boa_02 25 2008LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25, 2008
2:00 P.M.
I. 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 January 28, 2008 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present:
Terry Burruss, Chairman
Andrew Francis
James Van Dover
David Wilbourn, Vice Chairman
Robert Winchester
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
FEBRUARY 25, 2008
2:00 P.M.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Z -8263-A 310 N. Van Buren Street
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Z-3371 -W Colonel Glenn Plaza Drive at
Bowman Plaza Drive
2. Z -7511-B 5324 Sherwood Road
3. Z-8313 118 W. 3rd Street
� 00
CD
u 3NId
831ZV83 O
11Htl91H1 O
N
�fI x
d�oy V J
NYAN30
NIV v
AVMOtl08
1S3N0 83H380 0
ONIN 1YY
x u
M08000M
3NId I,Zj•
Mid z d1S HJby
� o
e 8V 3 NO111NV 110]5
CV 5 SJNi
ids
NBVd 81tl3
AlIS83AiN ALI583AINH
> SON18dS 83A30
3H5HH _o
Q- IddISS) IA L
1 W IH0
3 y�
3NN13H
)VHS g S108tlS
o - 4—J
11N11 H,7yp K 3OOI8 AMA
J W g
T
K
VVAIl1f1S
C
70
0
FEBRUARY 25, 2008
ITEM NO.: A
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
FEBRUARY 25, 2008
ITEM NO.: A (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.
FEBRUARY 25, 2008
ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 25, 2008)
Stephen Niswanger and Kimberly Mensie were present, representing the
application. There were several persons present with concerns. Staff presented the
application.
Stephen Niswanger and Kimberly Mensie addressed the Board in support of the
application. Mr. Niswanger explained what other non-residential uses were in the
area. He explained why painting and sculpting nails should be permitted as a home
occupation. He discussed the history of the land use in the area.
Chairman Burruss asked if Ms. Mensie's use required licensing by the State. Ms.
Mensie stated that it did.
The issue of surrounding uses was discussed. Mr. Niswanger further explained why
Ms. Mensie's use should be allowed as a home occupation.
Andrew Francis explained that he could not support the application with the
explanation of Ms. Mensie's use as an art studio.
There was a discussion of the State's regulation of this type use. James Van Dover
asked Mr. Niswanger the difference between manicure and nail art. This issue was
briefly discussed.
The issue of excess parking, traffic, etc. was discussed. Mr. Niswanger noted that
Ms. Mensie would have only one (1) client at a time, by appointment only. Mr.
Francis explained that the proposed use would generate more traffic than what is
normal for a residence. He explained that staff had made the correct decision.
Ms. Mensie noted that the State Cosmetology Board had approved her use. Mr.
Francis explained that the state's licensing guidelines are not binding on the City.
The issue was further discussed.
The issue of other uses in the area was discussed. The issue of surrounding land
uses in the area not being applicable to this application was explained for Ms.
Mensie's benefit. Staff noted that, to their knowledge, no beauty shop -type uses
have been allowed as home occupations in the past.
There was a motion to approve the requested appeal application. The motion failed
by a vote of 0 ayes and 5 nays. The appeal was denied.
NISWANGER LAW FIRM P(
#5 Innwood Circle, Suite 110
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
Stephen B. Niswanger Telephone (501) 223-2888
stevec�rniswangerlawfim.com Facsimile (501) 421-3651
October 29, 2007
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
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.
Cordially,
NI WANGER LAW FIRM PLC
9 / t— /
lwue
Stephen B. Niswanger C
SBN/cb
Encl.
cc: Kimmie Mensie
www.niswangerlawfirm.com
Page 1 of 3
Moore, Monte
From: Steve Niswanger [steve@niswangerlawfirm.coml
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:00 PM
To: Moore, Monte jy
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" <MMooreWittlerockorg> 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
r
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 (Kimrnie).
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 2 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
Page 3 of 3
September 27, 2007
ITEM. NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-8263
NAME: Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD -C
LOCATION: Located at 310 North Van Buren Street
DEVELOPER:
Kimberly Mensie
C/o Niswanger Law Firm
5 Innwood Circle, Suite 110
Little Rock, AR 72211
DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:
Barry Williams
Roberts and Williams Associates
1501 N. University Avenue, Suite 430
Little Rock, AR 72207
AREA: 0.19 acres
CURRENT ZONING
ALLOWED USES
PROPOSED ZONING
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1
R-3, Single-family
Single-family residential
P D -C
FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
PROPOSED USE: Residential and a Full Service Salon
VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is the owner and operator of Nails by Kimmie and the owner of
property located at 310 North Van Buren Street. The applicant is seeking a
rezoning from R-3, Single-family to Planned Development Commercial to allow
the utilization of the site as a full service salon. The shop has four employees
including the owner. The shop offers a variety of services including manicure,
pedicure, massage, tanning, hair coloring, hair cutting, hair removal, permanent
makeup and other beauty/aesthetic services. The applicant also intends to
reside in the structure.
