boa_04 26 2010LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
APRIL 26, 2010
2:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being five (5) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The Minutes of the March 29, 2010 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: Robert Winchester, Chairman
Scott Smith, Vice Chairman
Leslie Greenwood
Rajesh Mehta
Brad Wingfield
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
I. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Z-8520
II. NEW BUSINESS:
1
2
3.
4.
5
6
Z -6459-A
Z -7407-B
Z-8537
Z-8538
Z-8539
Z-8540
Z-8541
Z-8542
Z-8543
AGENDA
APRIL 26, 2010
2:00 P.M.
49 DuClair Court
5923 Kavanaugh Blvd.
9211 Chicot Road
4712 Kavanaugh Blvd.
5224 Country Club Blvd.
8617 Crofton Circle
5909 N. Country Club Blvd.
11024 Shenandoah Drive
32-50 Tournay Circle
4213 Wait Street
a �
w
o
oa .en3Z N
-0
1 ti
i
08 SVWOHl NVO ^
of I
J _/sP
I W—
CF) TERSTATE 531 0£S 3'�V1Sas1N1
1S VM0Oa8• •� � Oa a3H3 0 0a
1S How •7 O NO1Noal
CM
/
o-
1 ° 3 o°
t10
U)
E
0
U
a �
w
o
oa .en3Z N
-0
1 ti
i
08 SVWOHl NVO ^
of I
J _/sP
I W—
CF) TERSTATE 531 0£S 3'�V1Sas1N1
1S VM0Oa8• •� � Oa a3H3 0 0a
1S How •7 O NO1Noal
�r s
z• j � pa lavnnals �
00£AVMHOIH 1 1.._.._..%� • �GPS
O
L) 1
as S�avds
o
A Z
o � I
ZSONlads OaV'71H
N r•i
saNiad�a3%an `M -••1
W
a
aj Oa LOOIH3 ;
� 1
w ;
z w
w ¢�
m
\� 08 30MI At
b0
CM
/
o-
1 ° 3 o°
t10
qA
AV A1ISa3AINns
cn
15 IddISSISSIW NI
4 �
I – a Moaave NHo
e�-
oa mona3s�,QP��P/ I
i
i
�I
N
�
I
V1SIM
0
o
wMpe s
�—
�.
z
of
Ir
�r s
z• j � pa lavnnals �
00£AVMHOIH 1 1.._.._..%� • �GPS
O
L) 1
as S�avds
o
A Z
o � I
ZSONlads OaV'71H
N r•i
saNiad�a3%an `M -••1
W
a
aj Oa LOOIH3 ;
� 1
w ;
z w
w ¢�
m
\� 08 30MI At
b0
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: A
File No.: Z-8520
Owner/Applicant: Turag Ronaghi
Address: 49 DuClair Court
Description: Lot 11, Block 4, Chenal Valley Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-
516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 49 Duclair Court is occupied by a one-story brick single
family residence. There is a paved alley located along the rear property line. A
driveway from the alley serves as access to a garage on the rear of the residence.
The applicant recently began construction of a six (6) foot — nine (9) inch tall wood
fence to enclose a portion of the rear yard area, as noted on the attached site plan.
The new fence consists of standard six (6) foot high (1 inch by 4 inch) wood
pickets (dog -eased), on top of two (2) 2 X 6 timbers running horizontally on end. A
portion of the fence along the south property line has not been completed, as the
applicant stopped work when he was informed of the need for a variance.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence
height of six (6) feet for fences in R-2 zoned areas. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow the newly constructed fence with an overall height of
approximately six (6) feet — nine (9) inches.
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: A (Con't.
Staff is supportive of the requested fence variance. Staff views the issue as a
relatively minor increase in fence height. There are several six (6) foot tall fences
located along the alley. Several of the fences have decorative posts with heights
near seven (7) feet. When viewing the new fence from one end of the alley or the
other, it does not have the appearance of being out of character, height -wise, with
the other fences along the alley. Staff believes the fence, as constructed, will have
no negative impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The applicant
should be aware that there may be an architectural review committee for this
neighborhood which could include fence construction.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(FEBRUARY 22, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred to the March 29,
2010 Agenda. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on
the consent agenda and deferred to the March 29, 2010 meeting by a vote of
5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 29, 2010)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred to the April 26,
2010 Agenda. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the
consent agenda and deferred to the April 26, 2010 meeting by a vote of 4 ayes, 0
noes and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2010)
Turag Ronaghi was present, representing the application. There was one (1)
registered objector present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation
of approval. Staff noted that the recommendation of approval included the condition
that a permit be obtained for the fence construction.
Turag Ronaghi addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that his
neighbors had no problem with his fence, other than one (1) neighbor. He explained
that the fence enhanced the neighborhood.
