Loading...
boa_03 25 2002LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 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 February 25, 2002 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman Fred Gray, Vice Chairman Scott Richburg Gary Langlais Andrew Francis Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson I. LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA MARCH 25, 2002 2:00 P.M. 1. Z -2554-A 2. Z -3915-B 3. Z -6474-C 4. Z -6876-A 5. Z -7047-A 6. Z -7069-A 7. Z -7124-A 8. Z-7151 9. Z-7155 10. Z-7156 11. Z-7157 12. Z-7158 13. Z-7161 14. Z-7162 5717 West 12th Street 12024 Interstate 30 3521 Longcoy 7200 West 12th Street 7102 Asher Avenue 8500 West Markham Street 101 Main Street 26 Windsor Drive 5301 Stonewall 2010 N. Van Buren Street 2300 Beechwood 5608/5610 Hawthorne Road 1901 N. Polk Street 3610 Kavanaugh Blvd. Q) N 3NId n C JN nntlelw a co t.. G � y, a= -Ur 1 Vi`+ e0y0 _W NVIY839 a NIVN = � A MOV08B HO1tl NO1NObi 153RD 13H36O o � ONIN l41 s M01000M S € 3NId f 3$bls NI 1v0 NO111fYv 11005 N�db 0 Q Na d 11tl3 —i AlI583AINf1 AlISaNNn ry �J SONIUS 13A3O Q 3HOnH _ Lo ZE IddISS in • ,'t J Z� 1001H0 "— WOW M011tl1 NHOF co 3 y c� i 2 3NN13H OUGA31ADVHS $ Oa 31 v , SIOatlS ry H1tld A3NO01 a S11YN1 Alp 30011 Ary x S111YI1 Alp b "bl$oV RIC Alp 6 � Y �4= v NVAI11nS AVATS bsbb h VMH IH S11NIl Alp 31v0N133 h o O O March , 2002 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z -2554-A Fatemeh Hadjian 5717 West 12th Street Lot 1, Block C, Oak Forest Gardens Annex O-3 Variances are requested from the height and setback regulations of Section 36-553 to permit a ground -mounted sign which exceeds the maximum height allowed, with a reduced setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Dentist office Dentist office The property at 5717 West 12th Street is zoned 0-3 and is occupied by a small one-story dentist office, with an area of asphalt parking. There is a small sign identifying the office located at the northwest corner of the property. The property owner, Fatemeh Hadjian, proposes to remove the existing ground -mounted sign and replace it with a new sign which will be 15 feet in height and 32 square feet in area. The sign will be located six (6) inches from the property line. The City's Zoning Ordinance March 25, 2002 Item No.: 1 allows a ground -mounted sign in 0-3 zoning to have a maximum height of six (6) feet, a maximum area of 64 square feet and a minimum setback of five (5) feet from property lines. Therefore, the property owner is requesting variances to allow the ground -mounted sign to exceed the maximum height allowed, with a reduced setback from the north property line. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff does not believe that the proposed 15 -foot sign height is reasonable. Staff feels that the proposed sign height is not needed at this location to identify the small office use. Although staff could work with the applicant regarding the sign setback, the sign height would need to be more in line with the allowed office standards. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested ground -mounted sign height and setback variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002) Rochelle Broglen was present, representing the application. There were no persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Rochelle Broglen addressed the Board in support of the application. She noted that the property owner, Dr. Hadjian, recently had a marketing study done on the property. She stated that the study noted that the existing ground -mounted sign was not sufficient to identify the property, and recommended a 15 -foot tall sign. She noted that the proposed 15 foot tall sign would provide adequate identification of the property and create awareness of the business. She further explained the need for the sign at the proposed location. She stated that the sign would help middle -eastern residents identify Dr. Hadjian as a dentist of their ethnic background. Ms. Broglen also explained that Dr. Hadjian wished not to remove the large crepe myrtle bush at the corner of the property as a reason for the taller sign. 2 March 25, 2002 Item No.: 1 Vice Chairman Gray asked to see photos which Ms. Broglen had of the proposed sign. The Board reviewed the photos. Chairman Ruck asked if the applicant had considered a building -mounted sign or a ground -mounted sign near the building. He expressed concern with the sign location near the intersection. Ms. Broglen explained that the marketing study suggested placing the sign near the street. Bill Sims, also representing the applicant, noted that a six (6) foot tall sign could obstruct the visibility at the intersection and explained. He stated that a building - mounted sign was considered, but it was decided that a ground -mounted sign would be more effective. Vice -Chairman Gray stated that it was not clear why a dentist needed a sign of this size and explained. He noted that he could not support this application, but could consider the sign if it were further back from the right-of- way. This issue was briefly discussed. A motion was made to approve the application, as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes and 3 nays. The application was denied. 9 (870) 931-1761 A � 4A _AglMW_ N AP�ff `E _ A I 'A's P.O. Box 6064 Fax (870) 931-7920 —== •.• .._.-+. �. _ ��.��.�.: ��_., Jonesboro, AR 72403 Toll Free: (800) 416-4458 r■ �r■ W IF► � r� � www.signsystemsl.com •-:-:�. I NC ORPO RATED Board of Adjustment T4 4.1.4_ 44 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 501-371-4790 Fax: 501-371-6863 SignSystems, Inc. is requesting a zoning variance to Little Rock Codes 36-553(a)(2) and 36-553(6) on behalf of Dr. Fatemeh Hadjian, for the property located at 5717 W. 12'`, owned by Fatemeh Hadjian, D.D.S., P.A. SignSystems, Inc. is seeking to erect a ground mounted sign with an overall height of 15'-0", which exceeds the current height allowance by 9'-0". SignSystems, Inc. is seeking to install the sign 6" from the property line which exceeds the ordinances setback requirement by 4'-6". The primary reason for the variance request is due to the lot layout of the location as well as a large Crepe Myrtle tree located on the corner of the lot. An independent marking group recently provided Dr. Hadjian an evaluation of her business with recommendations. It was determined that due to the inadequate size and poor visibility of Dr. Hadjian's existing sign, the business was not getting drive by recognition of potential customers. In order for Dr. Hadjian to leave the Crepe Myrtle tree standing and enhancing the landscaping of the lot, a sign installed at the comer location of Dr. Hadjian's lot would need to be installed nearly abutting the property line. This would keep the sign from encroaching on vehicular traffic in the drive area. The sign would also need to be at a height of 15'-0" in order to ensure visibility to eastbound traffic on West 12''. Adhering to the ordinance's current setback and height restrictions would result in the inability to install a suitable size sign which would result in a lack of identification for Dr. Hadjian's business. SignSystems, Inc. extends its appreciation to the Board of Adjustment for their consideration of this variance request. cerely, Rochelle Broglen Office Administrator Innovative Ideas In Sign Technology 6 --- Design March 2002 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -3915-B Owner: CalArk Trucking Address: 12024 Interstate 30 Type of Issue: Time extension of previously approved variance from the pavement requirements of Section 36-508. The variance was initially approved on November 24, 1997. Extensions were granted through January 30, 2002. STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Comply with conditions in Public Works minute record of November 1997. B. Staff Analysis: CalArk Trucking Company is located at 12024 I-30; a 30± acre, C-4 zoned tract bounded by Otter Creek Road on the north and I-30 on the southeast. The trucking company is located on the western 22± acres of the tract. On November 24, 1997, the Board of Adjustment granted a two-year deferral of the paving requirements of Section 36-508, allowing the trucking company to utilize a gravel parking area for the company's trucks and employee vehicles. There was some question, at that time, of a possible realignment of the Otter Creek Road overpass over I-30 which could have affected this site. That two-year deferral expired on November 24, 1999. On November 11, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat, dividing the easternmost 8± acres of the site into 4 lots which were to be sold for potential development by other parties. CalArk stated it was uncertain how the truck terminal facility would March (_ , , 2002 Item No.: 2 be "laid out" on the remaining property. It appeared that the possible realignment of the overpass was no longer an issue. The 4 -lot plat was approved without the realignment issue being of concern, other than for some specific driveway placement. On January 31, 2000, the Board approved an additional deferral, through November 24, 2000. Although staff supported the additional 12 months, it was clear that the support was only for a deferral through November 24, 2000. On January 29, 2001, the Board approved an additional deferral, through January 30, 2002. Staff did not support the deferral request, noting that the 4 -lot preliminary plat (which was the basis of the last deferral) had expired. Staff also noted that at some point, the site must be developed to city code. The applicant is now requesting an additional 12 -month deferral of the paving requirement. The justification offered by the applicant relates to the current financial situation of the trucking company. Please see the attached letter from Rochelle Gorman of CalArk for additional details. Staff is not supportive of an additional deferral. Staff feels that the applicant has had ample time to plan for the pavement of the parking area. This property has over 2,100 linear feet of frontage along Interstate 30, one of the main entries into the City of Little Rock. Staff feels that it is time that the site be paved and landscaped as per city code requirements, in order to improve the property's appearance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend approval of the requested 12 - month extension of the previously granted deferrals of the paving requirement of Section 36-508. 