September 27, 2007
UBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8263
Normal business hours are from 10 am to 8 pm Monday through Saturday.
Other times are available by appointment.
A single sign to identify the business and direct customers to the rear yard
parking is proposed within the front yard area. The rear yard is proposed to be
paved with ten (10) parking spaces. The parking will be accessed via an alley
located along the northern perimeter.
B. . EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a single-family home with a functioning alley located along the
northern boundary of the home. The rear yard area is open with a large tree
located in the center of the yard. The non-residential uses have been limited to
the area south of B Street. The area north of B Street is primarily residential with
the exception of a scattering of non -conforming office and neighborhood
commercial uses located along Van Buren Street.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the proposed site
along with the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association and all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300 -feet of the site were notified of the
Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS -
1 .
ONDITIONS:
1. Van Buren Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial
with special design standards. A dedication of right-of-way 35 feet from
centerline will be required.
2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Van
Buren Street and the alley.
3. At the time of building permit review, repair or replace any curb and gutter or
sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Location of existing sewer service unknown. Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center -Point Energy: No comment received.
4
September 27, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8263
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if this premise
becomes a business or if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant
has applied for a Short -form Planned Commercial Development to allow the
conversion of an existing single family home to be used as a residence and a nail
salon with three to four employees.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Use is a separate item on this
agenda (LU07-04-01).
Master Street Plan: North Van Buren is shown as a Minor Arterial with reduced
standards on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to
and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance
travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to
minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians. This street may require
dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances
and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning and Land
Use goal states: "Adopt a plan of action to stop the degradation, to reverse its
course, and to recreate a neighborhood that is one again a pleasant place to
work and live. This includes no net loss of residential units by demolition or
conversion to other uses."
3
September 27, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8263
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
2. The zoning buffer ordinance requires a six foot nine inch wide (6'-9") land use
buffer between this property and the property to the west. Seventy percent of
this area is to remain undisturbed.
3. The landscape ordinance requires a six foot nine inch wide (6'-9") landscape
strip around the sites entirety. A variance from this minimal amount must be
obtained from the City Beautiful Commission prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
4. The property to the west is zoned residential, therefore, a six (6) foot high
opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a
wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the western perimeter of
the site.
5. This area is located within the designated mature area of the City.
6. Credit for saving existing on site trees can be given thus reducing the number
of trees that will be required to plant as a part of this application.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 6, 2007)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant was
requesting a rezoning to allow the use of the site as a residence and a full
service salon. Staff stated there were a number of technical issues associated
with the request in need of addressing prior to the Commission acting on the
request. Staff questioned the total square footage of the existing structure and
the proposed expansion area. Staff also questioned if the site would utilize a
dumpster and, if so, the location of the proposed dumpster facility. Staff stated
the site was located within the newly adopted Hillcrest Design Overlay District.
Staff stated they had provided the overlay district standards and requested the
applicant provide details of the indicated items.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a dedication of right of
way 35 -feet from centerline would be required per the Master Street Plan. Staff
also stated a 20 -foot radial dedication would be required at the intersection of the
alley and Van Buren Street.
Landscaping Comments were addressed. Staff stated buffering and screening
would be required along the perimeters of the site. Staff also stated any
variances from the Landscape Ordinance would require approval from the City
Beautiful Commission.
Il
September 27, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8263
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the September 6, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated the site will not utilize a dumpster, provided the total
square footage of the existing structure and the expansion area and provided
details of their site related to the Hillcrest Design Overlay District typical
standards.
The applicant is seeking a rezoning from R-3, Single-family to Planned
Development Commercial to allow the utilization of the site as a full service
salon. The shop has four employees including the owner. The shop offers a
variety of services including manicure, pedicure, massage, tanning, hair coloring,
hair cutting, hair removal, permanent makeup and other beauty/aesthetic
services. The applicant has indicated she will reside in the structure as well.