Melanie Orintas addressed the Board in opposition. She noted that there was an
architectural review committee for the neighborhood which reviewed fence
construction. She stated that the quality of the fence is not the same as other fences
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: A (Con't.)
in the neighborhood. She presented photos of other properties in the neighborhood.
She also stated that the neighborhood association president was opposed to the
proposed fence.
There was a brief discussion of the issue of bills of assurance and architectural
review committees.
Mr. Ronaghi explained that the horizontal lumber at the base of the fence was
installed because of water run-off which would rot the fence pickets if they were on
the ground.
There was a motion to approve the fence variance as recommended by staff. The
motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was
approved.
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: 6459-A
Owner: Satellite Heights Real Estate, LLC
Applicant: Jennifer Herron, Herron Horton Architects
Address: 5923 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Description: Part of Lots 10-12, Block 8, Mountain Park Addition
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
301 and the parking provisions of Section 36-502 to allow a building addition with reduced
front setback and a reduced number of parking spaces.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Restaurant
Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned property at 5923 Kavanaugh Blvd. is currently occupied by a split
level brick commercial building which is currently vacant. The property is located
at the southeast corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. and University Avenue. There is an
access drive from University Avenue, with paved parking on the south and east
sides of the building. There are ten (10) parking spaces on the site, with an exit
drive onto Kavanaugh Blvd. at the northeast corner of the property. There is an
existing outdoor restaurant seating area (with three foot high railing) on the north
side of the building, between the building and the sidewalk along Kavanaugh Blvd.
On March 9, 1998 the Board of Adjustment approved a parking variance to allow a
restaurant, Satellite Cafe, to occupy the building. Satellite Cafe recently closed in
order to remodel the building and re -open. As part of the remodeling project, the
applicant proposes to add a nine (9) foot by ten (10) foot entry area on the north
side of the building and an additional 342 square feet of outdoor seating area at
the northwest corner of the building, both noted on the attached site plan.
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 1 (Con't.)
The applicant is requesting two (2) variances with the proposed remodeling
project. The proposed front entry addition will be located 9.8 feet back from the
front (north) property line. Section 36-301(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance
requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for C-3 zoned property. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed 9.8 foot front setback.
Section 36-502(b)(3)c. requires a minimum of three (3) additional off-street parking
spaces for the 342 square feet of additional outdoor dining space as proposed.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement also. There
are ten (10) paved parking spaces on the site. The restaurant use which occupied
and will re -occupy the building would typically be required a minimum of 36 off-
street parking spaces.
Staff is supportive of the requested setback and parking variances. Staff views the
request as reasonable. With respect to the front setback variance, most of the
other commercial buildings, along the south side of Kavanaugh Blvd., to the east
are located on their front property lines adjacent to the sidewalk along Kavanaugh
Blvd. The requested front setback for the new front entry area will not be out of
character with other commercial buildings to the east. Additionally, staff views the
parking variance as a minor issue. The remodeling of the existing restaurant
space will not change the amount of available seating for the restaurant use, with
the exception of the new 342 square feet outdoor seating area. This is a very
small area of additional seating which requires an additional three (3) off-street
parking spaces. As noted previously, the site contains ten (10) existing off-street
parking spaces. The majority of the commercial uses along the south side of
Kavanaugh Blvd. have no off-street parking spaces. Therefore, this site has a
slight parking advantage over those other commercial uses, including other
restaurants. Staff believes there is ample parking, including on -street parking, in
this general area and that the requested variances will have no adverse impact on
the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and parking variances,
subject to providing railing to delineate the area of outdoor seating.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2010)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred to the May 24,
2010 Agenda. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the
consent agenda and deferred to the May 24, 2010 meeting by a vote of 5 ayes, 0
noes and 0 absent.
March 25, 2010
Mr. Monte Moore
City of Little Rock
725 W. Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Monte:
On behalf of our client, Keith Holland, owner of Satellite Caf6, we are requesting a variance for
the new entry addition because it is within the 25'-0" front setback and a variance for the number
of parking spaces due to the additional exterior caf6 seating along Kavanaugh Boulevard.
The existing building, known as Satellite Caf6, is being remodeled and will re -open as Satellite
Caf6. The total gross square footage of the building is 3,314 square feet. The square footage of
the existing outdoor seating area is 377 square feet. The proposed exterior seating area is 342
square feet. The new entry vestibule located on the north wall is 90 square feet and reduces the
existing patio square footage to 206 square feet. The new entry is proposed to provide a more
comfortable air -lock entry for the patrons of the restaurant.
The proposed interior restaurant seating capacity is 97 seats. The proposed exterior seating at the
new patio area is 24 seats.
There are 10 existing off street parking spaces plus one handicap parking space off of Kavanaugh
Boulevard. The existing dumpster location is at the southeast corner of the property.
