Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7138 Staff AnalysisFebruary 25, 2002 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7138 Carlton and Becky Cooper 1112 Claywood Drive Lot 3111 Leawood Heights Addition R-2 The applicant is requesting an appeal of an administrative interpretation, in order to operate a "clothing consulting" business as a home occupation. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential with Home Occupation The R-2 zoned property at 1112 Claywood Drive contains a two-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located on the west side of Claywood Drive between Leawood Blvd. and Linda Lane, in an area that is exclusively single family residential in nature. There are existing single family residences to the north, south, west and across Claywood Drive to the east. On September 10, 2001, the City's Zoning Enforcement Staff issued Becky Cooper a 15 -day courtesy notice to February 25, 2002 Item No.: B cease the operation of a retail woman's apparel shop at 1112 Claywood Drive. The notice was issued as a violation of Section 36-254(b)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, permitted uses in R-2 zoning. On November 20, 2001, Mrs. Cooper received a 15 -day letter to comply (final notice) from the City Attorney's Office. The enforcement initiated by staff against Mrs. Cooper was a result of complaints issued by Louis Burgess who is the property owner and resident of 1024 Claywood Drive. The notices were issued by the Enforcement Staff based on the fact that staff feels that the type of business being operated at 1112 Claywood Drive by Mrs. Cooper does not conform to Section 36-253(b)(6)b., uses permitted as home occupations. Additionally, based on information received by Mr. Burgess of 1024 Claywood Drive, staff feels that the amount of traffic generated by Mrs. Cooper's business is in excess of what is normal for residential traffic in this area of the subdivision. The applicant, Becky Cooper, is requesting an appeal of this administrative interpretation, in order to operate her "clothing consulting" business at 1112 Claywood Drive as a home occupation. Mrs. Cooper contends that the City has mischaracterized her use of the property and that her specific "clothing consulting" business qualifies as a home occupation and conforms to the requirements of Section 36-253 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. An attached letter from Marian McMullan, Mrs. Cooper's attorney, gives a detailed description of Mrs. Cooper's use of the property at 1112 Claywood Drive and the justification for requesting an appeal of staff's administrative position. Also attached is a copy of an invitation to the clothing sale which took place at this location between August 2 and August 12, 2001, which was given to staff by Mr. Burgess. The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine if Mrs. Cooper's use of the property at 1112 Claywood Drive qualifies as a home occupation according to Section 36-253 of the ordinance. In reviewing this requested appeal, staff would suggest that the Board consider the following questions: 1. Who are Mrs. Cooper's clientele? Individuals? Retail Clothing Shop owners? 2 February 25, 2002 Item No.: B 2. Is the clothing ordered by Mrs. Cooper's customers shipped directly to the customer or to 1112 Claywood Drive? 3. If the orders are shipped to 1112 Claywood Drive, does Mrs. Cooper deliver the orders to the customers or do the customers come to 1112 Claywood Drive to pick them up? 4. Is the traffic generated by this specific business in excess of what would be considered normal for a residential neighborhood? BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) Marian McMullan and others were present, representing the application. There were no persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item, noting that Louis Burgess of 1024 Claywood Drive had submitted a package of information to each board member, including a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the February 25, 2002 agenda. It was noted that Mr. Burgess was a concerned neighbor who had an out-of-state trip planned for several months before the public hearing and therefore could not attend this meeting. Chairman Ruck explained the request made by Mr. Burgess and made a motion to defer the application to the February 25, 2002 agenda. He noted that Mr. Burgess should have an opportunity to address the Board. He asked for the Board's opinion on the deferral issue. Andy Francis asked the applicant if there would be any hardship in deferring the application. Marian McMullan, attorney for Becky Cooper (the property owner), stated that there would be a hardship in deferring the application. She stated that Mrs. Cooper had experienced emotional strain over the situation. She also stated that, as a trial lawyer, she did not know whether or not she could be present at the next hearing. She asked to present information to the Board at this meeting. Chairman Ruck stated that he wished to hear both sides of the issue at the same meeting. He also stated that 3 February 25, 2002 Item No.: B Mr. Burgess needed to hear the applicant's side of the issue. Chairman Ruck's motion to defer was seconded. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred to the February 25, 2002 agenda. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 25, 2002) Marian McMullan and Becky Cooper were present, representing the application. Louis Burgess of 1024 Claywood Drive was present to oppose the application. Staff presented the item, noting that Marian McMullan and Louis Burgess had each submitted a package of information to the Board. Staff reminded the Board that the issue at hand was whether or not Becky Cooper's clothing business conformed to the home occupation standards found in Section 36-253 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Ruck stated that each side would be limited to a 20 minute presentation. He called on Louis Burgess to present his side of the issue. Louis Burgess spoke in opposition to the operation of the business at 1112 Claywood Drive. He stated that he has lived in Leawood for 25 years and described the neighborhood in the area of Claywood Drive. He described the activities which have taken place at 1112 Claywood Drive since August, 2001. He described the amount of traffic which he witnessed during Mrs. Cooper's clothing sales. Mr. Burgess also discussed the City's enforcement of the business activities at the site. He noted that Mrs. Cooper's use of the property at 1112 Claywood Drive adversely effected property values in the area. Marian McMullen spoke in favor of the application. She noted that she was Mrs. Cooper's attorney. She contended that the City of Little Rock was not correct in the characterization of the activity at 1112 Claywood Drive. She noted that Mrs. Cooper was a "clothing consultant" for the "Carlisle Collection" and described this national company and how it operates. She noted that Mrs. Cooper sends out invitations for the clothing sale events and that Mrs. Cooper kept no inventory or stock on the site. In 4 February 25, 2002 Item No.: B response to questions posed by the City, Ms. McMullan responded as follows: 1. The clothing sales events are by invitation only. 2. The clothing ordered is shipped to Mrs. Cooper. 3. Mrs. Cooper delivers the orders to the customers' homes. 4. She did not feel that the traffic generated by Mrs. Cooper's business was in excess of what is normal for a single family residence and explained. Ms. McMullan explained that Mrs. Cooper's business was not a retail sales business. She noted that there are competitors to the "Carlisle Collection" and that this type of activity takes place in single family residences around the country. She questioned whether or not the City was fair in their assessment of the activity which has taken place at 1112 Claywood Drive. She stated that Mr. Burgess' statements were contradicted by the other neighbors. She noted that cars parked on the street were not a violation of City ordinance. She stated that Mr. Burgess' account and number of vehicles parked on the street during the events were grossly exaggerated, and that many of his statements were not true. She presented written statements from W. N. Butcher and Ann Benton. She noted that the majority of the neighbors on Claywood Drive have no problem with Mrs. Cooper's business activity. Ms. McMullan concluded by stating that she felt Mrs. Cooper's activities were not in violation of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if there were any signs for the business. Ms. McMullan stated that there were not. Gary Langlais stated that there was very little traffic on Claywood Drive based on his personal observation, and that any amount of additional traffic could be considered a problem. Chairman Ruck asked Mr. Burgess what the maximum number of vehicles at any one time that he observed attending a clothing sale at 1112 Claywood Drive. Mr. Burgess stated that he has seen as many as eight (8) vehicles at one time. He further noted that he witnessed 18 vehicles on a single day, and that he had the license number or make of each vehicle. 5 February 25, 2002 Item No.: B Andy Francis asked Mr. Burgess what level of activity at 1112 Claywood Drive would be acceptable to him. Mr. Burgess stated that activity no more than allowed yard sales (2 yard sales per year, 2 days each sale) would be acceptable. Ms. McMullan stated that Mrs. Cooper had made arrangements to park the cars of her customers in the neighbors' driveways and not on the street. Mr. Langlais asked who the four (4) other persons were noted on the brochure advertising Mrs. Cooper's clothing sale. Ms. McMullan stated that these were Mrs. Cooper's sales associates. Mr. Langlais noted that employees reporting to a residence was not in compliance with the home occupation standards. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, provided the Board with the definition of a home occupation. He noted that the definition required that the individual living in the residence conduct the business. Chairman Ruck asked how many articles of clothing are displayed at each event. Mrs. Cooper noted that she typically had about 400 pieces of clothing and described how the clothing was displayed. Chairman Ruck asked how many rooms of the house were used for the events. Mrs. Cooper noted that the living room and dining room were used for the clothing displays. Chairman Ruck asked how large the house was. Mrs. Cooper noted that it was approximately 2,600 square feet with the garage. Chairman Ruck asked if Mrs. Cooper's sales associates were at the residence for the entirety of each sale. Mrs. Cooper noted that they were not necessarily there for the entire event, because each sales associate made their own appointments. Andy Francis asked if there were any other advertisements other than the invitations. Mrs. Cooper stated that there were no other ads. Mr. Francis asked how many invitations were mailed out. Mrs. Cooper stated that 400 invitations were mailed out for each event, and that 59 customers attended the first sale. Scott Richburg asked how the 400 mail -outs are determined. Mrs. Cooper stated that she maintains a client list. 6 February 25, 2002 Item No.: B Chairman Ruck asked how long each appointment lasts. Mrs. Cooper noted that each appointment took approximately 30 to 60 minutes. The issue was briefly discussed. Mr. Richburg asked if Mrs. Cooper and the four other sales associates had appointments at the same time. Mrs. Cooper stated that this was a possibility at the beginning of a show. She briefly discussed the issue, noting that her use of the property did not create a problem for the neighborhood. Vice -Chairman Gray stated that the affidavits signed by the neighbors indicated that there was not an increase in traffic during the sales events. Ms. McMullan noted that the neighbors were not concerned with the traffic generated by Mrs. Cooper's business and explained. Vice -Chairman Gray asked Ms. McMullan about her displeasure with the way the City had handled the enforcement case. Ms. McMullan stated that the City should have called Mrs. Cooper and gotten her side of the story and conducted more of an investigation into the matter. She further explained her opinion of this issue. Vice -Chairman Gray asked Kenny Scott to give the City's side of the enforcement case. Kenny Scott, of the Planning Staff, noted that a complaint was received pertaining to the retail sales of clothing at 1112 Claywood Drive. He read Ken Jones' enforcement report on this case. He explained the procedure for issuance of home occupation permits and how Mrs. Cooper's use did not conform to the home occupation standards. He noted that no customer or employee traffic was allowed with a home occupation. He noted that active enforcement cases did not fall under the Freedom of Information Act, as per the City Attorney's office. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if the enforcement notice was issued to Mrs. Cooper because of increased traffic. Mr. Scott noted that this was the case, and also that Mrs. Cooper admitted to the increased traffic. The traffic issue was briefly discussed. Chairman Ruck asked if Mrs. Cooper made appointments on weekends. Mrs. Cooper noted that weekends have the lowest customer traffic. Chairman Ruck asked about drop-in 7 February 25, 2002 Item No.: B customers. Mrs. Cooper noted that she had no drop-in customers. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if the clothing samples were sold. Mrs. Cooper stated that the samples were not sold, because they had to be passed on to the next sales representative. This issue was briefly discussed. Gary Langlais asked if the four (4) other sales associates had their own clientele. Mrs. Cooper stated that they did. Mr. Langlais stated that this essentially represented five (5) separate businesses being operated at the location. This issue was briefly discussed. Chairman Ruck asked what the appropriate motion would be. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, stated that the motion would be that the business as operated by Becky Cooper fits within the home occupation standards. This issue was briefly discussed. There was a motion to approve the business operated by Becky Cooper at 1112 Claywood Drive as being in compliance with the home occupation standards of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The motion was briefly discussed. Vice -Chairman Gray stated that he was voting against the business operation with a heavy heart. He stated that he supports small businesses in the City. He further explained his view of the issue. Chairman Ruck called for a vote on the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes and 5 nays. The appeal of staff's administrative interpretation was denied. 8