The existing structure contains 1,228 square feet and the site plan includes an
expansion area of 1,016 square feet. The typical parking required for a salon is
one space per two hundred square feet of gross building area or 6 spaces with
the existing square footage and 11 spaces with the expanded area. The parking
standard per Hillcrest Design Overlay District is set at 50 percent of the typical
parking requirement of the zoning ordinance with the maximum parking allowed
being the minimum parking established by the ordinance. Based this
assessment the maximum parking allowed would be eleven spaces and the
preferred parking would be five spaces. The rear yard is proposed with ten (10)
parking spaces. The parking will be accessed via an alley located along the
northern perimeter.
The current floor area ratio is 15.6 percent and the floor area ratio with the
addition of the future residential area would be 22.1 percent. The building height
has been indicated not to exceed 39 -feet or two and one-half stories. The
Hillcrest Design Overlay District indicates a maximum floor area ratio of
0.50 percent for residential structure with more than one floor and a lot area in
excess of 8,000 square feet. Maximum building heights allowed is 39 -feet for
two and one-half story homes.
The site plan indicates the placement of a monument sign in the front yard area
with a maximum height of eight feet and a total sign area of 120 square feet. The
Hillcrest Design Overlay District typically allows signage as permitted in office
E
September 27, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17.1 (Cont.) FILE NQ.;- Z-8263
and institutional zones or a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-four square
feet in area.
The business hours proposed are Monday through Saturday from 10 am to 8 pm.
Other times will be available by appointment.
Staff is not supportive of the request. Staff feels the expansion of the commercial
activities into the neighborhood could significantly impact the area. The
development is proposed as a full service salon with four operators. The
proposed use is not a quiet commercial use but in fact a commercial activity
which could potentially generate in excess of 40 to 50 trips per day. (Typical
single-family trip generation is eight to ten trips per day.)
As indicated in the write-up for the Future Land Use Plan amendment, the
change to the Future Land Use Plan for this site would in effect create another
small island of non-residential uses on Van Buren Street. The addition of new
zoning and land use categories further north than exists today could be seen as
encroaching into the neighborhood and on the single-family homes located along
Van Buren Street. Staff feels the single family residential nature of North Van
Buren Street should be protected and upheld. Staff feels the commercial
activities should remain as presently exist and be maintained south of B Street
and along West Markham Street and not be allowed to erode the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of denial.
Mr. Steve Niswanger addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated
his desire was to amend the application and more clearly state the intent of the
development. He stated the application was amended to limit the number of full time
employees to one and two part time employees. He stated the business would be run
by appointment only. He stated the business would not allow massages, tanning or
permanent make-up. He stated the site plan would be revised to allow eight parking
spaces and not the ten as indicated. He stated the use would be limited to Ms. Mensie
and not be a transferable use to any future property owner. He stated if Ms. Mensie
moved or no longer operated the shop the property would revert to the R-3, Single-
family zoning as it currently held. He stated presently there were a number of
commercial businesses located in the area. He stated to the north and south were
commercial establishments fronting on Van Buren Street. He stated traffic in the area
X
September 27, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17.1 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-8263
was a concern. He stated Van Buren Street was a cut -through street from the Heights
to 1-630.
Ms. Sara Chastain addressed the Commission in support. She stated she was a
customer of Ms. Mensie and had been for a number of years. She stated Ms. Mensie
was a hard worker and should be allowed to operate her business from the site.
Ms. Sandra Tindall addressed the Commission in support of the request. She stated
Ms. Mensie provided a service to the cancer patients staying in the nearby hotel. She
stated Ms. Mensie would come -in on Sundays and provide nail care service to these
clients.
Ms. Elizabeth Clarke addressed the Commission in support of the request. She stated
she lived in Hillcrest and felt the addition of the business was an asset to the area. She
stated she would be happy to have Ms. Mensie as a neighbor. She stated she was a
customer of Ms. Mensie and when she was in the salon there was a maximum of five
cars in the parking lot. She stated the business operated by appointment only which
allowed for Ms. Menise to provide full service to her customers.
Ms. Marcella Callaham addressed the Commission in support. She stated Ms. Mensie
was a hard working individual and she would be glad to have Ms. Mensie as a neighbor.
She stated she felt the addition of a minority business in the area would be an asset.
Ms. Becky Whelan addressed the Commission in support of the request. She stated
Ms. Mensie was a hard working individual and she could not imagine why the neighbors
did not want Ms. Menise as a neighbor. She stated the site was in disrepair when
Ms. Mensie bought the place and she had cleaned the site and added improvements to
the structure and the lawn. She stated the property had improved and would only
continue to improve if Ms. Mensie was allowed to operate her salon from the site.