If there are any questions, please call me at 975-0052.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Herron, ATA
herron porton :=:;-c ' - :._":`:
1219 South Spring St.
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone 501.975.0052
Fax 501.372.7931
hh-architects_com
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.: Z -7407-B
Owner: Kil Joone Kim
Applicant: Andrew Hicks
Address: 9211 Chicot Road
Description: Northeast Corner of Chicot Road and Preston Drive
(recently changed to Vernon Estates Drive)
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
301 to allow construction of a new building with reduced side and rear setbacks.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Undeveloped
Proposed Use of Property: Neighborhood Grocery/Takeout Restaurant
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
The proposed site plan must comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
C. Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned property at 9211 Chicot Road is currently undeveloped. The
property is located at the northeast corner of Chicot Road and Preston Drive.
Existing driveways from Chicot Road and Preston Drive serve the property.
Portions of the property are paved, with the remainder being grass -covered. There
is a 40 foot platted building line along both street frontages.
The applicant proposes to construct a 4,620 square foot (one-story) commercial
building near the northeast corner of the property, as noted on the attached site
plan. Driveways will be located at the northwest (from Chicot Road) and southeast
(from Preston Drive) corners of the site. A total of 20 paved parking spaces will be
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 2 (Con't.)
located on the south and west sides of the proposed building. The building will be
located ten (10) feet back from the east side and rear (north) property lines, with a
setback of 60 feet from the front (south) property line and 68 feet from the west
street side property line. The applicant notes that 3,318 square feet of the
proposed structure will be used for a grocery, with 1,302 square feet being a
takeout restaurant. Wood screening fences will be located along the east side and
rear (north) property lines.
Section 36-301(e)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
setback of 15 feet along the east side property line. Section 36-301(e)(3)also
requires a 15 foot minimum setback along the north (rear) property line. Therefore,
the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the
new commercial building with an east side setback of 10 feet and a rear (north)
setback of 10 feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested setback variances. On July 31, 2006, the
Board of Adjustment approved similar 10 foot side and rear setbacks for a
proposed convenience store with gas pumps, as well as front and street side
building line variances. The convenience store development never materialized.
Staff feels the request is reasonable, and the proposed commercial building will
represent a quality in -fill development within this area of Southwest Little Rock.
With respect to the reduced side and rear setbacks for the commercial building, the
property abuts commercial developments to the north and east which are still
zoned R-2. If the adjacent property were zoned commercial to recognize the
existing use, no side setback would be required. Therefore, staff views these
requested variances as very minor issues. Staff believes the proposed commercial
building with reduced side and rear setbacks will have no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties or the general area.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances, subject to no
portion of the new building be utilized as a full service restaurant.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the "staff recommendation"
above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent.
andrew hicks
Andrew Nicks, Architect voice 501.219.1614
PO Box 25971 fax 501 .215.1614
Little Rock Arkansas, 72221 andrewe_andrev✓hicksarchitact.com
Mr Monte Moore
Planning Commission Staff
City Of Little Bock
March 25, 2010
RE: 9203 Chicot Road, a non-residential building setback variance request
for small strip shopping center to be located on the North East corner of
Chicot Road and Preston Drive in the city limits of Little Rock, Arkansas.
Mr. Moore,
We present to you a small development on approximately '/2 of an acre tract of
land. This Development is proposed by Mr. Kil Kim and his son Mr. Jai Kim who
will own and operate a small neighborhood 3,318 sf grocery and a separate
1,302 takeout restaurant (no interior dining). The Kims also operate another
similar store in the Little Flock area. This location will sell grocery items and
takeout fast food but NO gasoline. The building will have a total of 4,620 sf
contained in one building.
We request:
1. A variance to the existing setback requirements to allow for a ten foot
(10') building setback on the east (rear) and north(side) property lines,
away from the corner.
This variance will allow the store to be constructed with an efficient 50' depth
and also allow greater area in front of the stores for vehicle movement by
providing a 25' wide driveway.
This site was granted a similar variance in the past for a project that was not
constructed. The old application was under # z -7407a, I believe. The applicants
were the same on the previous project but the building type at that time had a
fuel canopy component that this application does NOT have. Since the fuel
canopy component has been eliminated the building footprint is now larger and
has an additional lease space. Since the fuel canopy has been eliminated from
the design there is no need for a front yard setback variance in this application.
Mr Kil Kim is the owner of this property. He is developing this store and lease
space to better serve the residents of this area. Small retail space is lagging in
this area of Chicot Road and the benefit to Little Rock citizens, local to this area,
is obvious. The Kims are interested in making an investment in this part of the
city where they will be a viable part of the community.
If you have any questions about this application, please call me and thank you
for your consideration.
