayer and W. 7th) Rezone from "R-3" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Eating Place/Bar 3600 square feet Existing Use: Vacant Building SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" South - Industrial, Zoned "I-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "I-2" West - Single Family and Vacant, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rebuild the Whitewater Tavern and operate a restaurant and bar. The property has been used for a number of years as a bar and has always been a nonconforming use. This rezoning request is a result of action taken by the Zoning Enforcement Office. Approximately two months ago, the structure had a fire, and it was determined that the damaged exceeded 50 percent of the current replacement value, and the building lost its nonconformity. "Such structures shall not be restored unless structure and use thereof shall be thereafter conformed to all,regulations of the zoning district in which such structure and use are located." Additionally, the issue of whether the building was vacant for more than one year has been mentioned. If the structure was, in fact, not in use for a period of one year, then the use cannot be reestablished without proper zoning. The rezoning if approved would create a commercial spot zoning and establish a "C-3" site in an unsuitable location for intense commercial use. The area has been impacted by previous zoning actions, but that does not justify further intrusion of nonresidential zoning into the neighborhood. The site is somewhat removed from the major street network and does not lend itself to being a viable commercial location. June 26, 1984 Item No. 1 - Continued 2. The site is a small lot with a single structure on it. The building occupies a large portion of the property so that leaves very little area for parking. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. The apparent legal issue is the creation of spot zoning if the request is approved. 6. The property has been used for a bar/tavern for a number of years and has always been a nonconforming use. In 1977, an attempt was made to rezone the site to "F" ("C-3") Commercial. That request was denied by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. The rezoning was strongly opposed by the residents of the area. In December of 1980, a fire damaged the building, and City inspectors determined that more than 50 percent of the structure had been destroyed. This was overruled by the City Attorney's Office in March of 1981, and the Whitewater was able to obtain a building permit without having to rezone the property. The most recent fire is the second in three and one-half years. 7. The property is an area that is part of the Woodruff School neighborhood. The adopted plan for that neighborhood identifies the site for low density residential development. The "C-3" request is in conflict with the plan and is not supported by the staff. The location is inappropriate for z commercial use such as a tavern/eating place because of the poor circulation and the property, when occupied, has had an adverse impact on the neighborhood. The site should not be recognized as a viable commercial location by approving the rezoning because of its previous use and history. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were also 10 to 15 objectors present. Kenny Scott of the City's Zoning Enforcement Office spoke and addressed the nonconforming June 26, 1984 Item No. 1 - Continued status issue. He stated that the owners had been notifed in writing that the building had not been occupied for more than one year and the property lost its nonconforming status. He also indicated that the fire was not an issue. An appeal of this decision would have to go to the Hoard of Adjustment. Ray Hartenstein, an attorney representing the Whitewater, then spoke. He gave a brief history of the Whitewater and also presented some dates. He :Mated that the Whitewater closed in April 1983, and that a liquor license was issued in July of 1983. In January 1984, plans were initiated to remodel the structure and some reconstruction did take place after that. Mr. Hartenstein stated that the Whitewater reopened on April 26, 1984, three days later the fire in question happened. He went on to present a letter dated April 30, 1984, from Jim Hathcock, Chief Enforcement Official, that stated the Whitewater had reopened illegally. Mr. Hartenstein felt that there was a hardship issue that needed to be addressed and that no abandonment did take place. Several Commissioners indicated that the nonconforming issue needed to be resolved prior to acting on the rezoning_ request. Richard Daes, the applicant, stated that he became involved with the Whitewater on May 16, 1983, and was not certain of the exact date when it closed in April. Mr, Daes spoke at length and said that he just wanted to reopen. The question of documentation was raised, and the file did not provide any evidence of when the Whitewater had closed or building permit information. Also, it was pointed out that Mr. ,Daes had not provided the City with any documentation regarding the