Ms. Marcia Camp addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated the neighbors
were working to increase property values in the area. She stated the placement of a
commercial business in the neighborhood would act to detract from property values.
She stated crime was a concern of the neighbors. She stated with the placement of a
commercial business in the area there was a potential for the criminal element to
increase. She stated the neighborhood was plagued with persons walking the
neighborhood casing the area looking for things to steal. She stated this was not a
perceived problem and stated she provided the Commission with police reports noting
the criminal activity in the area.
Mr. Clint Davis addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the
traffic on B Street and Van Buren Street was significant. He stated he agreed with staff
and did not feel the site an appropriate location for a commercial business.
7
September 27, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17.1 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-8263
Mr. Robert Germany addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated
his home abutted the back yard of Ms. Mensie. He stated he did not feel the location
appropriate for commercial. He stated the water from Ms. Mensie's site drained across
his property. He stated if the rear yard was paved this would only increase the water
run-off onto his property. He stated traffic was a concern. He stated the traffic on Van
Buren Street was significant. He stated there were a number of businesses located
along Van Buren Street but most were grand-farthered in and had been commercial
establishments for a number of years. He stated commercial activities should remain
on West Markham Street and Kavanaugh Boulevard and not be allowed to encroach
into the residential neighborhoods.
Ms. Paula Lingo addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
the residents were working to fix their homes and did not feel it appropriate for a
commercial business to locate in the area. She stated she was in strong support of the
Overlay which was recently adopted by the Board of Directors which established design
guidelines for the area. She stated she was concerned with traffic backing into the
alley. She stated a number of the homes were accessed via alleyways but she did not
feel the alley should provide ingress and egress for commercial businesses. She stated
the alley was for personal access to the homes and not commercial establishments.
Mr. Scott Smith addressed the Commission. He stated he was president of the Hillcrest
Residents Association. He stated the association was not in support of the request. He
stated he felt the neighborhood should be protected. He stated he felt the use was
proposed in the wrong place within the neighborhood.
Ms. Delores Lecompte addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she was in
support of Kimmie but not in changing the zoning. She questioned if there was a way to
keep Kimmie and not change the zoning.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated the request was
spot zoning. She stated the area was a residential neighborhood. She stated in some
cities the character of the homes abutting an arterial was different on each side of the
street. She stated this was not the case in Hillcrest. She stated the area had
maintained the residential qualities and did not feel the commercial should be allowed to
encroach into the neighborhood.
Ms. Mensie addressed the Commission. She stated there were a number of
improvements envisioned for the property including the rear yard area and the alley.
Mr_ Barry Williams, the landscape architect for the development, addressed the
Commission. He stated the request was a PD -C request which would limit the future
uses of the property. He stated with the commercial business the area would be
protected by allowing customers and neighbors to watch out for each other. He stated
Ms. Mensie had restricted her application and felt the request reasonable.
FIV
September 27, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.. 17.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8263
There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the proposed use of the
property and the impact the commercial business would have on the area. The
Commission indicated the request was a planning and zoning issue.
The Commission questioned Ms. Mensie as to when she purchased the property if she
was told she could operate her business from the site. She stated she was told it
should not be an issue. The Commission also questioned if Ms. Mensie would reside in
the home. She stated she would not live in the home only use the structure for her
business. Mr. Niswanger stated the application request was to reside in the home. He
stated he felt the response by Ms. Mensie was an emotional response.
The Commissioners stated they felt there were adequate properties zoned for
commercial uses located along West Markham Street and Kavanaugh Boulevard and
could not support the request.
A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 1 aye,
6 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position.
D
§ 36-253 LITTLE ROCK CODE
cupancy of all lots in the subdi-(2
in section 36-54 and aWroval of
vision other than the model
asp ' 1 use permit by the anning com-
homes, whichever occurs first.
mission_
5. For the purpose of items 1, a d
a. Bed and ast house.
rte.
4, above, "subdivision" me s
b. F i y care facili
all land included within a lat
submitted to the city.
Day care family hone. I1>�
G (not to (2)
�(6) Home 3G 2-57 3
C. age sales exceed o a
occupation. ,5�.�7
ye and two (2) days for eac event).