Sincerely,
rew Hicks,/AIA N
DSCNI
roill,K)l S-7-01R-kfsa:
C�IIICOT
"
i I,-
f C)T
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.:
Owner:
Applicant:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z-8537
Jeffrey and Susan Harper
Carolyn Lindsey, Yeary Lindsey Architects
4712 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Lot 81, Cliffewood Addition
R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156
to allow construction of an accessory carport/storage structure with reduced side setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 4712 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by a one-story brick
and frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from
Kavanaugh Blvd. which runs along the south side of the residence to a
garage/storage accessory building within the rear yard area. There is a parking
pad in the front yard area for three (3) cars. The existing accessory structure is
487 square feet in area, and is a one-story structure. The structure is located 1.3
feet from the south side property line.
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing accessory structure and replace
it with a new carport/storage structure. The new structure will be one-story in
height and 510 square feet in area. The carport portion of the structure will occupy
360 square feet, with the remaining 150 square feet being a work shop/storage
area. The new structure will maintain the same 1.3 foot south side setback as the
previous structure, and will be located three (3) feet from the rear (east) property
line. It will have six (6) inch overhangs and guttering. The carport portion of the
structure will be unenclosed.
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 3 (Con't.)
Section 36-156(a)(2)f. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
setback of three (3) feet for accessory structures in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a variance to allow the new accessory structure to maintain
the same 1.3 foot side (south) setback on the existing accessory structure.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as
reasonable, given the fact that the lot width narrows from front to back, with the
rear property line being 43.6 feet. This reduces the amount of buildable space
within the rear yard area. Additionally, the new structure being mostly unenclosed
carport space will have a lesser visual impact on the surrounding properties than
the existing structure. The proposed accessory building will not be out of character
(size or setbacks) with other accessory structures in this general area. Staff
believes the new accessory carport structure will have no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent
property to the south.
2. The accessory structure must be constructed to match the existing
residence.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the "staff recommendation"
above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent.
t. ,eary Lindsey Architects
Mr. Monte Moore March 25, 2010
Department of Neighborhoods and Planning
723 W. Markham St.
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Re: Zoning Variance Application for Hamer Residence, 4712 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Dear Monte,
This property is on Kavanaugh Blvd. near the intersection of Kavanaugh and
Cantrell. A parking pad currently exists in the right-of-way at the front of the
house.
Our proposed plan includes a one-story expansion with a Covered Porch at the
rear of the house and a freestanding Carport Addition with a 10 ft. x 15 ft.
Workshop to the east. We are requesting a zoning variance to allow the
following:
1) Reduced south side yard setback to allow new one -car Carport and
Workshop to encroach 3.5 ft. into the 4.8 ft. setback reducing it to 1.3 ft
(current setback at existing Garage).
The existing Garage and Studio suffers from below grade leaking and the owners
have been advised that the best way to deal with that, as well as onsite drainage
issues from neighboring properties, would be to remove the Garage and
reconstruct the Carport / Workshop properly redirecting the drainage away from
beneath the main house.
We are requesting the side yard setback reduction to allow for ease in backing
down the narrow drive along side the house. If we were to move the Carport /
Workshop further to the north, they would have to really cut their wheels so as
not to back into the southeast corner of the house. Because the neighbor to the
south fronts onto Crestwood, our reduced side yard is adjacent to their rear yard.
We feel that this relationship is an advantage in this variance request.
The portion of the new Carport / Workshop that sits within the rear setback is 330
square feet which covers 30% of the rear yard.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
C"gr_ �• L
Carolyn A.' dsey, AIA
3416 Old Cantrell Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 501-372-5940 Fax: 501-663-0043
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z-8538
Owner: Chris and Julie Keller
Applicant: Frank Riggins
Address: 5224 Country Club Blvd.
Description: Lot 7, Block 11, Newton's Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-
516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5224 Country Club Blvd. is occupied by a two-story
brick, rock and frame single family residence which is in the process of being
remodeled. The property is located at the northeast corner of Country Club Blvd.
and Harrison Street. There is a two -car wide driveway from Harrison Street which
serves as access to a garage on the west side of the residence. The rear yard
area is in the process of being landscaped.
As part of the landscaping project, the applicant proposes to construct an eight (8)
foot high fence/wall along a portion of the east (side) property line, as noted on the
attached site plan. The fence/wall will run for approximately 60 feet and be
constructed of stone and wood. The fence/wall will have stone columns and a
stone base, with wood panels between the stone columns. The applicant notes
that the eight (8) foot high fence is needed to provide adequate privacy, due to the
change in grade between the property at 5224 Country Club Blvd. and the property
immediately to the east.
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 4 (Con't.)
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum
fence/wall height of six (6) feet for single family properties. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a variance to allow the fence/wall with a height of eight (8)
feet.
Staff is supportive of the fence height variance. Staff views the request as
reasonable. The proposed eight (8) foot high fence will not be out of character with
other residential fences in this neighborhood. As noted previously, the applicant is
requesting the eight (8) foot tall fence due to the difference in grade between the
two properties. The proposed fence/wall will run for only approximately 60 feet
within the rear yard area, and staff believes it will have no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties or general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence variance, subject to a permit
being obtained for the fence construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the "staff recommendation"
above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent.