closing. Mr. Daes then went on to say that he would not expand the building and that he would upgrade the appearance and, in turn, the neighborhood. He stated that the neighborhood had many existing problems and presented photos of the area. He also showed a graphic with the proposed plan for the Whitewater. Mr. Hartenstein then disussed the issue of the building being vacant. Andrew Zawacki, a resident on Thayer Street, spoke against the request and presented a petition with 199 signatures opposing the rezoning. He stated that the request was in direct conflict with the Woodruff Neighborhood Plan and that primary access to the Whitewater is on residential streets. He described instances where cars on Thayer Street had been hit by people coming from the Whitewater and that it created a problem for the area. Mr. Zawacki also stated that the neighborhood was in complete support of the Woodruff Neighborhood Plan. At this time it was pointed out that some of the signatures on the petition were of persons residing outside the neighborhood. Mr. Zawacki said that was correct, but those names comprised less than 10 percent of the total. Dorothy Pilachowski, of the Woodruff C.D.H.G. Committee, Tune 26, 19€34 Item No. 1 - Continued also spoke in opposition to the rezoning. She then described the improvements being undertaken by the Block Grant Program, and that the neighborhood was in the process of upgrading itself. She also said the area is changing for the better, and the zoning could damage that. Mrs. Pilachowski said that the neighborhood had worked closely with the City in developing the plan and that it should be followed. Kathy Volk spoke against the request and described the problems with traffic and drunk drivers. She stated that the traffic had decreased with the Whitewater being closed and that it was a bad influence for the neighborhood. Gregory Braybaw and Peter Ternoprovich spoke against the rezoning. Mr. Ternoprovich said that the location had not been a bar for 50 years and that ABC records indicate that the Whitewater closed on April 24, 1953. Morris Lewis, representing the Arkansas Hospitality Association, spoke in support of the request and stated that the location had been occupied by a commercial use for a number of years. Mrs. Pilachowski then pointed out that there had been opposition in the past to the Whitewater being there and referred to the previous rezoning request in 1977. Lee Milson, a property owner, spoke in favor of the rezoning. Patricia Carter, a resident, opposed the request and indicated that nothing had changed to justify the rezoning. Mr. Baes spoke again and said that he had obtained the necessary permits to open and had given proper notice when applying for the liquor license. After a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 3 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION POSITION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request to maintain the Whitewater's "nonconforming" aspect. Because there was some question as to whether the Whitewater lost its nonconforming status, the Commission felt that this was the appropriate action to take to allow them to continue. Also, there was concern that the site had been a nonconforming use for years and the Whitewater would face possible closure if not rezoned. Some Commissioners indicated that if the Whitewater was permitted to continue as a. nonconforming use, they would have voted against the rezoning. AFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that I have notified all the property owners of record within 200 feet of the above property as certified by Standard Abstract and Title Company on May 23, 1984 at 8:00 A.M. A copy of that certification is attached hereto as Exhibit A to this Affidavit. Copies of Certified Mail Receipts to those property owners are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Copies of Domestic Return Receipts received as of today's date are attached hereto as Exhibit C. A sample copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit D. JACK T. LASSITE Authorized Agent STATE OF ARKANSAS) COUNTY OF PULASKI) ry SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this_,day of June, 1984. My Commissioig, Expires: Standard Abstract &Title Company The following is a list of the apparent property owners lying within 200 feet of Part of Lot 8, Block 8, Ferndale Addition, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point 13' North of the SW corner of said Lot 8, thence North 721; thence East 501: thence South 721; thence West 50' to the point of beginning, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas 1, Lot 1, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. ( Owner - Rebecca J. Kay & Jerald M. Schuman, Co Trustees of Rebecca J,Kay Trust. 