Loading...
boa_07 30 2001LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JULY 30, 2001 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the June 25, 2001 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman Scott Richburg Gary Langlais Andrew Francis Members Absent: Fred Gray City Attorney Present: Steve Giles LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT I. DEFERRED ITEM A. Z -6675-A II. NEW ITEMS 1. Z -6924-A 2. Z-7065 3. Z-7069 4. Z-7070 AGENDA JULY 30, 2001 4:00 P.M. 5208 Kavanaugh Blvd. 5500-5508 Kavanaugh Blvd. 1516 Commerce and 414-418 East 16th 8500 West Markham Street 32 Shannon Road 5. Z-7071 4206 Woodlawn IT - Q) N 3NId 831M! O nneelw a a M yvy 1 n, � z W [\�1 NtlWa30 N g — NIVA e AYMatloae HOatl NO�NOy/ a S3HO a3H3a0 � OMN in � g R MOa000M 3NId 33 3 I 0 NO1IIWtl 11OJS N3ab s 53Nig�S v J y0� Q Adyd dIV2 ` " AIlSa3AINl1 � AlISa3nINfl MIMS a3A3O �b w Q 53HOOH 83 1- a IddISS SM —" — l0OIH0 � s alona3s a � MORYS NHOr 3 y b Q� 3NN13N — Oa033lN0tlHSo as 3l Otl $ ,., SIOaYS Ltj N r WtlHatld 43NOOa a NY 08 h � S11WIl A!p `} — H3b o w 3OOld AWN > x simn Alp °�oA �R � � J S11WI1 ALp i NYAIIINS ^. laYM31S �Syyh M 4-Q tlMH IH S1IWIl Alm lJO1NJ 31tlONa3a 5 g O M 0 Jury 30, 2001 Item No.: A 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: Z -6675-A Dena Yancey Trujillo Revocable Trust 5208 Kavanaugh Blvd. Lots 9 and 10, Block 25, Newton's Addition c-3 Variances are requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-502, the development criteria of Section 36-301 and the sign provisions of Section 36-555. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Two-story commercial building Two-story commercial building, with addition of outdoor "cafe" On May 24, 1999, the Board of Adjustment granted several variances permitting the existing building at 5208 Kavanaugh Blvd. to be expanded by the construction of a second floor. The building square footage was increased from 3,725 square feet to 8,121 square feet. The variance allowed the second floor to maintain the west side yard setback of 4.11 feet and to reduce the rear yard setback to 11 feet. Rear and side yard setbacks of 15 feet and 25 feet respectively were required for this site. A parking variance was approved, allowing the site to have only 16 parking spaces. The code required 27 spaces, based on general commercial occupancy Ju.,.y 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) requirement of one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. At the time of the original approval, there were two primary issues of concern that were raised by staff and addressed by the Board. The properties adjacent to the north of the site are occupied by single-family homes. Staff was concerned that the effect of the reduced rear yard setback be mitigated by reducing or eliminating any uses on the back side of the commercial building that might impact the residential properties. Consequently, the project was approved subject to there being no doors or windows in the rear of the second floor other than for a fire escape door and a small window in the owner's office. Staff's concern related to the parking variance was the possibility of a restaurant occupying the site. The parking variance was based on uses that require a parking ratio of 1/300 square feet. Restaurants require triple that parking requirement; 1/100 square feet. Consequently, the Board imposed the condition that there not be a restaurant in the building without further application to and approval by the Board. The applicant has begun operation of Cafe des Artistes, a "wine cafe" and special event center on the property. The business primarily involves use of a landscaped patio/terrace located on the back side of the building. It is described as a drop-in place to read a book, magazine or newspaper, drink a cup of coffee, glass of tea, soft drink or beer, taste wine and have a snack to eat. Most foods will be catered in from other merchants such as bakeries, delicatessens and outside caterers although some food will be prepared on site. The patio/terrace will also be used for special events such as wedding receptions and art showings. A separate art gallery on the second floor of the building will also be utilized for these special events as needed. The applicant is requesting variances to allow use of the outdoor patio/terrace area and a portion of the second floor of the building for the wine -cafe and special event center. The applicant has also requested a sign variance but no specifics were provided. As such, that issue cannot be discussed by staff. Staff does have concerns about the proposed wine- cafe/special event center. Although the Board's previous action specifically prohibited a "restaurant" within the 2 July 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) building, it is