2 March 25, 2002 Item No.: 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002) Rochelle Gorman was present, representing the application. There were no persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Rochelle Gorman addressed the Board in support of the requested paving extension. She gave a brief history of the property, including the past extensions granted. She noted that pavement for tractor/trailer trucks had to be thicker than standard parking lots because of the weight. She noted that the cost to pave the parking area was estimated at $500,000. She offered the current financial status of the business as a reason for the additional deferral. She stated that her company wanted to do the paving, but that money was not currently available. Vice -Chairman Gray stated that he felt the economy would positively affect the trucking business in the near future, based on the information he had seen. He asked the applicant about this issue. The issue was briefly discussed by the applicant. Vice -Chairman Gray noted that the corner tract of this property was for sale and briefly discussed this property with relation to other properties in the area. Andrew Francis asked when the exit ramp for I-30 would be completed. Ms. Gorman stated that she did not know. Chairman Ruck asked if the new plan for the I-30 overpass required Otter Creek Road to be realigned. Mike Hood, of Public Works, stated that he did not know to what extent the road would be realigned. Staff asked what preparations the applicant had made during the past five (5) years for the paving. Ms. Gorman noted that the sale of part of the property would help finance the paving. Andrew Francis asked about the I-30 exit ramp and the realignment of Otter Creek Road. This issue was briefly discussed. Also discussed were issues related to the previous extensions. 3 r March 25, 2002 Item No.: 2 Chairman Ruck stated that he had no problem with another extension, given the status of other properties in the area. This issue was briefly discussed. Andrew Francis asked if there had been any complaints about the property related to safety issues. Staff stated that there had been none. A motion was made to approve an extension for 12 months from this date. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, suggested a condition that would require CalArk to give the Board a progress report in six (6) months. The motion was amended, adding the requirement that the applicant appear at the September 2002 Board of Adjustment meeting and provide the Board with a status report. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The time extension was approved. 4 January 29, 2002 Mr. Monte Moore Zoning and Code Enforcement Administrator 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Re: 120241-30 Paving Extension (2-3915-B) Dear Mr. Moore: 1 -e^3915 - 3 CalArk The wheels of American business A.O. Box 990 Uabelvale, AR 72103-0990 501/455-3399 800/444-3399 501/455-5241 FAX I would like to request an extension to the previously granted extension for an additional 12 months. We would certainly like to comply with the ordinance but it could not come at a worse time for a company in the trucking industry to have to come up with a large sum of money to pave a parking lot. Our industry has been hit particularly hard with the down turn in the economy, increased fuel prices, and the insurance markets have almost doubled in the last year. We are doing every thing possible to make sure that we meet our daily obligation to our over 400 employees and our customers. To take a large sum of money to pave the parking area would drastically effect daily operations. We would hope that you consider our situation, not unlike the current financial situation our city government is operating in at this current time. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 455-3399 (3327) Sincerely, Rochelle B. Gorman President CaUrk, Inc. RECEIVED JAN 3 0 2002 BY: March (�, 2002 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Z -6474-C Robert and Deborah Cooley 3521 Longcoy Street West 2/3 of Lots 11 and 12, Block 137, John Barrow Addition R-3 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36- 156 to permit a carport with a reduced building setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. A grading permit and development permit for special flood hazard area is required prior to construction. Contact David Hamilton at 244-5402 for details. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 3521 Longcoy Street contains a new one-story single family residence. There is a new two -car concrete driveway from Longcoy Street which is used to access the property. The applicant recently placed a 20 foot by 21 foot metal accessory carport structure in front of the house, bolted to the concrete drive. The carport structure is located approximately 11 feet from the front (west) property line and is not connected to the house. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. requires a minimum front yard setback of 60 feet for accessory buildings. Therefore, the applicant is March 25, 2002 Item No.: 3 requesting a variance for a reduced front yard setback for the carport structure. Staff supports the requested variance. If the accessory carport structure were located in the rear yard, near the southeast corner of the residential structure, the driveway would need to be moved further south and closer to the intersection. Staff feels that this would create a safety issue, being a potential traffic hazard for the property owner. The metal carport structure, being bolted down to the concrete drive, could easily be removed from the property. If the property owner ever decides to remove the structure and construct a permanent carport or garage addition to the house, additional Board of Adjustment review will be required. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested front yard setback variance for the accessory carport structure, subject to compliance with the Public Works Comment noted in paragraph A. of this report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002) 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. E -TN-� kp Lc� �4y(- A IJ ry Qonc&rn March 2002 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: McDonald's Corporation 7200 West 12th Street Northeast corner of West 12th Street and Rodney Parham Road C-3 A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-530 to permit three (3) wall signs which extend more than 18 inches from the wall of the building. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Commercial Commercial The property at 7200 West 12th Street contains a newly constructed convenience store with gas pumps and a McDonald's restaurant. Three (3) mansard signs were mounted on the McDonald's portion of the structure. There are two (2) different mansard signs; one (1) being the McDonald's arches logo and the other containing the wording "McDonald's". The signs are located 21 to 30 inches from the face of the mansard at the top and 12 inches at the bottom. The City's Zoning Ordinance definition of wall signs, which includes mansard signs, states the signs must not extend more March 25, 2002 Item No.: 4 than 18 inches from the wall/mansard of the building. The applicant notes that the signs have been moved back against the mansard roof as far as possible, and that the sign cannot be moved back further and have the proper angle to be visible from the street, and maintain the integrity of the trademark McDonald's roofline. Staff does not support the requested variance. It has not been past City policy to permit signs to "stick-up" above and away from mansard roofs. In other cases, the sign owner has been required to create a "box" behind the lettering so that the sign is mounted flush or against the wall/mansard surface. While acknowledging that taking such action in this particular case might create a hardship, staff is concerned that allowing the signs could lead to similar requests. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow mansard/wall signs which extend over 18 inches from the mansard/wall surface. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002) Ben Gueren was present, representing the application. There were no persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Ben Gueren addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained the signage which was placed on the building's mansard roof. He noted that the McDonald's on Fourche Dam Pike recently received a variance for similar signage. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, noted that no precedence was set by the previous case. Mr. Gueren noted that signage increased sales at McDonald's and explained how the additional revenue would benefit the City. Chairman Ruck asked if McDonald's had ever done signs differently. Mr. Gueren explained that all of the McDonald's VA March 25, 2002 Item No.: 4 restaurants that he had dealt with in the past had this type of signage. A motion was made to approve the application, as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was approved. 3 JJL, INC. DBA MCDONALUS PO Box 56169 Little Rock, AR 72215 Ph/Fax 501-821-4510 February 22, 2002 To Whom It May Concern, I, Jason Langnes, owner of JJL, Inc., am requesting a variance from the requirements of the zoning ordinance for the roof signage on the McDonald's restaurant, located at 7200 West 12th Street, Little Rock, AR. 72205. I have provided graphics of the two different roof signs used at this location. I also have provided a side view of the roof with the signage drawn in. This plan will show that the roof signage is as far back as possible. Currently, because of the angle of the roof, the bottom of the sign falls well below the 18 inch standard, however, the top is slightly over the allotted 18 inches. In an attempt to comply with the ordinance I had the signs moved back from their original location to where they are only one inch off of the roof beams. The signage cannot be moved any further back and maintain the proper angle to be visible from the road. In order to maintain the integrity of the trademark McDonald's roof line, I am requesting that you allow the signs to remain as they are. Without a major structural change, complying with the existing ordinance is not possible. The signage in its existing location allows the restaurant to be clearly visible from the interstate. More importantly, the existing roof line allows the restaurant to be distinguished from the gas station and recognizable as a McDonald's. According to the numerous compliments that we receive from customers and area business people, this new construction is a welcomed asset to the area and will continue to grow as a positive influence in the community. I appreciate your consideration for this variance, as I feel that it is the best possible solution for all parties involved. /SincerelLangnes Owner/ Operator March 25, 2002 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z -7047-A Owner: Abdias and Rosalinda Montoya Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. STAFF REPORT: 7102 Asher Avenue North side of Asher Avenue at Oak Park Drive C-3 A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-502 to allow a reduced number of on-site parking spaces. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Restaurant Restaurant The applicant submitted a letter to staff on March 8, 2002 requesting that this application be deferred to the April 29, 2002 agenda. The applicant needs additional time to work out parking details associated with the variance request. Staff supports the deferral as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter on March 8, 2002 requesting that this application be c March 25, 2002 Item No.: 5 deferred to the April 29, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral as requested. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 29, 2002 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 4,e,- z - 7o 7 -A February 22, 2002 Mr. Monte Moore Planning & Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 The Applicant has obtained a written permission to use off-site parking on the adjacent lot for 10 additional parking spaces. See the attached letter. The Applicant intends to obtain rights for additional parking spaces in the area which are within 300 feet of the subject property. These will be furnished to you. These additional parking spaces provide substantial additional parking for use by customers of the subject restaurant. Also, all employees shall park in spaces which are not on the subject property so that all on-site parking shall be for customers only. Sincerely, Abdias Montoya Rosalinda Montoya May 16, 2001 7102 Asher Ave. Little Rock, AR 72204 (501) 225-3088 To Whom It May Concern: I, Abdias Montoya, am borrowing ten parking spaces from my neighboring business, owned by Sheila Miller. These spaces, combined with the parking from my location, would add up to the parking spaces required to obtain a building permit in order for my restaurant to open. Ms. Shelia Miller has agreed to allow our future customers to use these parking spaces at any time during business hours. There will be a sign at my location indicating that customers are welcome to use those parking spaces. El Viejo San Luis may also have the extra -unpaved parking, by paving and stripping. There should be more than ten parking spaces. Simply Raw will not be responsible for any accidents that may occur between Simply Raw clients and El Viejo San Luis. This contract may be terminated in the case that it becomes an in convince. Sincerely, PJIA, W'- fl. ,, Abdias Montoy March,, 2002 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Owner: Address: Z -7069-A RHK, LLC 8500 West Markham Street Description: North side of West Markham Street, approximately 300 feet west of Rodney Parham Road Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: .'�= A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 553 to permit a second ground - mounted sign along the south property line. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Office Proposed Use of Property: Office STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: A multi -story office building and associated paved parking areas are located on the 0-3 zoned property at 8500 West Markham Street. The property has two (2) street frontages, West Markham Street and Rodney Parham Road. There is one (1) existing ground -mounted sign along each street frontage. On July 30, 2001, the Board of Adjustment approved variances for both of the existing ground -mounted signs for Simmons Bank. The sign along West Markham Street was approved with a maximum height of 17.5 feet and a maximum area of approximately 70 square feet. The sign along Rodney March 2002 Item No.: 6 Parham Road was approved for a maximum height of 16 feet and area of 64 square feet. The City's Zoning Ordinance allows one (1) ground -mounted sign per street frontage in office zones, with a maximum sign height of six (6) feet and maximum area of 64 square feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a second ground -mounted sign along the West Markham Street frontage. The proposed sign will be approximately six (6) feet in height, with an area of 60 square feet. The sign is proposed to be located along the west side of the easternmost access drive. When the Board approved the ground -mounted sign variances on July 30, 2001, one (1) of the conditions of approval is as follows: "There are to be no other ground -mounted signs on the property other than directional signs." The property owner contends that Simmons Bank representatives never notified them of this requirement. Please see the attached letter for additional information pertaining to this issue. Staff does not support the requested variance. Aside from the specific conditions of the previous approval, the two (2) existing ground -mounted signs are almost three (3) times the maximum height allowed in office zoning. In light of the size of the sign which fronts West Markham Street, staff feels that it would not be reasonable to allow a second ground -mounted sign along this 210 -foot frontage. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow a second ground -mounted sign along the West Markham Street frontage. V, March 25, 2002 Item No.: 6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002) Vada Reynolds was present, representing the application. There were no persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Vada Reynolds addressed the Board in support of the application. She explained the recent remodeling of the property and noted that several of the tenants were requesting signage. She stated that the bank did not notify her of the previous conditions of approval. She further explained the need for the additional signage. She noted that the City's Planning Staff had suggested wall -mounted signage, and explained that wall -mounted signs would not be very visible. Chairman Ruck noted that the proposed sign had 20 tenant names on it and that it appeared that it would be hard to identify a particular business. Ms. Reynolds explained that the tenants wanted the sign. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if there was a sign on the building with the building's address on it. Ms. Reynolds stated that there was not currently and explained. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if there was a previous sign on the building that contained tenant names. Ms. Reynolds stated that there was and explained that the sign was removed due to lack of visibility. This issue was briefly discussed. Andrew Francis asked if the property owner was aware of the previous application. Staff checked the previous file and noted that there was nothing in the file signed by the property owner. Vice -Chairman Gray stated that he did not support the application, as he felt that the proposed sign would be ineffective. He suggested wall -mounted signage. There was a motion to approve the application, as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes and 5 nays. The application was denied. 3 FaiWcial� Cent_ �F -70(-1 - r4 L"zP") (-- 650 South Shackleford Road Suite 400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 501/221-0555 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham, 2"d Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Sign Variance Request Markham West Plaza 8500 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72205 To whom it may concern: On behalf of the owners of Markham West Plaza, located at 8500 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas 72205, I would like to request a sign variance be approved for the installation of a ground mounted sign. The proposed sign will meet all the city zoning requirements for height, size, and total area. We are only asking that we be allowed to install a second ground mounted sign on the southeast section of the Markham Street frontage of the site. The reasons for this request are as follows: 1) The building is located approximately 150 feet back from the Markham West frontage property line. This distance is significant enough that the building is not easily seen from both east bound and west bound traffic until you are right in front of the building and there are currently no signs with the building name, address, or tenants names located any where on the site other than Simmons Bank. Located directly west of the building is a residential neighborhood with large trees that block the building view for east bound travelers and directly east of the building is another office building located close to Markham Street which blocks our building view for the west bound travelers. This lack of visibility causes great difficulty for those who are trying to find a business located in our building. We now have twenty tenant's in Markham West Plaza who need the visibility of a sign for their existing patrons and to help secure their future economic stability. 2) A sign variance was granted to Simmons First National Bank on July 30, 2001 for their ground mounted sign located on the Markham Street frontage. I am attaching a copy of documents given to me by the city in regards to Simmons Bank's variance request. When this variance was requested, it was granted with three staff recommendations. Department of Planning and Development Page Two February 21, 2002 One of these recommendations was that there be no other ground mounted signs. We as owners, were never notified of this requirement. If we would have been notified then we would not have allowed Simmons to install their sign as designed. At that time, we could have negotiated a sign design with Simmons Bank that would have included all our tenants names. Our loyalties have to be with all our tenants not just one. 3) As stated above, the new proposed sign's area, size, and height are within all the city zoning requirements for an 0-3 zone sign. The only variance being requested is to have one more ground mounted sign on the Markham Street frontage. The location of this sign is marked on the site plan and will be on the southeast side of the site. The building directly east of Markham West Plaza currently has a sign that exceeds the 0-3 zone requirements in area, size and height. Several of the sites located south across Markham Street have more than one ground mounted sign. Our new proposed sign has been designed to enhance our property and will not defer from the beauty of the area. Thank you for considering our sign variance request and we hope that you will consider all the above reasons and grant us our variance. Sincerely J Vada Reynolds Property Manager March 2002 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Z -7124-A Block 2, Limited Partnership 101 Main Street Southeast corner of Main Street and West Markham Street W A variance is requested from the use regulations of Section 36- 342.1 to allow a restaurant, with outside seating within the public right-of-way, in the UU Zoning District. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Mixture of Commercial, Office and Residential Mixture of Commercial, Office and Residential 1. Improve corner curb radius to 30 feet radius with construction (existing corner radius is 20 feet). 2. Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards. Configuration must permit 4 -foot wide landing at top of ramp, or alternatively, a landing at street level with dual ramps parallel to the curb. 3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. March �( , 2002 Item No.: 7 5. Obtain a franchise for property to be located in the right-of-way. B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 101 Main Street contains the old Wallace Building, which is currently being redeveloped for a mixture of office, commercial and residential uses under the name "Block 2." The tenant (San Francisco Bread Co.) who is located on the ground floor of the building, at the corner of West Markham and Main Streets, is requesting a variance to allow an outside use (outside restaurant seating) within the public right-of-way in the UU Zoning District. The applicant proposes to utilize from seven (7) to twelve (12) feet of the existing sidewalk width along Main Street and five (5) feet of the sidewalk width along East Markham Street for outside restaurant seating. The seating area will be separated from the remainder of the sidewalk by a three (3) foot high railing. According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-342.1(d)(1), UU Urban Use District standards: "Permitted uses. Uses permitted shall include all those allowed in the residential districts, office districts and commercial districts as "permitted uses," in this chapter 36. Except that, all uses must be inside or enclosed." Staff is not supportive of the variance request. Staff has very serious safety concerns relating to the proposed outside restaurant seating use. The Markham Street/Main Street intersection is a very busy intersection. There is a large amount of pedestrian traffic in this immediate area, with the convention center being located across Markham Street to the north. The proposed location of tables and chairs to within five (5) feet of the existing street curbs, will push the pedestrian traffic much closer to the edge of the streets. Staff does not feel that this is a good plan. If the Board decides to approve this application, the applicant will need to obtain a 2 f March 25, 2002 Item No.: 7 franchise permit for the activity to be located within the right-of-way. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow an outside use within the public right-of-way, in the UU Urban Use District. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002) Paul Esterer and Kal Makan were present, representing the application. There were no person present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Paul Esterer addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that San Francisco Bread Co. restaurant was designed with the thought of having outside seating. He noted that he, as property owner, wished to have the outside activity in the area. He briefly explained this issue. He also noted that the sidewalk would meet ADA requirements. Andrew Francis asked what the sidewalk width would be from the fence/railing to the street curb. Mr. Esterer presented a site plan drawing to the Board. The drawing was reviewed by the Board members. George Whittenberg spoke in favor of the application. He explained how the outside seating would be a benefit to the area. James Schimmer also spoke in favor of the application. He noted that outside dining was a use supported by the Downtown Partnership. He also noted that outside dining was a use allowed by the old Metrocentre plan. Mr. Esterer explained that outside seating was only anticipated along the Main Street side of the building. Chairman Ruck expressed concern with pedestrian traffic flow from south to north with the proposed design of the outside dining area. Mr. Esterer stated that he was willing to discuss redesigning the outside seating area. 3 March 25, 2002 Item No.: 7 Andrew Francis noted that there was a lamp post along West Markham Street which appeared to be in the way of the proposed outside seating area. Mr. Esterer explained that the sidewalk would be redesigned with the new trolley system and expected the lamp post to be removed. Mr. Francis asked about the proposed future redesign of the sidewalk along West Markham Street and suggested deferring the application pending additional information. Steve Haralson noted that the City had recently submitted plans to CATA regarding the streetscaping along West Markham Street and explained. This issue was discussed at length. Mr. Esterer suggested approving the outside dining along Main Street and deferring the Markham Street side. There was a general discussion pertaining to revising the application. Staff suggested revising the application by removing the outside dining from the Markham Street side of the building. Staff noted that the applicant could come back before the Board, after the streetscaping has taken place, and request the outside seating along West Markham Street. This issue was discussed further. Andrew Francis asked about a cut in the sidewalk along the Main Street frontage where a tree once existed. Mr. Esterer indicated that this cut-out area would be repaired. This issue was discussed briefly. Gary Langlais asked if an awning would cover the dining area. Kal Makan stated that the tables would have umbrellas. Vice Chairman Gray noted support of the application, with removal of the Markham Street seating, and explained. Mr. Esterer noted that the outside seating along Markham Street would be deleted from the application. There was a motion to approve the revised application subject to any cut-out areas in the sidewalk being repaired. Staff noted that a franchise also needed to be obtained. David Hamilton and Steve Haralson, both of Public Works, discussed the Public Works requirements, specifically the requirement to improve the corner curb radius. There was an amended motion to approve the revised application with a recommendation to the City Board that the boundary street improvements be waived (Item #1 under Public 4 March 25, 2002 Item No.: 7 Works requirements, paragraph A.), and subject to the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a permit and approval to repair the sidewalk cut. 2. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of this report. The motion was discussed at length. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The revised application was approved. 5 Having been to many downtowns, I have noticed that downtown Little Rock lacks a "welcoming, laid back" atmosphere. There are many restaurants with outside seating in other downtown area. I feel that this is an attraction to local residents, a way to relax after a hard day's work or to enjoy a weekend afternoon with the family. With outside seating, San Francisco Bread Co. will not only look like a relaxing restaurant, but also bring people in the area and throughout the River Market area. Supporters such as the LR and NLR Mayors, Downtown Partnership, Ambassadors, and customers of SFBC all feel that this is a great idea to help make Little Rock downtown a true downtown. March L-, 2002 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested Justification: Present Use of Property Z-7151 Christine R. Hale 26 Windsor Drive Lot 526, Meadowcliff Addition R-2 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36- 254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a porch addition with a reduced front yard setback and which crosses a platted building line. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 26 Windsor Drive is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. The property is located on the southwest corner of Windsor Drive and Southmont Drive. There is an existing single car driveway from Windsor Drive. The applicant is proposing to make several building additions to the existing structure, one (1) of which requires a variance. March ( , 2002 Item No.: 8 There was an existing uncovered porch structure on the east side of the residence which was recently removed in order to replace the property's sewer line. This porch structure crossed the 25 foot front platted building line by several feet, as the front of the house was originally constructed to within 1.5 feet of the building line. The applicant is requesting variances to rebuild the front porch (unenclosed), with a hip roof structure over it. The porch will be 6 feet by 12 feet and extend over the platted 25 foot building line by 4.5 feet (corner of porch). The roof overhang will extend 6 feet over the platted building line. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments over platted building setback lines be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the encroachment over the platted building line is very minor and that it will not have an adverse impact on the adjacent properties. The construction of the covered porch will result in a 19 foot setback (to roof overhang) from the east property line. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line for the proposed porch. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested building line variance subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as approved by the Board. 2. The covered porch must remain unenclosed beyond the platted building line. 2 March 25, 2002 Item No.: 8 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002) 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. K February 14, 2002 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Request for variance: Christine (Doembach) Hale 26 Windsor Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72209-2039 To Whom It May Concern: Z - 7151 Proposal: • Construct a new unenclosed wooden front porch (6 feet wide x 12 feet long) with handrails and stairs. • Covered with a hip roof attached to the existing house and extending six feet past the building line. Justification and reasons for requesting this variance: • Original concrete porch, stairs and walkway have been removed to allow plumbing and carpentry repairs. • Plumbing — main sewer line has begun to deteriorate and requires replacement. Sewer line exists directly under original concrete entrance/stoop. • Carpentry — floor framing has deteriorated (rot) and requires repairs/replacement. Original entrance/stoop was concrete poured directly up to the house without adequate roof overhang, allowing water to seep in around the entrance and damage the structural framing. Closing: The granting of this variance would enable us to provide a safe, comfortable and attractive entrance to our home along with completing the restoration in a manner that will avoid future damage to structural components. We have made every effort to restore this house with the intent that, upon completion, it will appear to be original construction, contributing to neighborhood renewal. Thank you for your time and consideration, Christine R Hale Eugene A. Hale, Jr. March,--, 2002 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Z-7155 Mark and Katherine Ramm 5301 Stonewall Lot 1, Block 24, Newton's Addition R-2 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36- 254 to permit building additions with reduced front and rear yard setbacks. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. All driveways (within the right-of-way) shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance, if a sidewalk is present. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5301 Stonewall is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The house is located primarily within the north one- half of the lot, with the structure's covered front porch being 16.5 feet from the front (north) property line. There is an access drive near the southeast corner of the property, with a large concrete parking pad within the southern portion of the property. March 25, 2002 Item No.: 9 The applicant proposes to construct additions to the north and south ends of the structure. The addition on the north end will be approximately 206 square feet in area, and be additional master bedroom space and an enclosed entrance to the home. This addition will be located 16 feet from the front (north) property line. The proposed rear building addition will be approximately 1,400 square feet in area and include an enclosed garage. This addition will be located 21 feet from the rear (south) property line. According to Sections 36-254(d)(1) and 36-254(d)(3), front and rear building setbacks in R-2 zoning must be a minimum of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances for reduced front and rear yard setbacks. The proposed additions conform to the required side yard setbacks. The applicant also plans to add a new 192 square foot porch along the east side of the structure which will conform to the setback requirements. Staff is not supportive of the variance requests. Staff feels that the proposed building additions represent an over -building of the residential lot. The applicant is proposing to add approximately 1,800 square feet to the existing 1,360 square foot residence (not including existing front porch), on a 7,000 square foot single family residential lot. Although the existing front porch does not meet the minimum front yard setback requirement, the applicant is proposing to move slightly closer to the front property line with more building area than currently exists. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances for reduced front and rear yard building setbacks. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and noted that the staff recommendation was no longer "denial." The staff recommendation was changed to "approval, as filed." The applicant offered no additional comments. PA March 25, 2002 Item No.: 9 The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 3 1 f� -4 7 Katherine Ramm 2-715S 1708 N. Monroe Little Rock, AR 72207 (501) 666-5772 February 21, 2002 RE: Variance for Lot 1 Block 24, Newton's Addition/5301 Stonewall Attention: Little Rock Board of Adjustments/ Dana Carney A variance is being requested for the above mentioned residence, at the front of the lot and at the back of the lot. A variance is being sought for the front of the house do to lot size. The constraints of the lot ,make it necessary to extend outside the existing box of the house. This will enable the master bedroom to be on one level, as well as provide an enclosed entrance to the home. A face lift to the front of the home with varied step outs will also bring the house in line with the charm and esthetics of the surrounding properties. Therefore enhancing the neighborhood. A variance is being sought at the back of the house because of the slope The slope makes it necessary to encroach slightly to allow for steps down into and enclosed garage. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request. Yours Truly, Katherine W. Ramm March �� 2002 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Z-7156 Country Club Station Realty 2010 N. Van Buren Street Lot 14, Block 26, Newton's Addition C-3 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36- 301 to permit a building addition with a reduced side yard setback, and which extends into the public right-of-way. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Restaurant Restaurant 1. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. B. Staff Analysis: The property at 2010 N. Van Buren Street is zoned C-3 and contains a commercial building, with off-street parking along the building's north side. Cheers In The Heights Restaurant is located in the northeast corner of the existing building. There is a patio area for outside seating (approximately 16 feet by 20 feet) located at the northeast corner of the building, March 25, 2002 Item No.: 10 between the building and Van Buren Street. The outside patio area is located within the street right-of-way, as the east wall of the commercial building is located on the property line. The applicant, Cheers In The Heights, is requesting a variance from the area regulations of Section 36-301 to permit the construction of an awning extending from the east wall of the building over the existing patio area. The proposed awning addition would extend over the property line and into the public right-of-way. According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36- 301(e)(2), the minimum side yard setback along the Van Buren Street property line is 25 feet. Staff does not support the side yard setback variance. As of this writing, staff is unsure how or if the applicant received approval to place the patio area in the public right-of-way in the first place. The proposed awning addition would extend approximately 12 feet into the required Master Street Plan right-of-way for Van Buren Street. Staff feels that the proposed awning addition would further congest a very busy intersection (Van Buren Street and Kavanaugh Blvd.) and could create safety concerns. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested side yard setback variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002) Robert Cortinez and Chuck Presler were present, representing the application. There were no persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Robert Cortinez addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained the requested variance. He presented photos of the property to the Board and explained. He noted that the safety concerns expressed by staff were minimal. He stated that the patio cover would actually make the area safer. He noted that the patio area was constructed in 1996, and presented police accident reports E March 25, 2002 Item No.: 10 for the area. He also noted that the patio area aided the handicapped customers and explained. Andrew Francis asked what the height of the awning would be. Mr. Cortinez explained that it would be twelve (12) feet in height. Mr. Francis asked if the awning would extend past the existing patio area. Mr. Cortinez responded that it would not. Vice -Chairman Gray asked what type of supporting structure the awning would have. Mr. Cortinez presented the Board with photos and explained. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if the restaurant had trouble with handicap accessibility. Chuck Presler responded that they did not have a problem with serving handicapped customers. In response to a question from Chairman Ruck, Mr. Presler noted that the awning structure would not be enclosed. Vice -Chairman Gray asked how the existing patio area was approved. Staff noted that there was not a franchise for the patio and that it would be considered nonconforming based on the fact that it had existed for over a year. Steve Haralson, of Public Works, noted that there were no plans to widen Van Buren Street. There was a motion to approve the application subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of this report. 2. A franchise must be obtained for the covered patio area. 3. The canopy must remain unenclosed on the north, south and east sides. The motion was briefly discussed. Staff noted that Public Works requirement #2 would apply to this application. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes and 1 nay. The application was approved. W T�-.,o� sf / v Cheers in the Heights — 7 15 2010 North Van Buren Little Rock, AR 72207 February 19, 2002 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Application for Non-residential Zoning Variance To Whom it May Concern: Enclosed please find a completed Application for Zoning Variance and filing fee in the amount of $150.00. On behalf of Cheers in the Heights, I am requesting a zoning variance for the following reasons: Cheers is requesting a variance to install an awning over the existing patio area of Cheers in the Heights to protect diners from the elements and decrease run-off from weather-related events which will help to minimize and/or eliminate safety hazards for patrons and employees and which will help beautify the existing patio area. Please consider the enclosed application and I look forward to the Board's meeting on March 25, 2002. Sincerely, C1111k 61AI, 4 T Chuck Presher March '( 2002 ITEM NO.: 11 File No.: Z-7157 Owner: Gaston P. Gibson Address: 2300 N. Beechwood Description: Part of Lots 7 and 9, and all of Lot 8, Block 10, Country Club Heights Addition Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: R-2 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36- 254 to permit a building addition with a reduced rear yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Contact Melvin Hall, at 371-4856, for inspection of drainage tie-in work in the right-of-way, prior to backfilling. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 2300 N. Beechwood is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence, which is currently being remodeled. There is a one-story brick and frame accessory building at the southwest corner of the property, which the applicant plans to remove. The applicant proposes to construct a 1,645 square foot, one-story building addition to the rear (west side) of the existing single family structures. The addition would include an open carport for two (2) vehicles, l March 25, 2002 Item No.: 11 storage area and an open breezeway. Approximately 30 feet (from the existing house to the west) will be unenclosed carport/breezeway area, with the rear 17 feet of the addition being enclosed workshop/storage space. The proposed building addition will be located approximately 12 feet from the rear (west) property line. According to Section 36-254(d) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the minimum required rear yard setback is 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for a reduced rear yard setback. