Loading...
boa_01 28 2008LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JANUARY 28, 2008 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the December 17, 2007 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Andrew Francis, Chairman Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman James Van Dover David Wilbourn Robert Winchester City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA JANUARY 28, 2008 2:00 P.M. OLD BUSINESS: A. Z -6732-D 225 E. Markham Street B. Z-8297 1205 Kavanaugh Blvd. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Z -3769-B 3518 Hill Road 2. Z -4919-A 77 EI Dorado Drive 3. Z -8257-A 5701 Kavanaugh Blvd. 4. Z -8263-A 310 N. Van Buren Street 5. Z-8305 13712 Foxfield Lane 6. Z-8306 1617 N. Tyler Street 7. Z-8307 17 N. Sherrill Road W O O N - 3NId 631ZVajCIO N novella W W .%d2y CC n wj o � w N zU y� NVW830 W� NI W AVMOVObB Hpatl b 53H0 o b3H380 ONIN in o (0 o MOON o s Did t33 PE 3NId 1. w 0 n ava 0 N011I11V 110oS a Na d Nvi (� AlIS83AN AlI583AINn 223 SONIadS a3A30 .--+ 53HOnH V IddISS IW c Y 100IH) MOaatla NHOP al0Aa3S3a 3 c� 0 1 3NN13H 'g slaays Oa 31 otl Oa0j31NotlH5 — x o o Rd �' WVHNVd A3NOOa a o x NV 00 r y 11M1 MINIMA lSo�i Y p N dcb� 004 a '.rE nJ iQpF�1P� Ln 4, E3 Z�� a NVAIIInS v f INVM31S Sd'b L+-- 0 O Slmn Alp X22 0 �P 0 70 x � � X101 0 31V0Na3j 'MO W JANUARY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: File No.: Z -6732-D Owner: River Market Holdings, LLC. Applicant: Terry Burruss Address: 225 E. Markham Street Description: Southwest corner of East Markham Street and Cumberland Street Zoned: UU Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 557 to allow a wall sign without street frontage. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Mixed Office/Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Mixed Office/Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 225 East Markham Street is occupied by a four- story mixed office/commercial building. The property is located at the southwest corner of East Markham Street and Cumberland Street. There is a paved parking lot on the west side of the building with an access drive from East Markham Street. Two (2) of the building's main entrances are on the west side of the building from the parking lot. A new restaurant use, Velo Rouge, is being established within the north portion of the building's first floor. As part of the new restaurant use, a wall sign is being proposed on the west building fapade. The proposed sign is 20 square feet in area (2 feet by 10 feet), and is to be located over the northernmost entry door on the west building fagade. The restaurant also has wall signs on the north and east fagades. JANUARY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. Section 36-557(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that all on -premise wall signs face required street frontage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the wall sign on the west building fagade with no direct street frontage. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The sign on the west building fagade will aid in identifying one of the restaurant's entrances for persons parking in the adjacent lot and traffic (pedestrian and vehicular) heading east on E. Markham Street. Stone Ward received a variance to place a wall sign on this west building fagade. Iriana's Pizza also received a variance to allow an awning sign on the east fagade of the building directly across the parking lot to the west (201 E. Markham Street). Staff believes the proposed wall sign without direct street frontage will not be out of character with other signage in the area and will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to permits being obtained for all signage. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 17, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter on December 17, 2007, requesting the application be deferred to the January 28, 2008 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 28, 2008 agenda by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 recusal (Burruss). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: [ rmkI'W � ] The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 recusal (Burruss). 1202 SWAN, SUITE 230 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 501-376-3676 FAX376-3766 _Xr.LMS.S L Architect design, planning and interiors November 16, 2007 Monte Moore Zoning and Enforcement Administrator 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Sign Variance Velo Rouge Restaurant Little Rock, Arkansas A/E # 0744 Dear Mr. Moore: 73� The applicant requests consideration of signage for the West elevation to allow for vehicular and pedestrian traffic originating from the downtown hotel district to visually know the location of their establishment. The signage on the North and East building elevations does not visibly display restaurant location. Attached please find 3 copies of the Site Plan and West elevation. We appreciate your consideration on this request. If there are any questions or additional information is needed, please do not hesitate to call. We can also be reached by email at tbadesignplanning@sbcglobal.net. Yours very truly, Terry G. Burruss, AIA JANUARY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z-8297 Owner/Applicant: Judith A. O'Connor Address: 1205 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Part of Lots 9 and 10, Block 