Crafton, iull, Sparks & Associates, Inc..__..._.._._..__._._...___.
government °.
March 23, 2010
Mr. Monty Moore
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
pu6ticworks
_
rks & recreation
residential
commercial C
transportation
industrial
sports •°
spiritual J
education
health
Re: Fence Height Variance Request for 5224 Country Club Blvd., Little Rock, AR 72207
Dear Mr. Moore,
Attached is an application for a variance of the fence height restrictions of Section 36516 of the
Little Rock Code of Ordinances. The applicant is requesting permission to construct an eight foot
maximum privacy fence along a portion of the east property line of the subject property. The
fence will be constructed of stone columns and base and wood panels.
The applicant is asking for the variance to allow the greater fence height due to difference in
elevation between the finished floor of the subject property and the finished grade of the house
next door. A fence conforming to the restrictions in the code of ordinances does not provide
adequate privacy for either property, therefore, the reason for this request. The enclosed survey
shows the extent of the fence. I have also enclosed an elevation of the proposed fence for your
review.
Please let me know if you need any additional information on this matter.
ure
vvww.craftort,Ilsparks.col7- _
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.: Z-8539
Owner/Applicant: Jane S. Harrison
Address: 8617 Crofton Circle
Description: Lot 116, Merrivale Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254
and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow enclosure of a carport with reduced
front setback and which crosses a platted building line.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 8617 Crofton Circle is occupied by a one-story brick and
frame single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of
Crofton Circle and Crofton Drive. A two -car wide driveway from Crofton Circle serves
as access to the property. A 25 foot platted building line is located along both street
frontages. A carport which existed at the northwest corner of the residence was
recently removed due to damage by heavy ice accumulation over the winter. The
carport extended approximately 20.6 feet across the front (west) platted building line,
with a 4.4 foot setback from the front (west) property line. An enclosed storage portion
of the carport structure still exists, as noted on the attached site plan.
The applicant proposes to construct a garage addition to replace the carport which
was damaged and removed. The garage addition would occupy the same foot print as
the previous carport, extending across the front (west) building line by 20.6 feet with a
4.4 foot front setback. The applicant, Jane Harrison, is requesting the garage addition
for security reasons, as she lives alone at the residence and has medical conditions.
Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front (west)
setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 31-12(c ) of the Subdivision
Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the
Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 5 (Con't.)
ordinance standards to allow the garage addition with a reduced front setback and
which crosses a platted building line.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as reasonable,
as the applicant is proposing to replace a carport structure which existed on the site
for a number of years with a garage with the same building foot print. The proposed
front setback for the garage will not be totally out of character with the neighborhood,.
The residence directly across Crofton Circle to the north has a similar setback from its
front (west) property line, with a building foot print which is almost a mirror image of
the residence in question. As noted previously, the applicant is requesting the garage
addition for security reasons which staff is sensitive to. Staff believes the proposed
garage addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general
area.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a
one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the garage
addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's
office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and building line variances,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted
building line as approved by the Board.
2. The building addition must be constructed to match the existing residence.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2010)
Jane Harrison was present, representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval.
Scott Smith asked Ms. Harrison what her need was for a two -car garage as opposed to
a one -car garage. Ms. Harrison explained that she needed the two -car garage for
added security and that she had medical reasons. She stated that she just wanted to
replace the carport structure which was damaged by an ice storm. She explained that
the proposed garage addition would occupy the same footprint as the carport which was
removed.
There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The motion
passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was approved.
..
-G L
i
9,20 - -- --
A'75"
1
�4-14-
-� - -
i
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.: Z-8540
Owner: Michael and Leah Wachowaik
Applicant: Chris Milligan
Address: 5909 N. Country Club Blvd.
Description: Lot 74, Forest Heights Place Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a porch/stoop addition with
reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5909 N. Country Club Blvd. is occupied by a one-story
brick and frame single family residence. The house is in the process of being
remodeled, including the addition of a second floor over a portion of the structure.
There is a three (3) car parking pad in the front yard area accessed from N.
Country Blvd. The lot has a 25 foot front platted building line.
As part of the construction project, the applicant plans to enclose the existing porch
area at the northwest corner of the residence and construct a three (3) foot by six
(6) foot covered porch/stoop on the front of the residence, as noted on the
attached site plan. The covered porch/stoop will be unenclosed and extend across
the front platted building line by two (2) to 2.5 feet, with a front setback of 22.5 to
23 feet.
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO • 6 (Coni )
Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front
setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 31-12(c ) of the Subdivision
Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by
the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from
these ordinance standards to allow the porch/stoop addition with a reduced front
setback and which crosses the front platted building line.