(a)(c )
a. Home occupations shall be permit-
,
(4) Condition uses. The following ses may
ted that will not:
be permitt in this zone su ect to the
L Change the outside appearance
approval of condition use pe mit and all
of the dwelling or provide prod-
required sho 'ngs and condi ons thereof-
uct display visible from the
a. Churches nd other r ligious insti-
street.
tutions an their a essory build-
2. Generate traffic, parking, sew-
Wi
ings and us s.
age or water use in excess of
what is normal in the residen-
b. Educational . stit tions, including
tial neighborhood.
but not limite to olleges, universi-
ties, public an p vate elementary,
3. Create a hazard to persons. or
junior or seni r high schools and
property, result in electric inter-
their accessory uildings and uses.
ference or become a nuisance.
C. Public utility b i ings and facilities
4. Result in outside storage or dis-
when necessa f r serving the sur-
play of any material or product.
-
rounding are , pro 'ded that no pub-
5. Involve accessory buildings.
lic business office d no repair or
6. Result in signage beyond that
storage f ility a e maintained
which may be required by other
therein_
government agencies.
d. Municip or govern ental recre-
7_ Limited to five hundred (500)
ation u including ublic parks,
square feet in area, but in no
playgr nds, tennis courts, golf
case more than forty-nine (49)
course , community cen ers, fire sta-
percent of the floor area in a
tions, useums, librari and other
dwelling.
simil r uses_
e. Co try club, course, wimming
8. Stock in trade shall not exceed
ten (10) percent of the floor
-;
golf
po or other private re reational
area of the accessory use.
u es usually associated wit or inci-
9. Require the construction of, or
ntal to a social country club or
the addition to, the residence of
ubdivision association oper ted for
duplicate kitchens_
mutual recreation for the me bers,
10_ Requirement or cause the use
and not as a business for pro i .
or consumption on the pre-
f. Group care facilities.
mises of any food product pro-
duced thereon.
Fire station.
11. Provide medical treatment, ther-
(5) Special uses. The following special us
apeutic massage or similar ac-
may be permitted subject to the criteri
tivities.
Supp. No. 40 2312
u
0
0
ZONING
b. The following are permitted home
occupations, provided they do not
violate any of the provisions of the
previous subparagraph a:
1. Dressmaking, sewing and tai-
loring.
2_ Painting, sculptiiring or writ-
ing (artistic endeavors).
3. Telephone answering service or
radio monitoring service.
4_ Home crafts such as model mak-
ing, rug weaving and lapidary
work.
5. Tutoring limited to two (2) stu-
dents at a time.
6. Music instruction limited to two
(2) students at a time.
7. Catering and home cooking.
B. Computer programming.
9. Clock or watch repair.
10. Personal or home care products
marketing without stock in
trade on premises.
C. The following are prohibited as home
occupations:
1. Barbershops and beauty shops.
2. Animal hospitals.
3. Dance studios.
4. Mortuaries.
5. Nursery schools_
6. Private clubs.
7. Small appliance repair shops.
8. Restaurants.
9. Stables or kennels.
10. Animal grooming.
11. Engine or motor repair shops_
12. Paint shops.
d. Any proposed home occupation that
is neither specifically permitted by
subparagraph b, nor specifically pro-
hibited by subparagraph c, shall re-
quire an accessory use permit and be
granted or denied by the city depart-
ment designated by the city man -
Supp. No_ 40
2312.1
§ 36-253
ager upon consideration of those stan-
dards contained in this paragraph.
Appeals from the administrative
judgement of the staff shall be filed
with the board of adjustment. The
content of the filing shall consist of:
(1) A- cover letter addressed to the
chairman and members of the board
of adj'astment setting forth the re-
quest; (2) a copy of all pertinent
graphic materials or correspondence.
This . filing shall occur_ .within thirty
(30) calendar days of the action by
the staff. No activity which requires
an accessory use permit shall be
conducted prior .to issuance of the
permit. Any proposed use requiring
employees who are not residents of
the dwelling shall be approved by
the board of adjustment prior to the
issuance of permits.
c) Height regulations. No building hereafter
ere ed or structurally altered shall exceed a
Neigh of thirty-five (35) feet.
(d) A a regulations.
(1) Fr t yard. There shall be a fro yard
setb ck having a depth of not 1 s than
thirt ve (35) feet..
(2) Side ya d. There shall be side yard
setback o each side of th uilding hav-
ing a widt of not less t ten (10) feet.
Notwithstan ing the ove requirement,
no condition use in his district will be
approved havi g a side yard setback of
less than twent ve (25) feet.
(3) Rearyard. T re hall be a rear yard
setback havi g a d th of not less than
twenty-five (25) feet_ In the case of a
corner to , however, hen providing a
twenty- e -foot exterio side yard, the
rear y d may be reduced o not less than
ten ( ) feet.