7001 Rockwood Rd. Little Rock, Arkansas 72207) 2, Lot 2, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. ( Owner - Gerald F. Hamra & James H. Keet, III. 200 W. Broadway, North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114) 3, Lot 3, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. ( Owner - Roy D. Fields & wf Stella J. 2509 W. 6th, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201) 4, Lot 4, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, ( Owner - Virgil Gary Smith and wf Janice E. 3122 West 12th St,, Little Rock, Arkansas 72204) 5, W2 Lot 5, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Except South 20 feet thereof heretofore deeded to City of Little Rock for use as a street & subject to the right of owners of the property in Block 8, Ferndale, lying to East of above described property to ingress and egress over a 10 foot strip at rear of above description, Pulaski County, Arkansas. ( Owner - Ethel T. Stacy and Robert Wayne Stacy, 2524 W. 7th St., Little Rock, Arkansas 72205) 6, E2 Lot 5, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Except South 20 feet thereof deeded to City of Little Rock for use as Street & subject to right of owners of said Block 8, lying to East of above described property to use a 10 foot strip at rear so long as the platted alley way remains impassable, Pulaski County, Arkansas, ( Owner - Cheryl D. Dees, 2801 Circlewood, Little Rock, Arkansas 72207) 7. E2 Lot 6, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Except the S 20 feet thereof heretofore deeded to the City of Little Rock for use as a Street, and subject to right of owners of property in Block 8, Ferndale, adjoining the above described land to ingress and egress over a 10 foot strip at the rear of above described property so long as the platted alley way remains impassable, Pulaski County, Arkansas. ( Owner - Albert Rhodes & wf, Alice, 1864 Howard, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202) Suite 101, 3600 Cantrell Road, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 663-5350 EX HI S/ 7- �� �- Standard Abstract &Title Company 8. W2 Lot 6, Block 8,Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, Except the South 20 feet thereof. ( Owner - Clifton Brack & wife, Karen E., #83 Shoshoni Drive, North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116) 9. South 120 feet of Lot 7, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County;:. Arkansas. ( Owner - Jennifer Jan Garrison, 6308 Tall Chief Drive, North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116) 10. North 67 feet of Lot 8, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. ( Owner - Richard Thomas Kirspel, 509 West "A", North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116) 11. Lot 6, Block 28, Capitol Hill Extension Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. ( Owner - Leigh G. Wilson, 2120 Lloyd Court, Little Rock, Arkansas 72205) 12. All of Lots 4 and 5, in Block 21 of Capitol Hill Extension Addition to the City of Little Rock, in Pulaski County, Arkansas, EXCEPT that part described as beginning at a point of intersection of the West line of Lot 5, Block 21, Capitol Hill Extension Addition to the City of Little Rock, with the Westerly line of the Missouri Pacific Railway right of way; thence in a Northeasterly direction along the Westerly line of said Missouri Pacific right of way 80 feet; thence West 55 feet to the West line of Lot 4, Block 21, Capitol Hill Extension Addition; thence South along said West line to point of beginning, being all of Lot 5 and the South part of Lot 4, Block 21, Capitol Hill Extension Addition lying North and West of the Missouri Pacific Railway right of way; AND Lots 1, 2 and 3 Except Railroad right of way, in Block 21, Capitol Hill Extension Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. ( Owner - John Michael Reed and Arthur David Reed, 3716 Lochridge Road, North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116) 13. 6.30 acres out of the SE corner of the NA SW -14, Section 4, West of St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway in -Township 1 North, Range 12 West, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point 302 9/10 feet West of the SE corner of NW -4 SW -14, Section 4, Township 1 North, Range 12 West, this being also the NE corner of Block 2, Roots and Coys Addition to Little Rock, and on the West side of St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern right of way, thence West 2732 feet to :stir corner of Block 2, Roots and Coys Addition to Little Rock, thence North along the East side of what would be jones Street, if extended Northward, 650 feet to the South side of Seventh Street Pike, thence South 60 degrees East 97 feet to the East line of the NW -t SA, Section 4, Township 1 North, Range 12 West, thence South along the said East line 73 feet to where said line intersects the West side of the Right of Way of St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway, thence Southwestwardly following the West line of said right of way 605 feet to the point of beginning, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. ( Owner - The Monarch Mill and Lumber Company, 2501 West 7th St., Little Rock, Arkansas 72201) CERTIFIED TO THIS 23RD DAY OF MAY 1984 L 8:00 A. M. Standard Abstract & Title•Company Standard Abstract &Title Company The following is a list of the apparent property owners lying within 200 feet of Part of Lot 8, Block 8, Ferndale Addition, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point 13' North of the SW corner of said Lot 8, thence North 721; thence East 50'; thence South 721; thence West 50' to the point of beginning, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas 1, Lot 1, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, ( Owner - Rebecca J. Kay & Jerald M. Schuman, Co Trustees of Rebecca J,Kay Trust. 