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff feels that based on the fact that a large portion of the property is apparently not buildable due to an unstable soil situation, there is reasonable justification to allow the reduced rear yard setback. Otherwise, the building addition could extend further north and comply with the required setbacks. The proposed building addition will be located far enough back from the rear property line as to not have an adverse impact on the adjacent property to the west. Additionally, the fact that approximately 1,050 square feet of the structure will not be enclosed on the sides will lessen the visual impact on the adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance, subject to the carport/breezeway area remaining unenclosed on the north and south sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002) 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. V, 7 4a" .4 /( TO: THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2-7(57 FROM: GASTON P. GIBSON SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL ZONING VARIENCE 2300 BEECHWOOD DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2002 HISTORY THAT LED TO ZONING VARIENCE REQUEST IS AS FOLLOWS: 1. BASED ON SITE INVESTIGATION BY DIGGING TEST HOLES AND WITH THE HELP OF A SOILS EXPERT, AND AN ARCHITECT PLUS MY 40 YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION EXPERTISE CLEARLY DEFINED THE ONLY AREA OF THE LOT THAT WAS SAFE TO BUILD ON. 2. EXIHIBIT A DEFINES THE AREA OF THE LOT THAT HAS VERY UNSTABLE SOIL WITH LOTS OF GROUND WATER THAT WAS DISCOVERED IN THE SUMNER OF 2001. I HAVE INSTALLED FRENCH DRAINS AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A IN AN ATTEMPT TO INTERCEPT GROUND WATER THAT MAKES THE GRASS DIFFICULT TO GROW AS WELL AS TRYING TO MOW IT. THERE IS DEFINITELY UNDERGROUND WATER IN THE DEFINED LOT AREA YEAR ROUND. THE AREA OF THE LOT THAT SHOWS THE ADDITION (PHASE II) IS SOLID STABLE GROUND TO BUILD ON. 3. ANY ATTEMPT TO ADD ON TO THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH WILL CREATE ONGOING GROUND WATER PROBLEMS AS WELL AS MOVING PHASE II ANY FURTHER NORTH. THIS IS THE REASON THE HOUSE ADDITION COULD NOT BE EXPANDED FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE HOUSE TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE HOUSE 4. AS A RESULT, I WOULD CHOOSE TO TEAR DOWN THE EXISTING STORAGE THAT IS 25'X 25' LOCATED 5' OFF SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND 5' OFF WEST PROPERTY LINE AND REPLACE IT WITH A NEW STORAGE AREA AND OPEN CARPORT FOR TWO CARS PLUS AN OPEN BREEZEWAY THAT MAKES UP PHASE II AND WOULD BE 15' OFF SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND 12' OFF WEST PROPERTY LINE. IF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS APPROVED, IT WILL BE USER FRIENDLY TO THOSE LIKE ME THAT ARE AT RETIREMENT AGE AND NEED TO BE ABLE TO LIVE ON ONE LEVEL WITH LITTLE OR NO STEPS TO CLIMB. IT WILL ALSO PREVENT AND CONTROL ANY FUTURE UNDERGROUND WATER PROBLEMS FOR THIS LOT. MY NEIGHBORS VOICE THEIR SUPPORT FOR MY ADDITION. 1 "�� ■ CoRswJtl Cfrf! F-+tRI„ticsn Laid Sumyorr ,,11N" 1313 JOHN F, KRMMRDY •OULIVARD x ►+Coacrvrewinars PHONE (331) 793.1337 u w PAX (131) 753.1133 MONTH LITTLE ROCK, ANKAMSA$ 72114 00UNO��, --- ` IRo►J PIfJ� �dINT 15 _ Ids � :"IE(l, OF DESCT 44I -t- Men CORNCK L t,o cc o t �d-�ru► Ld .5' In,t ,3 \ " DoT 7 J W ' J Q 3` no -ZZ' 6C4 LE' I 30' . �N pr 5T, IIRick )ZE,S, c- i i• Z7• 10 <7BScR16ED � TJ - MEASuRr-D f,o' .tSICIcLLs�tA�i... FIP. m o' Is' 30 r LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE NORTH 22.6 FEET OF LOT 7, ALL OF LOT 8, AND THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF I.OT 9, ALL IN BLOCK 10, COUNTRY CLUB HEIGHTS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, AS SHOWN ON PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 181, RECORDS OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, AND THE EAST'/ OF A STRIP OF LAND FORMERLY PLATTED AS AN ALLEY, LYING WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO THE SAID NORTH 22-6 FEET OF LOT 7. ALL OF LOT R_ ANI\ TIIE S(1IITII an 17 r: PT nP I nr 0 WMV March 2002 ITEM NO.: 12 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: MIM-1 Levy Family Revocable Trust and Claude and Joyce Babin 5608/5610 Hawthorne Road Lots 18AR and 18BR, Forest Heights Place Addition R-2 Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156, the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the height provisions of Section 36-516 to allow an accessory structure with reduced setbacks which crosses a platted building line and a fence and wall which exceeds the maximum height allowed. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Each of the R-2 zoned properties at 5608 and 5610 Hawthorne Road contains a two-story single family residence. The properties front on Hawthorne Road, with "V" Street right-of-way along the rear property lines. The property owners recently constructed a March 2002 Item No.: 12 shared accessory structure (tool storage building) in the rear yards, which straddles the dividing side property line. The accessory building is 8 feet by 16 feet, with a height of seven (7) feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the structure with reduced side yard setbacks. Section 36-156(a)(2)f. requires a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet for accessory buildings. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow the accessory building to be constructed within a platted building setback. When these lots were replatted in 1994, a 30 foot building line was platted along the north property lines. The accessory building is located approximately four (4) feet from the north property line. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line for the proposed house. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. Additionally, the property owner at 5608 Hawthorne Road recently replaced a privacy fence along the north and east property lines extending into the right-of-way of "V" Street. The fence is six (6) feet in height and is located on top of a masonry retaining wall, with an overall height of 7'-8" to 9'-6" due to the sloping terrain. Section 36-516 of the Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum overall fence height of six (6) feet for residential fences located along property lines and a maximum height of four (4) feet for fences located between required building setback lines and street rights-of-way. Therefore, the owner of 5608 Hawthorne Road is requesting a variance for the existing fence. There is also an existing six (6) foot wood privacy fence along the west and north property lines of 5610 Hawthorne Road. This fence also extends into the right-of-way of "V" Street. The owner of 5610 Hawthorne Road proposes to replace this fence with another six (6) foot high wood fence which will be compatible with the fence at 5608 Hawthorne Road. Therefore, this property owner also requests a variance to allow the six (6) foot high fence between the 2 March 25, 2002 Item No.: 12 required rear building setback and the "V" Street right-of-way. Staff supports the requested variances. Staff feels that the proposed accessory building and fences are compatible with the other properties located along "V" Street. "V" Street functions essentially as an alley, with the residential properties having either side or rear yard relationships to the street. There are other structures located along "V" Street which extend into the public right-of-way. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances subject to the following conditions: 1.A building permit must be obtained for all construction. 2. A franchise must be obtained for the portions of the fences which extend into the "V" Street right-of- way. 3. The applicant must complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the rear platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002) 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. 3 2- 7 158' Little Rock Board of Adjustment February 8, 2002 Attention: Mr. Dana Carney Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Application for zoning variance, 5608/5610 Hawthorne Rd. Dear Mr. Carney: We, neighbors at 5608 and 5610 Hawthorne Rd, Little Rock AR, agreed to construct a shared accessory structure (tool storage bldg) in our back yards. The structure straddles the side yard property line, and is set back four feet from the rear yard property line as indicated on the attached survey. The bldg is 8'x 16'x 7'high at the eave. We request a variance to permit this structure with these reduced setback dimensions. At 5608 Hawthorne, a fence is constructed along V Street which is a replacement for an existing 6 ft high fence. This fence is aligned with other existing neighboring fences along V Street, beyond the property line. The fence is located atop a masonry retaining wall which varies in height from 20 inches to 42 inches. The fence is 6 ft high(as was the existing replaced fence). The top of the fence is 6' above grade on the house side, and , due to the sloping terrain, it varies in height from 7'-8" to 9'-6" above grade on the street side. We request a variance to allow for construction of this fence. The fence and accessory structure are compatible with development, neighboring fences and accessory structures along V Street: No houses front on V street, only the side and rear yards; and V Street is treated as an alley, rather than a street, as its pavement is narrow (16') and without curbs. All along V Street fences and walls have been constructed in the right of way and are aligned with our fences.. In addition, accessory structures have been built along V Street which are located directly on the rear and sideyard property lines, and in some cases, accessory structures have been built out into the right -of -way of V Street. In addition, we request a variance(if required) to replace the existing 6 ft high fence located along V Street at the back yard of 5610 Hawthorne as indicated on the attached survey. The replacement fence will be wooden, of height not to exceed 6 ft, and of style and design compatible with the fence in the back yard of 5608 Hawthorne. Thank You for your consideration of this variance application Sincerely, Eugene P. Levy & Gertrude . Levy 5608 Hawthorne Rd, 72207 Phone: 663-8668 Claude H. Babin, Jr.& Joyce 5610 Hawthorne Rd, 72207 Phone: 666-6869 bin March 2002 ITEM NO.: 13 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Z-7161 Mildred Cooper 1901 N. Polk Street Lot 7 and the South 1-2 of Lot 8, Block 3, Mountain Park Addition R-2 Variances are requested from the fence regulations of Section 36- 516 to allow construction of an eight (8) foot high privacy fence and a privacy fence (6 to 8 feet in height) between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Relocate fence on east side of lot along true property line. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 1901 N. Polk Street contains a two-story frame single family residence. There is an existing privacy fence which encloses the north and east yards. The existing fence has varying heights, with the fence along the east property line being slightly in the alley right-of-way. The property owner, Mildred Cooper, proposes to remove the existing wood privacy fence and replace it with a new fence, as noted on the attached site plan. The new wood privacy March 2002 Item No.: 13 fence will range in height from 6 feet along the east property line and down a portion of the north property line, to 8 feet along the west portion of the north property line and south to the northwest corner of the single family home. The fence extends approximately five (5) feet into the required building setback from the west property line and 7.5 feet into the required building setback from "R" Street. The applicant also plans to replace a 16 -foot section of a 4 -foot high picket fence extending from the southeast corner of the residence into the "R" Street right-of-way. This fence will require a franchise permit. Section 36-516(c)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that fences constructed within the required building setbacks adjacent to streets be limited to a maximum height of four (4) feet. Additionally, fences constructed behind the required street side building setbacks and along interior property lines are limited to maximum heights of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow for construction of an eight (8) foot high privacy fence along a portion of the north property line and between the required 25 foot building setback and Polk Street right-of-way. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow a six (6) foot high privacy fence between the required 7.5 -foot building setback and the "R" Street right-of-way. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. There is an existing wood privacy fence ranging in height from 6 to 7 feet located between the required building setbacks and both street rights-of-way. The proposed eight (8) foot high fence near the northeast corner of the property will not create a sight distance problem, and will be located far enough back from the west property line as to have no adverse impact on the front yard of the residential structure to the north. The large Kroger Store building is located directly across Polk Street to the west. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence variances subject to the following conditions: 2 March 25, 2002 Item No.: 13 1. Compliance with the Public Works condition as noted in paragraph A. of this report, or obtain a franchise. 2. The fencing must have a finished side facing outward along the Polk Street frontage. 3.A franchise must be obtained for the portion of the 4 -foot picket fence which extends into the "R" Street right-of-way. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002) 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. 3 Date: March 8, 2002 To: City of Little Rock Planning & Development Board of Adjustment From: Mildred Cromwell Cooper 1901 North Polk Little Rock, AR 72207 Re: Application for a Residential Zoning Variance T4 -a, 44 t3 2- 7/cI I am applying for the following residential variance. Due to my deteriorating, 13 -year old privacy fence and the damage from the December 2000 ice storm, I would like to replace the existing 66" privacy fence with a new one. I have attached the diagram from Ingle Fence Company outlining the new privacy fence. Ingle Fence Company plans to use 8' posts on the westside in order to provide 6' coverage along the northside, by stair -stepping the fence. This is the result of the drop in elevation in my yard from east to west. This is an increase of 1'6" only on the west side of the fence, adjacent to the commercial property (new Kroger Store). The main reason to increase the existing privacy fence on the west side from 66" to 8' is to provide "visual privacy" from the new Kroger Commercial Development. Thank you for your consideration. March 2002 ITEM NO.: 14 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7162 Jim Couch 3610 Kavanaugh Blvd. Northeast corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. and Lookout Street C-3 A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-502 to allow a restaurant - type use with a reduced number of off-street parking spaces. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Commercial Coffee House The property at 3610 Kavanaugh Blvd. is zoned C-3 and contains an existing nonconforming commercial building. The existing building is nonconforming in the respect that there is not enough off-street parking to meet the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements for a retail/commercial building of its size. Recently, Eldred and Virginia Garcia obtained a privilege license and a building permit to remodel 2,400 square feet of the building for use as a coffee house, a restaurant - type use. The upper floor, fronting Kavanaugh Blvd., will be utilized as the coffee house, with the lower floor being used only in the evenings for such March 2002 Item No.: 14 activities as live jazz music and poetry and book readings. The permits were issued for conversion of 2,400 square feet of the building from general retail to a restaurant use, without the parking situation being considered. According to the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 36-502, a restaurant requires three (3) times more off-street parking (1 space per 100 square feet of gross floor area) than does a retail use (1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area). The change in occupancy from retail to restaurant in this case requires an additional 16 off-street parking spaces. When the City realized this error, the applicants were given the option of requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment rather than a stop -work order being issued. The applicants explain in the attached cover letter that there is a small amount of existing parking (unpaved) behind the building. The applicants also note that they are working with several of the nearby commercial property owners for use of existing off- street parking after hours, when these businesses are closed. There are also several on -street spaces in front of the building along Kavanaugh Blvd. The applicants also state that a valet service will be provided, which will aid in the parking problem. Staff is supportive of the variance request. There are a number of on -street parking spaces in the general area, within walking distance of this commercial building. As noted previously, part of this coffee house use will only be operating after hours. During evening and weekend hours several of the off-street parking areas for nearby businesses should be available. It is also important to note that other similar types of commercial/restaurant uses located in this general area along Kavanaugh Blvd. have thrived for a number of years with these same types of parking issues. N March 20, 2002 Item No.: 14 C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced number of off-street parking spaces, subject to the following conditions: 1. The lower level of the coffee house business must be operated only during evening and weekend hours. 2. The valet service proposed by the applicants must not block the public right-of-way or impede on - street traffic in any way. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002) 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. 3 -c4-4--- # Mie Living ��., g Room, Im 3610 Kavanaugh Blvd LdYp VSA Little Rock, AR 72207 ;2-7/42- - 7 / /�Q 2- Phone: 501-7-796-796 83 9 ( ;I. r 7A. -X- ) March 11, 2002 Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Sir or Madam We are submitting this cover letter as a formal request for a parking variance for our business at 3610 Kavanaugh Blvd. We propose to open a coffee house at said location that will seat no more than 60 people. Our location offers 2,400 square feet over two floors, with the coffee house on the top level — the main level to Kavanaugh Blvd. Downstairs, we plan to offer an evening setting with live jazz, poetry readings, and book readings. Please consider that this level will only be open in the evening hours. Our predominant traffic pattern for our business will be in the evening hours and on weekends, particularly Saturday and Sunday brunch, as well as Friday and Saturday evenings, evenings after theater events, and special event nights, such as poetry readings. Our business caters to the typical demographic of Heights and Hillcrest residents in the 25-45 age group — creative, family-oriented professionals. With no comparable place to frequent, we — and an overwhelming number of Hillcrest and Heights residents and merchants — are strongly anticipating our opening. In fact, the local merchants in our immediate vicinity robustly support our business and greatly await our opening as they feel our business will have a positive effect on their businesses as well. We plan to contribute strongly to schools and churches in our community of Heights/Hillcrest and have been very vocal in this intention as most anyone we have either generally spoken with, hired or contracted with will attest to. Indeed, overwhelming support for our business is pulsating throughout the neighborhoods and even beyond them at this point. As you may already know, we are in possession of a valid business license and a remodeling permit upon which two inspections have already been executed — plumbing and electrical. To our knowledge and reliance, these documents permitted us to proceed with renovations and business planning. After several weeks of construction and expenses totaling over $100,000, we were informed by the City of Little Rock, that the permits and licenses had been issued in error. We were advised to seek the forum of the Board of Adjustment to address the City's questions surrounding our location. We are eager to do so and therefore offer the following justification for requesting a variance from the requirements of the zoning ordinance of the City of Little Rock. ➢ We have two of our own parking spaces in the rear of our building and are building a third to accommodate handicap parking. There is room for three additional parking spaces for patrons to park behind each other at the rear of our building. We will provide a valet staff at all times to move cars for our patrons. The total number of parking spaces on our property in the back would equal five. ➢ In the immediate front of the building there is room for nine cars — given the City requirement for 22 feet per parking space. Next door there is a resale hospice store (Angels in the Attic), which is rarely frequented by more than one vehicle at a time. The Yoga studio two doors down, which also shares these nine public parking spaces, has brief evening classes and Saturday morning classes. During the day, they are not in session and parking would not appear to bean issue in this regard. Hocotts' Nursery next • Page 2 March 11, 2002 door to us has agreed to let us share their parking with us. At such time as the board meeting we will submit proof of this strong support by the Hocott family. Similarly, Connie Fails' retail boutique next to Hocott's Nursery offers approximately 12 parking spaces. Ms. Fails has agreed to allow us to use these spaces in the evening hours and on the weekend. She is also a strong supporter of our business_ Mr. Jim Couch, who is our landlord, also owns the building across the street along with a partner. He has agreed to let us use those 15 parking spaces in the evening and on weekends as well. Letters will affirm this support. In addition, there are many street parking spaces on Hillcrest avenue (approximately 30) within very close walking distance to our location. The residents of this street are already accustomed to street parking here