(4) Lo area regulations. There sh 1 be a lot
ea of not less than fifteen ousand
15,000) square feet. In addition, there
shall be a minimum lot width of no less
FEBRUARY 25, 2008
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: Z-3371 -W
Owner: Steve Hockersmith
Applicant: Robert D. Holloway
Address: Colonel Glenn Plaza Drive at Bowman Plaza Drive
Description: South end of Colonel Glenn Plaza, adjacent to Interstate 430
Zoned: C-4
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-555
to allow a ground sign with increased height and area.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Auto Dealership
Proposed Use of Property: Auto Dealership with Subdivision Sign
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The C-4 zoned property at the southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Plaza Drive
and Bowman Plaza Drive is occupied by an auto dealership. The dealership
consists of a single building, with parking/display along the south, east and
west sides of the building. The property is part of the Glenn Ridge Crossing
Subdivision, with Interstate 430 being along the east property line.
The applicant is proposing to construct a subdivision sign at the southeast
corner of the auto dealership development, along the east property line near an
existing flag pole. The sign is proposed to be 50 feet in height, with an area of
approximately 400 square feet. The sign will be internally lighted and run
perpendicular to Interstate 430. The area where the sign is proposed is at an
elevation approximately 15 feet higher than the car lot. The sign will contain
the names of the businesses within the Glenn Ridge Crossing Subdivision, and
is not being proposed in -lieu of ground signs on the individual lots.
FEBRUARY 25, 2008
ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.)
Section 36-555(a)(2) of the City's Zoning ordinance allows one (1) freestanding
sign per commercial premises, with a maximum height of 36 feet and a
maximum area of 160 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is proposing
variances to allow the proposed freestanding sign with a height of 50 feet and
an area of 400 square feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances to allow a taller and larger
commercial development sign at this location. Staff views the request as
reasonable. The proposed sign will serve as a multi -tenant project identification
sign, identifying the businesses located within the commercial subdivision. The
proposed sign is consistent with other commercial development signs in this
general area (Shackleford Crossing and Mabelvale Plaza) along 1-430 and 1-30.
Staff's support is based on the condition that there be no other ground -mounted
signs along the 1-430 frontage within the Glenn Ridge Crossing Subdivision.
Any additional ground -mounted signs within this subdivision will have to be
located along the interior street(s). Staff believes the proposed sign will have
no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variances, subject to the
following conditions.
1. A sign permit must be obtained for the sign
2. There are to be no other ground -mounted signs within the Glenn
Ridge Crossing Subdivision located along the 1-430 frontage of the
Subdivision.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(FEBRUARY 25, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays.
11he 9 olCoway Firm, In
Civil and Environmental Design
ENGINEERING ♦ DESIGN ♦ SURVEY/MAPPING
FEBRUARY 25, 2008
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.: Z -7511-B
Owner/Applicant: Josephine H. and Daniel H. Felton IV
Address: 5324 Sherwood Road
Description: Lot 168, Prospect Terrace No. 2 Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 to allow a carport addition with a 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:
Sheet flow of storm water should remain and gutters with downspouts
should not be installed along the new covered area to concentrate storm
water flows that could cause damage to the adjacent property.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5324 Sherwood Road is occupied by a two-story
brick and stucco single family residence. There is a detached accessory
structure and porch which is being constructed at the northeast corner of the
property. On December 6, 2007 the Planning Commission approved use of
the accessory structure for guest quarters, with variances for reduced side
setback and increased coverage. The lot contains a 30 foot front platted
building line.
The applicants propose to construct a 9.7 foot by 14 foot carport addition on
the east side of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The
proposed carport addition will be all metal construction, with support posts
designed to look like lampposts. The proposed carport addition will be located
30.5 feet back from the front property line with no setback from the east side
property line. The carport will be unenclosed on the north, south and east
FEBRUARY 25, 2008
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
sides, with a gate on the north side leading to the rear yard. The applicants
note that the carport is proposed in order to protect their vehicle from the
elements, including a hickory tree on the neighbor's property to the east.
There is an existing carport on the property immediately to the east, adjacent
to the proposed carport. The overhang of the two (2) carports will have less
than one (1) foot of separation.
Staff does not support the requested side setback variance. It has been staff's
past policy to support setbacks of no less than 18 inches for this type of
unenclosed structure. Staff views an 18 inch side setback as a minimum area
needed to construct and maintain the carport structure without encroaching
onto the adjacent property to the east. If the applicant were willing to provide
an 18 inch side setback, including overhang, staff could support the
application. As noted in paragraph A., the Public Works staff recommends
against installing guttering on the proposed carport structure. With the 18 inch
setback, staff would view the carport structure as having no adverse impact on
the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested side setback variance, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(FEBRUARY 25, 2008)
Daniel and Josephine Felton were present, representing the application. There were
no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommended of denial,
as filed.