7001 Rockwood Rd, Little Rock, Arkansas 72207) 2, Lot 2, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, ( Owner - Gerald F. Hamra & James H. Keet, III. 200 W. Broadway, North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114) 3, Lot 3, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, ( Owner - Roy D. Fields & wf Stella J. 2509 W. 6th, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201) 4, Lot 4, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, ( Owner - Virgil Gary Smith and wf Janice E. 3122 West 12th St., Little Rock, Arkansas 72204) 5, W2 Lot 5, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Except South 20 feet thereof heretofore deeded to City of Little Rock for use as a street & subject to the right of owners of the property in Block 8, Ferndale, lying to East of above described property to ingress and egress over a 10 foot strip at rear of above description, Pulaski County, Arkansas, ( Owner - Ethel T. Stacy and Robert Wayne Stacy, 2524 W. 7th St., Little Rock, Arkansas 72205) 6. E2 Lot 5, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Except South 20 feet thereof deeded to City of Little Rock for use as Street & subject to right of owners of said Block 8, lying to East of above described property to use a 10 foot strip at rear so long as the platted alley way remains impassable, Pulaski County, Arkansas, ( Owner - Cheryl D. Dees, 2801 Circlewood, Little Rock, Arkansas 72207) 7, E2 Lot 6, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Except, the S 20 feet thereof heretofore deeded to the City of Little Rock for use as a Street, and subject to right of owners of property in Block 8, Ferndale, adjoining the above described land to ingress and egress over a 10 foot strip at the rear of above described property so long as the platted alley way remains impassable, Pulaski County, Arkansas. ( Owner - Albert Rhodes & wf, Alice, 1864 Howard, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202) Suite 101, 3600 Cantrell Road, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 663-5350 Standard Abstract &Title Company 8. W2 Lot 6, Block 8,Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, Except the South 20 feet thereof. ( Owner - Clifton Brack & wife, Karen E., #83 Shoshoni Drive, North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116) 9. South 120 feet of Lot 7, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County Arkansas. ( Owner - Jennifer Jan Garrison, 6308 Tall Chief Drive, North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116) 10. North 67 feet of Lot 8, Block 8, Ferndale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. ( Owner - Richard Thomas Kirspel, 509 West "A", North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116) 11. Lot 6, Block 28, Capitol Hill Extension Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. ( Owner - Leigh G. Wilson, 2120 Lloyd Court, Little Rock, Arkansas 72205) 12. All of Lots 4 and 5, in Block 21 of Capitol Hill Extension Addition to the City of Little Rock, in Pulaski County, Arkansas, EXCEPT that part described as beginning at a point of intersection of the West line of Lot 5, Block 21, Capitol Hill Extension Addition to the City of Little Rock, with the Westerly line of the Missouri Pacific Railway right of way; thence in a Northeasterly direction along the Westerly line of said Missouri Pacific right of way 80 feet; thence West 55 feet to the West line of Lot 4, Block 21, Capitol Hill Extension Addition; thence South along said West line to point of beginning, being all of Lot 5 and the South part of Lot 4, Block 21, Capitol Hill Extension Addition lying North and West of the Missouri Pacific Railway right of way; AND Lots 1, 2 and 3 Except Railroad right of way, in Block 21, Capitol Hill Extension Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. ( Owner - John Michael Reed and Arthur David Reed, 3716 Lochridge Road, North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116) 13. 6.30 acres out of the SE corner of the NA- SW -14, Section 4, West of St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway in -Township 1 North, Range 12 West, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point 302 9/10 feet West of the SE corner of NW -14 SW -4, Section 4, Township 1 North, Range 12 West, this being also the NE corner of Block 2, Roots and Coys Addition to Little Rock, and on the West side of St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern right of way, thence West 2732 feet to NW corner.of Block 2, Roots and Coys Addition to Little Rock, thence North along the East side of what would be jones Street, if extended Northward, 650 feet to the South side of Seventh Street Pike, thence South 60 degrees East 97 feet to the East line of the NW -'4 SWC, Section 4, Township 1 North, Range 12 West, thence South along the said East line 73 feet to where said line intersects the West side of the Right of Way of St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway, thence Southwestwardly following the West line of said right of way 605 feet to the point of beginning, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. ( Owner - The Monarch Mill and Lumber Company, 2501 West 7th St., Little Rock, Arkansas .72201) CERTIFIED TO THIS 23RD DAY OF MAY 1984 L� 8:00 A. M. Standard Abstract & Title•Company at.i . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING CO."ISSION ON AN APPLICATION TO REZONE PROPERTY To ALL owners of land lying within 200 feet of the boundary of property at: Address: General Location: Owned by: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT an application for rezoning of the above property reque ting a change o zone classification from -5i 42 eW7-/ru- JL 3 S/�GCiist�cy� District to [' - x)/".41 . Dlstr ct has been f ilecT--wi-t-h the Of f ice of Comprehensive Planning. City Hall. A public hearing on said application will be VZ'Deld by the Little Rock Planning Commission in the Board of Chamber, 2nd Floor, City Hall on 19 at IQ p.m. ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST MAY APPEAR and be heard at said time and place or may notify the Planning Commission of their views on this matter by letter. All persons interested in this request are invited to call or visit the Office of Comprehensive Planning, City Hall, 371-4790, and to review the application and discuss same with the planninq staff. AFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that I have notified all the property owners of record within 200 feet of the above property, that s subject property is being considered for rezoning and that a Public Hearing will be held by the Little Rock Planning z Commission at the time and place described above. Applicant (owner or authorized agent): (name) 3-i (dat ) a�0 �, BILA W. 3RD. ST. � � z u Z w � o TH. {TOL) r TH. ST. Z -S I � 0q. ¢ �� 3i- ST.12 / • I E f v 31 5 /"k S-00 W. 7Tm (WHITEWA-IC-R--) RF -z (E FRoM 0 July 30, 1984 TO: Susan Fleming, City Manager FROM: Richard Wood, Office of Comprehensive Planning SUBJECT: White Water Tavern Board of Adjustment Review At its meeting on July 27, the Board of Adjustment discussed at length the nonconforming issue forwarded from the Board. After hearing much testimony from both staff and the owner as to actions taken by all of the parties involved, the Board determined that the use was in fact a legitimate nonconforming use. The Board's decision provides for continuance of the White Water Tavern and its repair without rezoning should the applicant desire to do so. The information base which was determined to be the critical determining element was the unreported intent of the owner to continue the use of this premises as a tavern. The Board determined that in instances of this nature that the City of Little Rock must provide conclusively that there was intent on the part of the owner to discontinue in every respect the use involved. The Board directed City staff to proceed with a study to develop information which would provide for future guidance when dealing with these types of issues. The Board will hold a meeting at a future date for purposes of formally adopting the recommended guidelines. I assume this information will be forwarded to the Board of Directors for placement on the agenda for August 7, 1984. If you require the information be presented in a different format, please advise. RW: jm2 cc: Jim Lawson File 3. Abandonment or Discontinuance When a nonconforming use has been discontinued or abandoned, and the appearance of which does not depict the identity of an ongoing use, an - d further if said situation exists for a period Of one year, such use shall not thereafter be reestablished or resumed. Any subsequent use or occupancy of such land or structure shall comply with the regulations of the zoning district in which such land or structure is loc-ated. r7 TH to V. ,J J1, V Pt N t j;1 A j .... iyavn XE 5 oL NIP 6U z vz L -.-U P !j SE I's U T 1A ?IAF{` ?J r e'�_'4-_ : _ �' =r• -- - — ti. _ . r - - - - - _..� ..- ----'. �_._-..__..�. { - ... •----'-`•--�-5- r"-�^'�---?r` - if'• '`{� _ `�.'_ rte____._. _ r - _ __.� _..-- -- •-- - TmA JC �. r _ J_ { f-� I ;teles L t _ �,�'•'L•(`_ -%...� ti __.1._:-a.�-��..," f.• + !- irk t �� /`, `` _`) N_.— A •�I E i w.iw rr•.S `•- i_•h•l.. w•ld+r �.. C Si. •.EE, [ n •.. i0 '�•y.t., �� +` C+y� W Si.€ '5e•A51iP.`Aaa; ��YEy �� s if i�gG�s: rAlrEF �' mr:. .• VR•q•k _ A i Sfi..iaA sc y 7 a` Sr bx.i147 r i b) Ss i0 ' _ J N. b/ANU• i, iN a 4 S Tf ; • M.S'+ini i! 1Vrr M•,nw:.l - '4:49 •E 1Aa w 3dr^ r. �, �O `r±Aa - � � i S S � ^ � � 94 .A "� '' ��i �"�y�\i rrrr� .an�F i.�J'� g ,w.EA.c �_ ��f..,•.,d. A�., .. w I>m yy r • .� -. .a� j :y.� • 1;rN • 1' 1A� ' Y � � � ,rM � h 11�• .n i • • E+fx of ! EfiA • 'l�_ - !AN = '� 3 [ t r • [.. . H �... W. Irl• _ e1 AGENCY CO`InMENTS CHECKLIST AP & L ARKLA TELEPHONE WATER SEWER FIRE ENGINEERING PLANNING OTHER