9, Midland Hills Addition Zoned: R-3 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-3 zoned property at 1205 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single-family residence. The single-family lot is located on the west side of Kavanaugh Blvd. and backs up to Charles Street. There is a driveway from Charles Street which serves as access. The applicant recently constructed a four (4) foot tall wrought iron fence on top of an existing masonry wall, enclosing the front yard portion of the lot along Kavanaugh Blvd. The overall height of the fence/wall ranges from 5.5 to 6 feet along the west (Kavanaugh Blvd.) property line. The fence/wall along the north (side) property line ranges from approximately five (5) feet in height at the northeast corner of the lot to approximately 10 feet in height before it ties into the northeast corner of the house. The increased height is due to the lot immediately to the north sloping downward from Kavanaugh Blvd. The applicant notes that the fence was constructed to protect her grandchild and dog from the traffic along Kavanaugh Blvd., as the house is located very close to the street. JANUARY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence/wall height of four (4) feet for fence/walls located between a building setback line and a street right-of-way. Fence/walls with a maximum height of six (6) feet are allowed elsewhere on single-family lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the taller fence/wall as noted above. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. There was a tall row of hedges inside the existing masonry wall which were removed for the fence construction. The wrought iron fence replaces the hedges which essentially served as screening. As long as the fence remains wrought iron and not opaque, staff feels that it has no adverse visual impact on the adjacent properties or the neighborhood. The applicant also recently constructed an arbor on front of the house, over a portion of the patio area. Staff views the arbor as an architectural/landscape feature and not part of the structure based on the fact that it is unenclosed and not roofed. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The fence must remain non-opaque. 2. The arbor must remain unenclosed and not roofed. 3. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 17, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the applicant completed the notices to surrounding property owners less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, as required by the Board. Staff noted that the notices were done seven (7) to eight (8) days prior to the meeting. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the January 28, 2008 agenda due to the late notification. The Consent Agenda was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 5 Nov 2007 To Whom It May Concern:_ 1 ,7 Re: Application for A variance for Improvements 1205 Kavanaugh Blvd Little Rock, Ar 72205 I am happy to apply for this permit and I apologize for submitting this application after improvements have been completed. I was unaware of the need for this application and was quite stunned when I received a notice of violation to city codes. I recently relocated to Little Rock from Washington State after being recruited by Arkansas Children's Hospital to establish a pediatric liver transplant program. When assessing the property at 1205 Kavanaugh, I explained to a very experienced and native Little Rock realtor that I would need a fence in the front that would protect my 3 year old grandson and dog from the considerable traffic on Kavanaugh. She did not mention any need for a permit, nor did I receive any notification of restrictions or covenants at closing from the title company, Pulaski County Title. Prior to construction of a non -privacy fence and decorative arbor I received several bids from licensed contractors in Arkansas and none, including the company that installed the fence, suggested a permit was needed. Indeed, the contractors were as surprised as I was and were unaware of any Hillcrest restriction. In the surrounding 3 blocks of my property there are several fences of equal height or greater height and at least one other arbor. The fence, which is a non - privacy fence and arbor have been completed. We have received many favorable comments and no negative comments. The fence and arbor are tasteful and in keeping with preservation of the neighbor charm. I do sincerely apologize for this violation, which was completely non -intentional, but simple ignorance of the code. Sincerely, Judith A. O'Connor JANUARY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: File No.: Z -3769-B Owner: Lisenne D. Rockefeller Applicant: H. Baker Kurrus Address: 3504/3518 Hill Road Description: Block 7, Auten and Moss Addition Zoned: R-3/PRD Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence/wall 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-3/PRD zoned property at 3504/3518 Hill Road is occupied by two (2) single-family residential structures and associated accessory structures. "H" Street frontage is located along the rear (north) property line. 3504 Hill Road contains a 2.5 story rock and stucco residence, with accessory pool and pool house structures in the rear yard area. 3518 Hill Road is occupied by a three- story rock single-family structure. A garage on the rear of the structure is accessed by a driveway