Josephine Felton addressed the Board in support of the application. She amended
the application to provide an 18 -inch side setback as requested by staff.
Staff recommended approval of the revised application, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The carport is to have an 18 -inch side setback as measured to the overhang
(not including guttering).
2. Guttering must be provided to prohibit water run-off onto the adjacent
property to the east, with drain spouts directed away from the adjacent
property.
There was a motion to approve the revised application, as recommended by staff.
The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 recusal (VanDover). The
revised application was approved.
January 21, 2008 j — 2
�
750 -/3
Little Rock Department of Planning and Development
Board of Adjustment
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Commissioners:
In 2003, my husband Daniel Felton IV and I purchased our home located at 5324 Sherwood
Road in the Little Rock neighborhood of Prospect Terrace, which is zoned as R-2. Our
driveway is about fifty feet long and is located to the east of our house. We propose to erect a
covered carport of about fourteen feet in length and about ten feet in width that will provide
one vehicle with coverage from the elements and a neighbor's hickory tree.
We apply for this residential variance, because the proposed structure does not comply with
our property's side yard set -back requirement. Municipal Code §36-254(d)(2) provides that
"There shall be a side yard set -back on each side of the building having a width of not less
than ten (10) percent of the average width of the lot, not to exceed eight (8) feet." As our lot is
fifty feet wide, our side yard set -back is five feet. A five-foot set -back would not allow for a
carport.
We ask for the variance to allow us to erect a structure that will extend the slope of our roof at
the Southeast section of our house. The carport will have a metal roof and be supported by
metal posts similar looking to those used for lampposts on the Historic Kavanaugh
Promenade. The South and East sections of the carport will be completely open to allow for
maximum air and light. The North section will have a gate into the back yard. The West
section will be our existing house wall. We propose to extend the East side of the structure as
close to the property line as possible, like our neighbors to our East have done with their
covered carport.
Prospect Terrace's 1926 Bill of Assurance restricts any structure from being erected closer to
the street than the thirty-foot building line. This proposed structure does not conflict with the
neighborhood Bill of Assurance.
We hope that this plan is acceptable and that we may obtain a residential variance.
Yours truly,
Josephine H. Felton
Reid Henry, MD
5320 Sherwood Road
Little Rock, AR 72207 Z
21 January 2008 -
Dana Carney
Little Rock Department of Planning & Development
Board of Adjustment
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Variance application 5324 Sherwood Road
Dear Mr. Carney,
A note to confirm the points we discussed 1/17/2008 concerning the carport desired by the
Feltons. There are three concerns; two addressed in the Felton's letter to the Planning Board. I
agree that the structure should be constructed of non-combustible materials. I also agree they
should account for rain runoff. Their structure will capture rain from three levels of their home
as an extension of the main roof. This could result in a tremendous amount of water cascading
into our carport from their structure. Lastly, and not addressed in their letter, if the elevation of
the east edge of their proposed roof is lower than that of our carport, debris (hickory nuts, etc.)
could fall from their roof back into our car, something we wish to avoid. ,
Thank yo for considering these concerns in your decision on the variance request.
Resp ully,
R id Hen
Cc: Daniel and Josephine Felton
FEBRUARY 25, 2008
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.: Z-8313
Owner: Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Inc.
Applicant: John Greer, Witsell Evans Rasco Architects
Address: 118 West 3rd Street
Description: Northeast corner of West 3rd and Louisiana Streets
Zoned: UU
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the use provisions of Section 36-
342.1 to allow use of a parking lot as a playground.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Vacant Building
Proposed Use of Property: Charter School
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. The proposed plan shows a driveway though the playground. It is
believed the plan has changed and vehicles will no longer take access
through the playground. Prior to occupancy, a traffic circulation plan must
be prepared and provided to Public Works for review and approval.
B. Staff Analysis:
The U zoned property located at 118 W. 3rd Street (northeast corner of W. 3rd
and Louisiana Streets) is occupied by the three-story Gazette Building which is
currently vacant. There is an asphalt parking area at the north end of the
building. The building and parking occupy the entire west half of the block
bounded by W. 2"a W 3rd, Main and Louisiana Streets.