Staff supports the requested front setback and building line variances. Staff views
the proposed front porch/stoop as a relatively minor issue. If the lot did not contain
a front building line, staff could approve the 22.5 to 23 foot front setback
administratively. The front porch/stoop will not be out of character with other
similar structural "bump -outs" in this general area. The house immediately to the
east has a front porch/stoop with a front setback similar to the one in question.
The proposed front porch/stoop will not have the appearance of being out of
alignment with the other houses along the south side of N. Country Club Blvd.
Staff believes the proposed porch/stoop addition will have no adverse impact on
the adjacent properties or general area.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete
a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the
porch/stoop addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the
Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and building line variances,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted
building line as approved by the Board.
2. The front porch/stoop addition must be constructed to match the existing
residence and remain unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the "staff recommendation"
above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent.
Michael Wachowiak
5909 N. Country Club Blvd.
Little Rock, AR 72207
501.658.6118
March 3, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
C,
I am writing to you in reference to my family's house located at 5909 N. Country Club
Blvd., in the Heights neighborhood of Little Rock, AR 72207. We are currently under
construction, adding a second floor to our existing house, and are requesting a variance to
the Zoning Ordinance of our neighborhood plat.
As shown on our current survey, the house is located directly on the 25 -foot front set
back line. We are enclosing the front porch to create a more welcoming foyer and would
like to add a small entry portico to enter the house. This would give a small area of
protection from the rain and elements, as well as adding dimension to the front elevation.
The new portico would create a more functional and attractive entrance, helping to create
curb appeal and connection to the streetscape. To accomplish this, we would like to
encroach into the front set back line by 3 feet with the addition of columns and a front
dormer.
I appreciate your consideration for this variance and look forward to your help in creating
our dream home.
Sincerely,
Michael Wachowiak
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.: Z-8541
Owner: R.L. Jones Construction Co.
Applicant: Rick Jones
Address: 11024 Shenandoah Drive
Description: Lot 15, Shenandoah Addition, Phase II
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow porch and deck additions
with reduced front and rear setbacks and a porch/step addition which crosses a platted
building line.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 11024 Shenandoah Drive is occupied by a two-story
brick and frame single family residence which was recently constructed. There is a
two -car wide driveway from Shenandoah Drive which serves as access. The lot
contains a 25 foot front platted building line.
When the house was constructed, the two-story front porch/balcony portion of the
structure was built approximately three (3) feet across the front platted building
line, with a front setback of approximately 22 feet. The porch/balcony portion is
covered and unenclosed. An uncovered/unenclosed step structure extends from
the porch, with a front setback of approximately 18 feet. There is also a small six
(6) foot wide wood deck (uncovered and unenclosed) which is located
approximately 19 feet back from the rear (west) property line. The deck structure
is approximately two (2) feet above grade. The rear wall of the house is 25 feet
back from the rear property line.
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM: NO,: 7 (Con't.)
Section 36-254(d)(1) and (3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
front setback of 25 feet and a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12(c )
of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be
reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the wood deck with
a reduced rear setback and the front porch/balcony with a reduced front setback
and which crosses the platted building line. The applicant, Rick Jones, notes that
the property had been foreclosed on, and that he purchased the property from the
bank unaware of the existing encroachments.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as relatively
minor. The front encroachment is minimal enough that the structure does not have
the appearance of being that much out of alignment with the fronts of other
structures along Shenandoah Drive to the north. The lots immediately to the south
are undeveloped. The deck on the rear of the house is a small structure (6 feet by
11 feet) which is not visible from the adjacent property to the west due to a
screening fence. Both structures are unenclosed which will help lessen the impact
of the encroachments on adjacent properties. Staff believes the existing
encroachments will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the
general area.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete
a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the
porch/balcony addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the
Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and building line variances,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted
building line as approved by the Board.
2. The front porch/balcony section of the residence must remain unenclosed.
3. The rear deck section of the residence must remain uncovered and
unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the "staff recommendation"
above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent.
R.L. Jones
Construction Company
1110 West 1011 Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone(501)375-5560 Fax (501)374-8849
March 17, 2010
City of Little Rock
Board of Adjustments
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: 11024 Shenandoah
Mabelvale, AR
Dear Sir,
I, Rick Jones, am requesting a variance for the property located at 11024
Shenandoah, Mabelvale, AR. The original builder almost completed the
home. The outside was 100% complete the inside was 90% complete. Simmons
Bank foreclosed on the property. I purchased the property from Simmons
Bank unaware that the front porch and back deck was over the set back line.
So therefore I am requesting an variance for these items, in order to get an
Certificate of Occupancy.
If you have questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call me at
960-5560.