from "H" Street. There is an eight (8) foot high chain- link fence along the rear (north) property line of 3518 Hill Road and a six (6) foot high chain-link fence along the rear line of 3504 Hill Road. In 2002, the Board of Adjustment granted a height variance for the rock walls around the pool area at 3504 Hill Road. The applicant is requesting to construct a new fence/wall structure along the rear (north) property line of both properties, as noted on the attached site plan. JANUARY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) The fence/wall structure will consist of a two (2) foot high concrete wall with an eight (8) foot high wrought iron fence on top. There will be rock columns with a height of approximately 10.5 feet, with a lighting fixture on top of each column. A rolling gate is proposed across the driveway from "H" Street. The existing chain-link fences will be removed with the new fence construction. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence/wall height of four (4) feet for fence/walls located between a building setback line and a street right-of-way. Fence/walls with a maximum height of six (6) feet are allowed elsewhere on single-family lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the taller fence/wall as noted above. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Given the facts that fence is proposed as wrought iron and not opaque, it extends for over 500 feet along the rear boundary of a large ownership, and the property slopes upward from "H" Street, it should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. There are no adjacent properties along the north side of "H" Street which front the right-of-way. Additionally, "H" Street is a very narrow paved street (similar to an alley) with very little traffic. Staff believes the proposed fence/wall will have no adverse impact on the general area. There is a current request before the Planning Commission to revoke the PRD zoning (to R-3) for 3518 Hill, Road C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The fence must remain non-opaque. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the fence/wall construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. December 20, 2007 2-370'-5 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed are the following documents relating to an application for a fence variance on the property located at 3518 Hill Road, Little Rock, Arkansas 72205.- 1. 2205:1. Application for Zoning 'Variance; 2. Affidavit appointing H. Baker Kurrus as representative; 3. Six copies of the site plan; 4. Six copies detailing the proposed fence; 5. Check in the amount of $85 for the filing fee; The essence of this application is to allow the owner to replace an existing 8 foot chain link fence with a much more attractive black welded steel fence. Please place this matter on the agenda for the meeting held on January 28, 2008. We have obtained the names and addresses of all the property owners within 200 feet of the property. I will file the necessary affidavit of notice in advance of the hearing. Please let me know if any further action is required at this time. I can be reached at 376- 3300. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely Yours, /i H. Baker Kurrus JANUARY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -4919-A Owner: Willis Smith Applicant: Terry Burruss Address: 77 EI Dorado Drive Description: Lot 5, Amended Plat of Pleasant Valley 22nd Hole Subdivision Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a covered deck and screened porch with a reduced rear 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 77 EI Dorado Drive is occupied by a split-level brick and frame single family residence. The property slopes downward from front to back (north to south). The Pleasant Valley golf course is located along the rear (south) property line. There is a two -car wide driveway at the northeast corner of the lot leading to a garage at the northeast corner of the residence. The driveway extends along the east side of the residence to a parking pad and lower garage at the southeast corner of the house. There is a 10 foot wide utility easement along the rear property line, with a 10 foot wide Pleasant Valley Country Club easement adjacent to the utility easement. There are existing pool, hot tub and uncovered deck structures within the rear yard, at the southwest corner of the residence, which extend into the easements and required rear yard setback. JANUARY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T. The applicant proposes to construct a roof structure, approximately 14 feet by 17 feet, over a portion of the existing deck structure. The roof structure will be unenclosed and maintain the same 11 foot rear setback as the existing deck. The applicant also proposes to construct a second floor screened porch, as noted on the attached site plan. The screened porch will be approximately 13 feet x 20 feet in area and located 10 feet back from the rear (south) property line. Both additions extend into the Pleasant Valley Country Club easement, but not the utility easement. The applicant is in the process of obtaining a letter of approval from the Country Club. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed deck roof and screened porch with a reduced rear setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as minimal, given the fact that the lot backs up to the Pleasant Valley golf course. There is a rather wide tree -covered area between the rear property line of this lot and the actual golf course. Additionally, adequate separation will exist between this property and the adjacent properties to the east and west. With written approval from the Country Club, staff believes that the proposed addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the neighborhood. B. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. A letter of approval from the Pleasant Valley Country Club must be submitted to staff prior to a building permit being issued. 2. The additions must be constructed to match the existing residence. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 recusal (Burruss). ( r 1202 S .MAIN, SUITE 230 LITTLE ROCK, AR 10-72202 { �--501-376-3676 FAX376-3766 uss A r c h i t e c t design, planning and interiors December 21, 2007 Monte Moore Zoning and Enforcement Administrator 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Porch Addition Willis Smith Residence Little Rock, Arkansas A/E # 0773 Dear Mr. Moore: Attached please find an application regarding constructing a roof over an exiting rear deck at the above referenced location. The owner desires to utilize the existing deck more often and feels the roof covering will allow this (shade and rain protection). Attached please find six (6) copies of the survey. We appreciate your consideration on this request. If there are any questions or additional information is needed, please do not hesitate to call. We can also be reached by email at tbadesignplanning@sbcglobal.net. Yours very truly, Terry. . Burruss, AIA JANUARY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z -8257-A Owner: Ellen Golden Applicant: Arron Ruby Address: 5701 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, 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 side and rear setbacks and reduced number of on-site parking spaces. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Antique Shop, Florist and Beauty Shop Proposed Use of Property: Branch Bank, Antique Shop and Florist STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. The application appears to comply with comments from previous application. No new comments apply at this time but additional comments may be provided during building permit review. Staff Update: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on January 15, 2008 requesting the application be withdrawn. Staff supports the withdrawal request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2008) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter on January 15, 2008, requesting the application be withdrawn. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. iu5tBANKIt.com — :--� .. ,- � :,r �...:Pz�.• & • - ..zn53+�d. �'R3X<F*�..... �.�. "r. � "s :.�"+f�„C;Rf .sa?','g' :3x1ra.Zs�e.- .�;�:.. , �,_ «'-s�":. '. �d � :�.. t.,k�;;'..�' December 21, 2007 Mr. Dana. Carney Zoning and Subdivision Manager City of Little Rock 723 West Markham, first floor Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 www.jusfbankif.com info@justbankit.com Re: Variance Application for Lots I and 2, Block 6, Mtn. Park Add'n, Little Rock, Ar Dear Mr. Carney: `'�-- 4- 5 , 7- r4 Pursuant to our visits, we respectfully submit, on behalf of the property owner, Ellen Golden, Direct Importer of French Antiques, LLC and Allied Bank, as proposed lessee of the new space, a request for set back and parking variances to the Little Rock city codes for the referenced property as shown on the enclosed Brooks Engineering, Inc. survey dated June 29, 2007 and drawings by Ruby Architects, Inc. dated this date. Our proposal now envisions the demolition of the separate beauty shop building at the rear of the site and construction of a 2 story replacement building containing 2,678 square feet, while the previously requested and approved work to the other existing structure may be undertaken at a later date, our plan now is to rework only the building to the rear of the property, utilizing existing setbacks. Thank you for your kind consideration of our request. Ellen Golden, DIFA, LLC Manager Allied Bank CEO 311 Main Street 112 Pointer Trail West 1022 West Capitol Avee 115 Hwy 71 North 111 North 2nd St 101 South Sebascott P.O. Drawer A 72947 72956 72201 51NCE 19 22 k PO Box 2107 72921 PO Box 527 72949 PO Box 387 72944 479.997.1154 479.47430773 501.707.1154 479.632.2265 479.667.2002 479.928.4418 Fox.479.997.1161 Fox.479.474.1168 Fax501.707.1161 121F ,FDPC Fox.479.632.2264 Fax.479.667.2902 Fax.479.928.5149 JANUARY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z -8263-A Owner: Kimberly Mensie Applicant: Stephen B. Niswanger Address: 310 N. Van Buren Street Description: West Side of N. Van Buren Street, between "B" and "C" Streets Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: An appeal is requested of the City's denial of a privilege license/home occupation request. 