As noted by the applicant in the attached cover letter:
"The e -STEM Charter School will be occupying the historic Gazette
Building at 3rd & Louisiana Streets on July 14, 2008. This Charter School
will house elementary, middle school, and high school grades in the same
building and will be separated by floors and operate as a stand-alone
FEBRUARY 25, 2008 (
ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.)
school. However, by occupying a common building there are functions
that will be shared by each school for the economic benefits. Physical
Education activities is one of these common threads."
The applicant is proposing to convert the existing paved parking area at the
north end of the building to a playground and PE area. The area will continue
to be bounded by an existing wrought iron fence along the north, east and
west sides. Some of the asphalt lot will be retained, with the remainder
replaced with concrete and landscaping, as noted on the attached site plan.
Section 36-342.1 (d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance states that all uses
within the UU (Urban Use) zoning district must be inside or enclosed.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow conversion of the
existing paved parking lot to an outdoor playground/PE area for the Charter
School which will occupy the Gazette Building.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance to allow the playground/PE area as
an outdoor use at this location within the UU zoning district. Staff views the
request as reasonable. The property has a history of use as a parking lot which
is also considered an outdoor use. Additionally, the proposed outdoor use is not
commercial in nature, with the playground/PE area to be used intermittently
throughout the day. Staff believes the proposed playground/PE area will have
no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow an outdoor use in the UU
zoning district, subject to submittal and approval of a traffic circulation plan as
requested by Public Works.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(FEBRUARY 25, 2008)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter on February 25, 2008,
requesting the application be deferred to the March 31, 2008 agenda. Staff
supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 31, 2008
agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
WITSELL EVANS RASCO
901West Third Street (2- January 25, 2008
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Phone 501-374-5300
Fax 501.374-5247
www.WERarch.com Little Rock Board of Adjustment
Department of Planning & Development
Charles Witsell, Jr., FAIA 723 West Markham Street
Don Evans, AIA, APA Little Rock, AR 72201
H. Terry Rasco, FAIA
Jay Brizzolara IV, AIA RE: Application For Zoning Variances
Eldon W. Bock, AIA e -STEM Charter School
David Sargent, AIA 118 W. 3rd Street
John Greer, Jr., AIA
To Whom It May Concern,
The e -STEM Charter School will be occupying the historic Gazette Building at
3rd & Louisiana Streets on July 14, 2008. This Charter School will house
elementary, middle school, and high school grades in the same building and will
be seperated by floors and operate as a stand-alone school. However, by
occupying a common building there are functions that will be shared by each
school for the economic benefits. Physical Education activities is one of these
common threads.
The existing Gazette Building is currently zoned as a UU, Urban Use District,
which allows us to reconfigure and utilize the space within the building walls to
the greatest extent possible. However, there is not enough square footage
within the building to house a gymnasium or physical education / motor room.
The school basically needs an outdoor playground / physical education area.
The attached application and conceptual design portray our request for a
variance to convert the parking lot on the north side of the building to a
playground and PE area. The area is within the property boundary and does
not require acquisition of additional property. It is currently, and will continue to
be, bounded on three sides by an 8 -foot fence with sliding vehicle gates on the
west and east sides. These gates will remain open to potentially allow drop-off
of children in the morning and afternoon, but be locked during the day.
The attached conceptual design portrays our intent to provide recreation areas
for all ages. Each area will be designed to meet all playground safety
guidelines as well as ADA regulations. Where some of the asphalt lot will be
retained for basketball, hop scotch, and foursquare, the remainder of the paved
surfaces will be replaced with concrete and landscaping of shrubs and trees.
The intent of which is to soften the impact of city hard-scapes, which is so
common in the downtown area. Increased landscaping reduces water runoff,
heat sink, and solar reflection, and creates shade and aesthetic appeal to the
rigid cityscape.
Without this playground, the children are at a great disadvantage. Yes, the
school can attempt to supplement the curriculum with classroom activities, but
we all know the importance of outdoor activity. Especially in a school that
operates for 9 hours a day, 200 days a year.
We look forward to presenting this proposal to you and answering any
questions you might have.
Sincerely,
cc: Walter Hussman, WEHCO
Charlie Van Deventer, WEHCO
Dr. Roy Brooks, e -STEM CEO
Joe Mittiga, e -STEM COO
Patrick Murray, East Harding
O
U
W
W
F-
O
F -
w
2
0
Q
U-
0
O
Q
O
m
H
Q
D
CD
c
L
0
•
VA
z
w
m
Q
w
z
0
w
February 25, 2008
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.