Loading...
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.