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 with Home Occupation STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 310 N. Van Buren Street is occupied by a two-story frame single-family residence. There is an alley right-of-way along the north side property line. There is a one -car garage at the northwest corner of the house which is accessed from the alley. The front portion of the residence is one-story in height, with a second floor over the garage area. On September 27, 2007 the Planning Commission denied a rezoning application (Nails by Kimmie Short -Form PD -C) for 310 N. Van Buren Street. The application was for a full service salon with four (4) employees, offering various salon services (manicure, pedicure, massage, tanning, hair coloring and cutting, etc.). Ms. Kimberly Mensie, the property owner and salon operator, was proposing to reside on the site. During the public hearing several changes were made to the application, limiting the number of employees and services provided. At one point Ms. Mensie stated that she was not going to JANUARY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON T.) live on the property. See the attached September 27, 2007 Planning Commission minute record for additional details. On January 15, 2008 the Board of Directors denied the applicant's request to appeal the Planning Commission's denial. On October 8, 2007, Staff denied a Business License application for "Nails by Kimmie" at 310 N. Van Buren Street. The application was for "nail art and nail tutoring limited to 2 students at a time." Staff views the proposed use as a beauty shop/ salon -type use which is expressly prohibited as a home occupation according to Section 36-253(b)(6)c.1. of the City's Zoning Ordinance (Barber Shops and Beauty Shops). Additionally, in staff's opinion, the use would generate traffic, parking, sewage and water use in excess of what is normal in the residential neighborhood, which is not allowed for home occupations. Please see the attached criteria for home occupations as found in Section 36-253(b)(6) of the Code. Following is the definition of "Barber and Beauty Shop" as found in Section 36-3 of the City's Zoning Ordinance: "Barber of beauty shop means a facility licensed by the state where hair cutting, hair dressing, shaving, trimming beards, facials, manicures or related services are performed." As noted in this section, "manicures or related services" are included in the definition of "Barber of Beauty Shop". Therefore, staff views Ms. Mensie's proposed use as a beauty shop/salon-type use. The applicant, Kimberly Mensie, is requesting an appeal of this administrative interpretation, in order to operate her "nail art and tutoring" business at 310 N. Van Buren Street as a home occupation. Ms. Mensie's attorney, Steve Niswanger, notes that she will do "nail art" by appointment only with no other employees. He also notes "All Kimmie proposes under the business license application is to do pedicures and manicures which is painting and sculpting. She will not be doing a beauty salon." Please see the attached letter and e- mail from Mr. Niswanger for additional information. The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine if Ms. Mensie's proposed use of the property at 310 N. Van Buren Street qualifies as a home occupation according to section 36-253 of the ordinance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2008) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter on January 22, 2008, requesting the application be deferred to the February 25, 2008 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 25, 2008 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. Stephen B. Niswanger steve@,niswangerlawfirm.com NISWANGER LAW FIRM PLC #5 Innwood Circle, Suite 110 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 October 29, 2007 Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone (501.) 223-2888 Facsimile (501) 421-3651 yf2-- - 4 -2-z�-� Re: Kimberly Mensie's Application for Action on Administrative Appeal. To Whom It May Concern:: Please find enclosed Kimberly Mensie's Application for Action on Administrative Appeal, an affidavit certifying Stephen B. Niswanger of Niswanger Law Firm to act as Ms. Mensie's agent, and a check in the amount of $50.00 for the administrative appeal filing fee. Ms. Mensie wishes to appeal the October 8, 2007 denial of her application for a City of Little Rock Privilege License, as she believes that strict enforcement of zoning rules would cause her undue hardship, and that approving her application would be in keeping with the provisions and spirit of the zoning code. According to the comments entered by the Code Enforcement Officer on Ms. Mensie's application, the privilege license was denied due to improper zoning. Ms. Mensie desires to perform Nail Art and Tutoring, limited to two (2) students at a time at the above-mentioned location, an activity expressly permitted by Little Rock Municipal Code §§ 36-255(b)(2) and 36-253(b)(6). Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. SBN/cb Encl. cc: Kimmie Mensie Cordially, NI WANGER LAW FIRM PLC 94 � .A1�� Stephen B. Niswanger ` c www.niswangerlawfirm.com Pagel of 3 Moore, Monte 1 : From: Steve Niswanger [steve@niswangerlawfirm.com] /r_ g2 6 y6 r� Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:00 PM To: Moore, Monte 5 Subject: RE: appeal application for 310 N Van Buren Street Monte: Please use my email to provide information to the Board. What time and where will the Board of Adjustments meet on January 28? Thanks, and Happy Holidays! Steve "Moore, Monte" <MMoore@littlerock. org> wrote: Mr. Niswanger, I just wanted to update you and let you know that the appeal application for 310 N Van Buren Street will be placed on the January 28, 2008 Board of Adjustment agenda. I will need to forward the information as found in your below e-mail to the Board members