due to the Mount St Mary's Academy pupils who park on that street during the morning and early afternoon hours. Moreover, other side streets within dose walking distance offer substantial parking opportunities. ➢ We feel strongly that our business will enhance the enclave of Hillcrest greatly. Our patrons, as mentioned, will not be a young group of people prone to mischief, but rather professionals of some posture in our community. This will hopefully alleviate any concern of the Board regarding the potential for disturbance of neighboring businesses and residents. ➢ The nature of our business is one that caters to walkers. Coffee houses in the neighborhood of Hillcrest have always attracted many walkers. With Prospect Terrace and Hillcrest within immediate walking distance, we expect at least 15% of our business to be generated from the walking public. Approximately 10 former employees of the now defunct Cafe d/Roma on Kavanaugh Blvd can verify this important culinary trend that is indicative of our enclave of Little Rock. ➢ Patrons of neighboring businesses, who have already parked, will generate another 15% of our business. ➢ Please consider attached article in the Sunday, March 10th edition of our Arkansas Democrat -Gazette: "Urbanites seek aura of village." We have attached it for your consideration. We believe it showcases the widespread support of Hillcrest and Heights residents for quality of life within its unique enclave. The Living Room will greatly enhance that objective. ➢ Finally, there are many restaurants in Heights/Hillcrest that face the very same parking issues that The Living Room, Inc. now seeks to resolve. These establishments are important pillars of the community and we intend to take the same position upon opening our doors to the Little Rock public. We respectfully request the opportunity to do so and protect our family from the potentially devastating loss a denial of our request would incur. Sincerely, Vimin' H. Ga is 'n. Kevin.Smith, rip fining that phrase is the ers are aetermined10„- founded, the state relies serves on the In- tee on Children unk hi artThe law itself seems to ..,refound -matters because on those calls in its effort vestigate`and stop 1 .� the question can change that mandated reporters must reach that state 'of mind before they child Some believe the law j Err / ` Z not tipping the - are required to call the state on the side of cautio recommend. P -p n Klu'51 s L e8” rat-Gamft&XAREN E. SEGRAVE t tree at, the edge of Bull Shoals City. Park. The Army Corps of Engineers marked trees with ger hunt, and licensed hunters were allowed to hunt inside the city limits. Res :yrs - - d aneer Shoals. mill Urbanites seek - team, ... of �vYlla a -: ,ate, g. sa. s 2�z Y BY C.S. MURPHY ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT -GAZETTE .. 'For many Little Rock iesi- dents, a typical day is spent in the car, driving from homes in west Little Rock to downtown offices or herding children back and forth from schools' and doctors offices located:on' opposite ends of town. The idea of living, work- ing and shopping in a pedes trian-friendly "urban village" seems like a dream.: Butmembers ofthe VLsxon Isttle:Rock.' ivironnienf"d : Land bsework group sap'the city's popular Hillcrest: neigh borhogd js prooftliat residents crave -areas that mesh resi- dential commercial and office spaces. -Elillcresfs tree=shaded side- Awalksoffer an argument for creating a:series of sma town settings within the city, they :Say, ` AeWApeople on the side- _walks,,there's people with strollers, and walking their - - dogs: There:aren''t many places in the city where you'll see that if you ,through at 9.30 at night," said Chuck Goldner, 6 dean of the William H. Bowen School of Law at the Univer- sity of Arkansas at Little Rock Goldner was one of 550 res- idents who participated in the 22 -month Vision Little Rock process, an initiative to set pri- orities for improving_ the city. Little Rock leaders will spend the next several months re- viewing the group's 33 goals to decide what is affordable and what can be transformed into Policy. The leaders of Vision Little ,Rocks l2;work groups have be- . i gun "reporting theif recom mendations to the -city Board of Directors. I CIA' 0 0 -mv -0 (A 23 eFi OIL 0 i-- tj CD C, C44 Fr INV 0 r+ 0 0 td 44 Itr CA 0 tj 'Apt, ga 0 0- Urn 0 0 t 0 (b 'Is Q-ZE- Cc',, cn D ;5 cb cz WN r va Z:zz CC2 . C2 CA Q Cb cb C-4 thO ..00 Won s o ..w. CD Co .5p: 0. .> !!p7. A SiD Om rrl C. milm '—s :3 IQ ' 9;6 In 06 Q=1 -M Q CO C. alp"'a-g !=- , -. .- L . Cb Q W2 . CD --a Nom. W �L =8 Cb M ci Co. -.7 cul" cb Cx co yi7Orm cb 0 CD 150, ,lima 7, 7, 0' CM CD _C ID CO CD CD "ID so OrL 0 CD:O M3 0 CD CD M,= Ml . 0 LJW: 0 0 n ­. -0 -� :3 M. CL `S.�r3 �.% - - ­ _ ' Co, 'CO ch Ca W -m- CD. CD _'Aw 2st tu to Ga 00 C2. C, CD cn ICID .CD CD -W cn CD ED go CD CA M 0 CMD ccCD CDofl� cg) CO57•40pt ;.r,. -- mm CD :cn 0 �Iiw- CA N to CD S !,ga co a C,) m 7 Cr:CD ........... :7 co 77- CD & ST ... CD :�Affiiw CD V CD"' CD CA , 1" 771 CD M11 dl CD o . . . i* on 7 CO 011 'Sp j CD CD. :CD Z -C> :.CD IM CD SID C5 CD 5.0" ID CD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0+ G• LL $Df'o'.,Sr rA ro co gqb KV 0 ft to M jj.9- Zq, oil. 0 co CD"- C) 1+ 0 (D C) 'to:. M. .4. P- 0. CD 0 p : 0 o o 0 La, CD CO 0 0 .0 o CL 0 4+ TO to PI 0 0:. -!z Ai U), V. (D n UQ #-%0- 0 OQ CD Vi- 0 Co. U) P;t V) D"..4 0- U) tr cb. 0--P�'m 0- Ely. M11 dl CD o . . . i* on 7 CO 011 'Sp j CD CD. :CD Z -C> :.CD IM CD SID C5 CD 5.0" ID CD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0+ G• LL $Df'o'.,Sr rA ro co gqb KV 0 ft to M jj.9- Zq, oil. 0 co CD"- C) 1+ 0 (D C) 'to:. M. .4. P- 0. CD 0 p : 0 o o 0 La, CD CO 0 0 .0 o CL 0 4+ TO to PI 0 0:. -!z Ai U), V. (D n UQ #-%0- 0 OQ CD Vi- 0 Co. U) P;t V) D"..4 0- U) tr cb. 0--P�'m 0- L fiy O, -.aq 1-1 aq rD rd. crt- po,. -23 (D R ta. rZ tn. W 0. rD ji) CD CD mo cn 0, n Zr Cb cb. `0 DW -co -< rA ...... CD -1 : ;- Elk CA FL MIT 10 0 0. . �M tA > ----------------- ................. g — — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'jo MM m co ril ,CD e 0` m o m m� m �O7tv r+ am Waco O. xg .CD 110 in 1 2,- C2. 'N w'CD tC Y <ma®m"mc0%0�CDca .O a®`d�'Sp@O�`e3m� Vut TD CD co sa ._ m o n Qx�:��3v'�a'� No mo .' N.� ow ..+•.«sem moo �, _.c. N O't3',x �'p m fir. „„ tn-� p, v� y--� CD -F m< m N ® _ . =rO .-f O "a G CD N •„� !_i d CD o 0 Irx cn z m ma N �oaoo` CCD <. OV y=3c m r „�� �~„ .:.:gip -«p y N m G CD .t'a. rn o t- .. m a co co co N_ y D Co r w h �c m r+ m •': t N . ,u.. c.: r+ t0._w n Ogo,co co C�O CD CD o3a.m0uxsoQtiuomm ty.o �_:L9'a �: o?Nr<mo . r'N co 1w"ra :y0 •a <: .i . W "�' "C^�:,. tocn C* co_m m=,�'c o a:o w t1.4 �is3.Ll. �m'o �a o C> .� Co ,� m •C •� 1� : n + m �.:..:�:Qm a A'C �� cn� a coa m m o w a o. y -�.. cs-� 3 03;0 m .. 3 w.10 CD co co 0 0 DAiw cn Col mr nip 3 3 -tea CD GZ G o h y� fl rt al pyo A ...,yA4 f�3 r-.rfDt O. y�� rA"j n '.. ry .+ N .•r to �p Y {► •'mob ry A y 'O : f,,,�.-m..l'•: y*fl'O r.0: y A� ci F• -y .. � ..:�'3": cl , `F', �, 'O� O tD F t .-► ii m (D� rr �r�fH4 rD CD D_�O p (D .IDA '"•rty°w AN¢''�� CrrrO K A- 0 In. i~D y- �Y y Q+ r+- �!L ,rr-,i%• .A Q G .h UQ iD r+ y �i ,_�D Q (Ap.;yfD:,,. t7 a.- rt ✓ 1y N.. y. y rf is �D rs tD r� rr ,* Q �d - r hd 11 0 � O td p 3{tt Gcnl O' O. e 'S r* to A� ,o.,,,i s++ tsa..•Qo�. cD_ CSrri��P-0- CD�'od�' mA.�'��D k�+ O fD S (D C' �sy C¢. �►.:fD to :t r`S fD' rr� G .Vl �i3 't �y t!. A� R1 N lD r CR'fD fD -V1 i3• r. O -O :A �, ,..,, r• .-•. - :. v'tip ►d '01#7' °' Cy tD A cp . r -Y. N +�.. C .,*f'. ►-' Cn 1 fD .. � o .. w cD �-•c �3 � �'.: a y :t A .�+ a cD co m'� ". .— .'.�W„ N. }� • rr r+ A p fD (D w fls a w Q ► y rr ('tip r{ y, �• P 'tT ..O et .tD. �' tD C4'' fD•`.M tlC N �+ j'J' w A� to Q Sv' o r. p `� ts• 1 rNi�AD'�o " ►C•..FfniDi ' POy',13 ' �"�PeCD: •. ,Oc3D",3 Kw ttHfD �L►D,t doApq {dTDr tOs'.":c. �5o*0 o�-+� ►Oy•• 'a n' ,n 'O Lr, D ft D :a' r`OppOM fD C � N D F-vOa N C! G . eD r* flQ 943i tD o (D L + e+ H G y (D p may+ ¢,PCOOC Q'O�•G.y `r3• b G O tD'O A ar lD A ¢ `d *F v4 . Cs �D =cD ►+� H ra eD p. ►ti . n . j. tr' : o p. �� tiGp a Z7"` a•'r' ON'r �, C1 ir3 •�Cr+w° K = .afD,� ':r-• ° °OA Q>:r�p %tr'+a'�Q G�Q ..�'tA:0 �t3+•,, O ttD3' y tD UQ O r r p A'G p�ei fD 'T•' ►. '.3' fD '�. `s���T- .L++��p'FLi•,'-o*" K0 ..t.�DnVt7I," eGr�.t�rca'�nGOott 3(�DOQ'h WwD P.Ay ArtygloOro r5. `1PVJ i03' O O �r -• tJ ,'41d ,CD e 0` m o m m� m �O7tv r+ am Waco O. xg .CD 110 in 1 2,- C2. 'N w'CD tC Y <ma®m"mc0%0�CDca .O a®`d�'Sp@O�`e3m� Vut TD CD co sa ._ m o n Qx�:��3v'�a'� No mo .' N.� ow ..+•.«sem moo �, _.c. N O't3',x �'p m fir. „„ tn-� p, v� y--� CD -F m< m N ® _ . =rO .-f O "a G CD N •„� !_i d CD o 0 Irx cn z m ma N �oaoo` CCD <. OV y=3c m r „�� �~„ .:.:gip -«p y N m G CD .t'a. rn o t- .. m a co co co N_ y D Co r w h �c m r+ m •': t N . ,u.. c.: r+ t0._w n Ogo,co co C�O CD CD o3a.m0uxsoQtiuomm ty.o �_:L9'a �: o?Nr<mo . r'N co 1w"ra :y0 •a <: .i . W "�' "C^�:,. tocn C* co_m m=,�'c o a:o w t1.4 �is3.Ll. �m'o �a o C> .� Co ,� m •C •� 1� : n + m �.:..:�:Qm a A'C �� cn� a coa m m o w a o. y -�.. cs-� 3 03;0 m .. 3 w.10 CD co co 0 0 DAiw cn Col mr nip 3 3 -tea CD GZ G o h y� fl rt al pyo A ...,yA4 f�3 r-.rfDt O. y�� rA"j n '.. ry .+ N .•r to �p Y {► •'mob ry A y 'O : f,,,�.-m..l'•: y*fl'O r.0: y A� ci F• -y .. � ..:�'3": cl , `F', �, 'O� O tD F t .-► ii m (D� rr �r�fH4 rD CD D_�O p (D .IDA '"•rty°w AN¢''�� CrrrO K A- 0 In. i~D y- �Y y Q+ r+- �!L ,rr-,i%• .A Q G .h UQ iD r+ y �i ,_�D Q (Ap.;yfD:,,. t7 a.- rt ✓ 1y N.. y. y rf is �D rs tD r� rr ,* Q �d - r hd 11 0 � O td p 3{tt Gcnl O' O. e 'S r* to A� ,o.,,,i s++ tsa..•Qo�. cD_ CSrri��P-0- CD�'od�' mA.�'��D k�+ O fD S (D C' �sy C¢. �►.:fD to :t r`S fD' rr� G .Vl �i3 't �y t!. A� R1 N lD r CR'fD fD -V1 i3• r. O -O :A �, ,..,, r• .-•. - :. v'tip ►d '01#7' °' Cy tD A cp . r -Y. N +�.. C .,*f'. ►-' Cn 1 fD .. � o .. w cD �-•c �3 � �'.: a y :t A .�+ a cD co m'� ". .— .'.�W„ N. }� • rr r+ A p fD (D w fls a w Q ► y rr ('tip r{ y, �• P 'tT ..O et .tD. �' tD C4'' fD•`.M tlC N �+ j'J' w A� to Q Sv' o r. p `� ts• 1 rNi�AD'�o " ►C•..FfniDi ' POy',13 ' �"�PeCD: •. ,Oc3D",3 Kw ttHfD �L►D,t doApq {dTDr tOs'.":c. �5o*0 o�-+� ►Oy•• 'a n' ,n 'O Lr, D ft D :a' r`OppOM fD C � N D F-vOa N C! G . eD r* flQ 943i tD o (D L + e+ H G y (D p may+ ¢,PCOOC Q'O�•G.y `r3• b G O tD'O A ar lD A ¢ `d *F v4 . Cs �D =cD ►+� H ra eD p. ►ti . n . j. tr' : o p. �� tiGp a Z7"` a•'r' ON'r �, C1 ir3 •�Cr+w° K = .afD,� ':r-• ° °OA Q>:r�p %tr'+a'�Q G�Q ..�'tA:0 �t3+•,, O ttD3' y tD UQ O r r p A'G p�ei fD 'T•' ►. '.3' fD '�. `s���T- .L++��p'FLi•,'-o*" K0 ..t.�DnVt7I," eGr�.t�rca'�nGOott 3(�DOQ'h WwD P.Ay ArtygloOro r5. `1PVJ i03' O D� m z D m n D uj cn m z Irl D m co D PAI CD CD D Q 0 rn 0_ Z-1 �-1 co O 0 O m D C m z O -i m m O • n 0 n Z7 r- z O D m D ig m C W C D � X -1 —y z D -< z m O � 0 m m z CD -n myz 0- zv D�G) D p -� m m � O � �Z �-1 co O 0 O m D C m z O -i m m O • n 0 n x n r- z O D m D ig m W C > -n z m —y G D m o D z O � 0 m m v a �-1 co O 0 O m D C m z O -i m m O • n 0 March 25, 2002 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:18 p.m. Date: 002 &1� X�L4 Chairman