R.L. Jones Construction Company
Rick Jones
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 8
File No.: Z-8542
Owner: Deltic Timber Corporation
Applicant: Tim Daters, White-Daters and Associates
Address: 32-50 Tournay Circle
Description: Lots 15-23, Block 82, Chenal Valley Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-
516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Undeveloped
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 32-50 Tournay Circle is currently undeveloped and tree
covered. The property is comprised of nine (9) platted single family lots. The
property slopes generally downward from south to north, and front to back (west to
east). The single family lots back up to the Joe T. Robinson school campus. The
westernmost school building is located approximately 70 feet back from the rear lot
lines of the single family lots. Drives, parking and loading areas are located on the
west end of the school building.
The applicant is proposing to construct an 8.5 foot high wood fence, with 9.5 foot
columns, along the rear (east) property line of the nine (9) single family lots, as
noted on the attached site plan. The applicant notes that the fences are needed to
provide screening of the school building to the east.
Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence
height of six (6) feet for fences in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow the taller fence construction. The applicant notes
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM: NO,: 8 (Con't.)
that a six (6) foot high fence would not adequately screen the single family lots
from the school property due to the downward slope from front to back of the
residential lots.
Staff is supportive of the requested fence variance. Staff views the request as
reasonable. Staff agrees with the applicant that a taller fence is needed to provide
additional screening of the school facilities, which are in relatively close proximity
to the rear property lines of the single family lots. Due to the slope of the property,
the new single family homes, when constructed, will be at a slightly higher
elevation than the rear property line where the fence will be located. Additionally,
the proposed fence height will not be out of character with other subdivision fences
(in the 8 foot tall range) in this general area. Staff believes the increased fence
height will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence variance, subject to a building
permit being obtained for the fence construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the "staff recommendation"
above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent.
7f�
Transmittal
To: Mr. Dana Carney
From: Tim Daters
CC:
Date: 3/26/2010
Re: Zoning Variance — Lots 15-23, Block 82, Chenal Valley
Attached are six copies of the survey for these lots showing the location of the fence
on the eastern property line. The Owner would like a variance of the maximum fence
height to screen the drives, parking and loading areas on the adjacent school
property. Since the lots slope down to the property line a six foot tall fence will
provide very little screening.
Please place this item on the agenda for the April 26th, 2010 Board of Adjustment
Meeting.
I have attached a sketch of the typical fence section. The fence will be constructed of
wood with wooden box posts. The fence will be 8 Y2 feet tall and the posts will project
one foot above the top of the fence as shown.
Please call me if you need any additional information.
Thank you for your assistance.
Tim Daters
• Page 1
CADocuments and Settings\tdaters\My Documents\danacarneytournayfenceheight.doc
24 Rahling Circle, Little Rock, Ar 72223 501-821-1667 501-821-1668 fax
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 9
File No.: Z-8543
Owner/Applicant: Radhakrishnan Nagarajan
Address: 4213 Wait Street
Description: Lot 11, Block 23, Hillcrest Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-
516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 4213 Wait Street is occupied by a two-story frame
single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Wait Street which
serves as access to the property. The property slopes downward from back to
front. A paved access drive is located within an access/utility easement along the
rear (east) property line.
The applicant recently constructed new wood fencing along the north and south
side property lines and near the rear (east) property line. The new fence along the
north side property line steps down from back to front with the slope of the
property. It ranges in height from 5.5 feet to eight (8) feet. The top two (2) feet of
the fence is lattice/trim. The fence along the south side property line within the
front yard area is approximately 6.5 feet in height and solid wood panels. The
fence along the south side property line within the rear yard area ranges in height
from five (5) feet to eight (8) feet, with the top two (2) feet being lattice/trim. The
fence in the rear yard area along the access/utility easement is a four (4) foot high
solid wood fence. The applicant notes that the fence was constructed for privacy
and security reasons.
APRIL 26, 2010
ITEM NO.: 9 (Coni )
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum
residential fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between a building
setback and street property line. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. also allows a maximum
fence height of six (6) feet for fences elsewhere on residential property. Therefore,
the applicant is requesting a variance to allow sections of the new fence along the
north and south side property lines which exceed the maximum heights allowed.
Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff's support is based
primarily on the fact that this small pocket of residential lots south of S. Lookout
Road is very unique in its lot configurations, building orientations and street
functions, especially Wait Street. The lot in question at 4213 Wait Street has a
platted front property line along Wait Street, but the physical front of the house
faces a private drive along its east property line, as do other houses in this area.
The west portion of the lot where the majority of the new fence is located functions
as a rear yard area. Additionally, Wait Street functions essentially as an alley with
most of the homes backing up to the roadway. The homes east and west of the
subject property back up to this property and face Fairview Road. Wait Street
appears to handle very little traffic. For these reasons and the fact that the highest
sections of the fence contain two (2) feet of lattice/trim, staff believes the increased
fence height will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general
area. The fence does not have the appearance of overshadowing the adjacent
I
roperties. The property owner immediately to the north as well as one (1) other
nearby owner have submitted letters of support that are attached for Board review.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1. A permit must be obtained for the fence construction.