with the agenda. Would you like to provide the information in a letter form on letter head, or I can just use a copy of the e-mail? Please let me know which you prefer. Thank you, Monte Moore -----Original Message ----- From: Steve Niswanger[mailto:steve@niswangerlawfirm.com] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:42 PM To: Moore, Monte Cc: Carney, Dana Subject: Re: appeal application for 310 N Van Buren Street Monte: Sorry to take so long to get back to you. Did you get a chance to see Kimmie Mensie's application for the PCD before the City Board the other night? Wow! Those people who showed up against Kimmie were not very nice. I am glad I do not work in your department and have to deal with ugly -acting people like them all the time! Anyway, per yout request, here is a detailed description of the proposed use of the property under the business license. It will be just her - no others. She will do nail art by appointment only. So, there will never be more than one client there at a time. And she will not be doing any massages, tanning, hair, or any of the other things that typically go on in a beauty salon. Let me reiterate that. She is not proposing to operate a beauty salon out of her house. Only nail art. 1/15/2008 Page 2 of 3 Per your request, let me now explain how this differs from the PCD application. In her amended PCD application, she was proposing to have one part-time employee doing hair. There will be no others except Kimmie under the business license application. So, no hair, and just one person (Kimmie). Under the PCD, there was going to be a parking lot. Not so under the business license application. Under the PCD, there was going to be signage. Not so under the business license application (unless it complies with Code, chapter 36, art. X). In other words, the house will look like a house, and only Kimmie will work there doing nail art. And her practice is to schedule only one client an hour. So, no new traffic. This use is an appropriate home occupation. It is just like the music teacher who has a child show up every hour at her house to have a piano lesson. Except Kimmie will not be as loud! Under the Code § 36-255(b)(2), in a R-3 district (like this one), the home occupation uses are the same as those under an R-1 district. Under § 36- 253(b)(6)(b), in an R-1 district, painting and sculpturing are permitted home occupations. In addition, tutoring limited to 2 students at a time is a permitted home occupation. Here, Kimmie will be painting nails. She will be sculpturing nails. She will be tutoring her clients - one at a time - on how to paint and sculpt nails. She will be engaged in a permitted home occupation. Now, I know, your department wants to call Kimmie's home occupation a beauty salon, but it is not. A grocery store sells produce, dairy, cereals, condiments, meat, and beer. If all I sell is beer, does that make me a grocery store? No! The same applies here. A beauty salon offers pedicures, manicures, hairstyling, massages, face treatments, tanning, etc. All Kimmie proposes under the business license application is to do pedicures and manicures - which is painting and sculpting. She will not be doing a beauty salon. I hope you find this helpful. I look forward to the determination in this appeal. Thanks, Steve "Moore, Monte" <MMoore@littlerock. org> wrote: Mr. Niswanger, Please accept this e-mail as a follow up to our phone conversation last week. With regards to the appeal application you submitted for Kimberly Mensie at 310 N Van Buren Street, I need additional information on the issue so the City Attorney's office can review and determine if the Board of Adjustment is authorized to address the issue. I need a detailed description of the proposed use of the property, an explanation as to how this use differs from what was proposed with the PCD application, and an explanation of why you feel this proposed use(s) is an appropriate home occupation. I also need a copy of the denied Home Occupation Application if you have one. I 1/15/2008 Page 3 of 3 will attempt to locate a copy in our office. if you have any questions regarding this issue, please let me know. Thank You, Monte Moore 1/15/2008 JANUARY 28, 2008 File No.: Z-8305 Owner: Woodhaven Homes Applicant: Nathan Cooper Address: 13712 Foxfield Lane Description: Lot 27, Block 11, Woodland's Edge Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence/wall provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a fence/wall 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 13712 Foxfield Lane is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence which was recently constructed. There is a two - car wide driveway at the southeast corner of the lot which leads to a parking pad for a garage at the southwest corner of the house. With the driveway construction, a retaining wall was constructed along the south and west sides of the driveway/parking pad, as the property slopes upward from Foxfield Lane. The wall is approximately 30 inches tall at its highest point, and located along the front property line. The applicant is proposing to construct a 42 inch iron railing on top of the retaining wall, as noted on the attached elevation. The applicant notes that the railing is proposed for safety purposes. The overall height of the railing/wall combination will be six (6) feet at its highest point. JANUARY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence/wall height of four (4) feet for fence/walls located between a building setback line and a street right-of-way. Fence/walls with a maximum height of six (6) feet are allowed elsewhere on single-family lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the six (6) foot high fence/wall within the front building setback area. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable, with the applicant's request based on a safety issue. Staff believes the railing/fence will serve as an appropriate structure to prevent vehicles from backing off the parking pad or small children from falling off the retaining walls. As long as the railing/fence remains wrought iron and not opaque, staff feels that it has no adverse visual impact on the adjacent properties or the neighborhood. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The railing/fence must remain non-opaque. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 8721 WARDEN ROAD �1�er£uasn�, �rhrznstt� 721�IT Dark P_ Xilzun y� PRESIDENT December 21, 2007 Department of Planning and Development - Board of Adjustments 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72205 Subject: Request for Variance Dear Board of Adjustments, This letter is to serve as a variance request for the property located at 13712 Foxfield Lane, Little Rock, Arkansas. The variance request is to exceed the front fence zoning requirement, which state that a fence or wall cannot be taller than four (4) feet, within the front 25' Building Line. We have constructed a retaining wall as shown in the sketch attached. The Retaining Wall is approximately 30" tall, which is the maximum allowable height without a railing. We feel that it is necessary and in the best interest of the future homeowners to install a safety rail. The Safety Rail would consist of a 42" tall decorative iron railing situated on top of the 30" retaining wall. This would make the combined wall and railing 6' Tall. Please find attached a copy of the sketch, plot plan and zoning variance application. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (501) 835-6269. Thank you, Nathan Cooper Woodhaven Homes JANUARY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 6 IM[a►ll: M Owner: Chris and Lori Schaffhauser Applicant: Carolyn Lindsey Address: 1617 N. Tyler Street Description: Lot 18, Block 3, Englewood Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a garage addition with a reduced rear 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 Anal The R-2 zoned property at 1617 N. Tyler Street is occupied by a two-story single family residence which was recently constructed. There is a paved alley along the rear (east) property line. A concrete parking pad exists at the northeast corner of the property. The applicant is proposing to construct a 24 foot by 42 foot garage/room addition on the rear of the single family structure, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed addition will be located five (5) feet from the north side property line and 21 feet from the south side property line. A 7.8 foot rear (east) setback is proposed for the addition. The first floor of the addition will allow for the parking of three (3) vehicles (stacked) and the second floor will contain a game room and bath. JANUARY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 7.8 foot rear setback for the proposed addition. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The overall structural massing proposed for this lot will not be out of character with many other lots in this general area. A variance was recently granted for the lot to the south, at the northeast corner of N. Tyler and "O" Streets, for a similar garage addition. As noted on the attached site plan, a small rear porch will attach to the proposed addition. If the porch were not there, the garage structure could be constructed as an accessory building with no variances required. There are a number of large accessory structures, with similar lot massing, along the alley right-of-way within this block. Staff believes the proposed addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to the addition being constructed to match the existing residence. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the itern and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. Yeary Lindsey Architects Mr. Monte Moore December 19, 2007 Department of Neighborhoods and Planning 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 'f - RE: Zoning Variance Application for Z —Y-3 Schaff hauser Residence, 1617 N. Tyler St. Dear Monte, We are requesting a zoning variance at 1617 N. Tyler St. to allow an encroachment into the rear 25' setback of 17.2' for the purpose of constructing a 2 story addition housing a garage with a game room and bath above. The rear of the property abuts a 20' dedicated and fully functioning alley and the house fronts on the part of N. Tyler that is across from Forest Park Elementary and therefore has cars parked along the street most every weekday excepting school breaks. The addition respects the 5' side yard setback and has a gabled roof with gutters and downspouts. The exterior is constructed of siding at the first floor level to match the existing and stucco at the second floor level to break up the scale of the addition. The program required a 3 -car garage and our proposed addition double stacks one side to prevent the house from either being cut off from the back yard by a 3 -car garage or to prevent paving the entire back yard. This addition has an enclosed connection due to safety and security. The owners had an attempted break-in a few weeks ago and the alley leaves them very exposed to strangers with ill intent. In a typical rear yard situation with no alley you have two 25' rear yards back to back. In this instance we would have a 7.8' rear yard plus a 20' alley backing up to a 25' rear yard opposite. Also, the neighbors to the north and south both have accessory structures in the rear yard located very close to the property line. A rear yard coverage percentage variance was granted to the owners of the new house on the corner of N. Tyler and O Streets allowing for an enclosed garage connected with a breezeway. It should be noted that the breezeway part of that house is visible from O Street, which is a fairly busy street. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, V� Carolyn A. L ey, AIA 319 President Clinton Ave., Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-5940 FX: 501-707-0118 JANUARY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-8307 Owner/Applicant: Chris and Nancy deBin Address: 17 N. Sherrill Road Description: Lot 17 Sherrill Heights Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 156 to allow a pool (accessory structure) with a reduced separation from the principal structure. 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 /_31111111111111111a1 161VITIOM1.0R M_ 1. Per Little Rock code 29-45, all pool drains must be connected to the Little Rock sanitary sewer system and not to the separate stormwater sewer system. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 17 N. Sherrill Road is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway at the southwest corner of the lot which leads to a carport within the front yard area. The property slopes downward from front to back (west to east). There is an existing retaining wall within the rear yard area which levels out a small yard space behind the house. There was an existing pool and addition on the rear of the structure which were recently removed. The pool was located at the southeast corner of the residence and within a sewer easement which runs across the rear yard, ranging from 12 feet to 25 feet back from the house. The applicant is proposing to relocate the pool to the northeast corner of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The pool will be 15 feet by 30 feet in area. The applicant is proposing to locate the pool two (2) feet from the JANUARY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON T.) rear wall of the residence in order to keep it out of the sewer easement. The pool will be located over 30 feet back from the north (side) property line. Section 36-156(a)(2)b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory structures be separated from principal structures by at least six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the pool structure with a two (2) foot separation. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The combination of topography and sewer easement location limits the rear yard buildable area to a very small space. The applicant is proposing to locate a new pool outside the easement area. The old pool maintained approximately the same two (2) foot separation from the house as well as extending into the sewer easement. Staff believes the applicant has chosen the best possible area to relocate the pool within the buildable rear yard area, and that the pool will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. cls CHRIS de BIN CONSTRUCTION i December 21, 2007 Z 3 7 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Monte: We own a home at 17 North Sherrill Road in Little Rock_ When we purchased the house there was an enclosed pool. This pool encroaches on a waste water utility easement by several feet (as a side note, this encroachment was not shown on our original survey). After removing the enclosure, we discovered the manhole and determined that the pool was in the utility easement. The current pool stands flush with the edge of a balcony. We feel that this location is not safe because of the possibility of children being tempted to jump from the balcony into the pool. Therefore, we would like to relocate the pool. Attached is a survey/site plan that shows the location of the new pool. The pool would now encroach on city's 6' separation requirement_ We are asking for a reduced separation variance at the January 2008 Board of Adjustment meeting. Due to the location of the utility easement being so close to the rear of the house and the slope of the lot beyond the easement we are limited in the placement of the pool. Please call 960-8711 with any questions or for further information. Thank you for your consideration. cerely, Chris de Bin Nancy de Bin address: P.O. Box 250329, Little Rock, Arkansas 72225 phone: (50 1) 960-8711 fax: (50 1) 661-1852 e-mail: cdebin@aristotle.net Li. O U W w W I— O F - Z CW F_ _ Cf) 0 a LL O 0 a O m a. 1 G VA Im w Q z EIR w r 0 wW>- � 00 co ��C M LliD w Q¢w�c~ "; CO n Z U Z :D p FW 0 = Of z CO _z W0 >< m0 m Z W W w > > o W C13 z o = Q z _m z LL m > a. 1 G VA Im w Q z EIR w 0 wW>- � 00 co ��C LliD w Q¢w�c~ "; CO n Z U Z :D p FW 0 = Of z CO _z >< a. 1 G VA Im w Q z EIR w January 28, 2008 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:06 p.m. Date: Chairma Secretary