2. The portions of the fence which are constructed of lattice and trim must
remain as such.
3. A franchise permit must be obtained for the portions of the fence which
extend into the Wait Street right-of-way.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the "staff recommendation"
above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent.
03/25/;010
The Department Planning Development -�
732 W Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201 A
Subject: Requesting a Fence Height Variance to construct a fence up to eight feet on the sides of
the single-family home on 4213 Wait Street.
Dear Sir/Madam,
We had received a notice from the Department of Planning and Commission, Little Rock on
March 17th, 2010 with regards (i) constructing a fence whose height violates the Little Rock code
of ordinance sections 36-516 E,la and 36-516 E. The notice indicated the following,
(i) Reduce the fence to 6 ft on sides
(ii) Reduce the fence to 4ft in areas within the front setback.
(iii) Apply for the fence permit
Upon receiving the notice met with the authorities on March 19th, 2010 and discussed the
contents of the notice issued to us. We are enclosing below the primary reasons behind the fence
construction and request for a fence height variance (8 feet). We also promise to complete all the
necessary formalities permit within the stipulated time.
1. 4213 Wait Street was initially an integral part of the Allsopp mansion property.
The entire acreage was sub -divided in such a fashion that both the front and back
yards of all the properties with Wait Street addresses abutted the backyards of the
neighbors both to the east and west. My property also adjoins the backyard on the
north side of my neighbor at 4223 S. Lookout. We should also mention that the
front and back yards of our property do not face the front yard of any of the
adjacent properties.
2. The landscape has a falling slope from east to west and consequently the houses in
the immediate vicinity are higher being elevated over garages and afford little
privacy with a standard fence; further such a low fence would be unsuitable for the
neighboring structures.
3. Recently our survey markers were removed by one of our neighbors. This was a
major concern especially since the neighbor practices a form of container gardening
which resulted in encroachments into our area knowingly or unknowingly. Further,
we were concerned that our 4 year old child would venture into this gardening area.
4. The height of the fence was decided after consultation with all the neighbors and
confirming that it did not obstruct their views of any natural landscape. The
neighbors were consulted through the construction process at every step as a mark
of good faith. We have also come across similar height fences in the Hillcrest areas
including Kenyon Drive, Fairview Road and properties within our vicinity that have
constructed fences in order to clearly delineate the boundaries. Please find enclosed
letters of support from our immediate neighbors.
Given the above reasons and inherent complex terrain with unclear boundaries we believe the
constructed fence will be in the best interest of our family and our neighbors. We request you to
kindly consider our request for the fence height variance.
Sincerely
Radhakrishnan Nagarajan
Owner 4213 Wait Street
Little Rock AR 72205
March 26, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
Our property adjoins that of our neighbor Rhadakrishnan Nagarajan and we whole
heartedly support the granting of a fence variance at 4312 Wait Street. Prior to constructing
his fence, Mr. Nagarajan consulted with us to insure that its style, size and design elements
conformed to existing structures in the neighborhood. In fact the design details of his six foot
privacy fence topped with an additional foot and % of lattice (total 7'5") were so desirable that
we shared in the expense of the fence along the north side of his property which also serves as
our backyard fence.
Mr. Nagarajan's home is built in a Japanese modern style above his garage. Our home is
a turn of the century Colonial Revival which because of the falling slope of our lot appears to be
three stories at the rear. The new fence blends the two elevated properties in a more pleasing
manner. Further, a taller fence is required for either family to enjoy the privacy of our yards.
We have no objections to Mr. Nagarajan's fencing and believe it has added
immeasurably to the beauty of the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Graing4r' Ledbetter and Sh
4223 South Lookout
Little Rock, AR 72205
0 rry Currerry Curry
March 23, 2010
To whom it may concern:
A neighbor recently informed me the new fence built directly to the rear of my property, at
4213 Wait Street was recently issued a COURTESY NOTICE stating parts of the fence
did not conform to certain aspects of LR Code, We think the fence is very attractive and
prefer to see it left the way it is, I know the needless alterations will only delay their young
child's opportunity to play in their new and nicely secured yard,
David Spencer
4214 Fairview Road
Little Rock AR 72205
N�
Ii
O
U
W
w
W
F-
0 O
H
z
LU
H
cn
a
LL
O
Q
O
m
(10
I
0
w_
D
0
J
N
V
eL
J
=
m
w
W
Q'
m
z
J
<OU
m
J
=
(f)
CO
<
0
0
�
0
OU
W
m
Llj�
<
�
z
mala==�
Z
U
C�
W
=
Z
Z
I
0
w_
D
0
J
m
eL
J
=
m
W
Q'
m
z
0
<OU
�
z
(f)
Q
_
Llj�
W
z
Z
I
0
April 26, 2010
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:23 p.m.
Date:
Vice -Chairman