clear that the intent was to allow only those uses that have a parking requirement of one space per 300 square feet. The wine -cafe falls within the code definitions of "eating place without drive-in service" or "bar, lounge and tavern." The definitions of each are: Eating place without drive-in service means an establishment where food is available to the general public primarily for consumption within a structure on the premises or which by design of physical facilities or by type of service and packaging permits or encourages the purchase of prepared, ready -to -eat foods intended for consumption off the premises, and where the consumption of food in motor vehicles on the premises is neither permitted nor encouraged. Bar, lounge or tavern means an establishment, the primary activity of which is the sale and consumption on the premises of beer, wine or other alcoholic beverages, and where any food service is secondary to the sale of beer, wine or other alcoholic beverages. This use may include a facility for dancing. The parking requirement for "restaurants (and similar establishments serving food and beverages)" is one space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area. There is limited on -street parking available in the immediate area without involving the nearby residential streets. A complaint has been made by a neighborhood resident that persons attending the site are parking on Harrison and Newton Streets and a nearby residential alley. The applicant has stated that two nearby banks have given permission for use of their parking lots after hours. No proof of any written/long-term agreement has been provided. Aside from the issue of parking, the use of the outdoor patio/terrace area is of considerable concern to staff. Allowing activities such as those proposed by the applicant to take place in the reduced rear yard area will no doubt negatively impact the adjacent residential properties. It is clear that the original variance was granted predicated 3 Jury 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) upon there being no development or use in the rear of the building that might affect the adjacent residences. The C-3 zoning district development criteria require all uses to take place within the enclosed building. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 25, 2001) Robert Robinson, Jr. and Dena Yancey were present representing the item. There were several persons present, both in support and in opposition. Two letters of objection had been received and forwarded to the Board. Staff presented the item and stated that, as a result of continued negotiation with the applicant, a compromise had been very nearly reached. Staff referred to a letter dated June 21, 2001, from Mr. Robinson, in which he outlined specific agreements regarding the operation of the wine cafe and special event business. Staff stated that there were only 2 points of disagreement; the use of the outside music and the maximum number of people permitted on the terrace (wine cafe). Staff recommended no outside music. Mr. Robinson suggested no outside music audible beyond the premises. Staff recommended a maximum of 75 persons on the terrace. Mr. Robinson suggested a maximum of 150 person. Mr. Robinson addressed the Board and made reference to points in his letter. He emphasized that there would be no full service kitchen. He stated Ms. Yancey had been using the terrace for over a year and no complaints had been made. Mr. Robinson reiterated Ms. Yancey's desire to have soft music on the terrace. He stated Ms. Yancey was sensitive to the fact that the terrace was adjacent to residential properties. He stated Ms. Yancey had used good judgment in the past. Mr. Robinson asked the Board to allow the use of soft, outside music. He stated the music would cease if it results in complaints. Mr. Robinson stated his request to have a maximum of 150 persons. He stated the Fire Marshall's office had determined the area would accommodate more than that, based on the number of exits. Mr. Robinson presented photographs of the area. Mr. Robinson presented agreements from two area banks allowing use of their parking lots, after bank business hours. Fred Gray asked how many seats were set-up for the wine cafe. Mr. Robinson responded that as many as 70 seats could be set up. 4 1 Jury 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) Norm Floyd began to read point -by -point from Mr. Robinson's letter, for the benefit of those present in objection. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, gave those persons a copy of the letter. In response to a question from Fred Gray, Mr. Robinson stated there was no grease trap because there is no cooking; there is no stove or oven. Fred Gray asked how many parking spaces were available at the two banks. Mr. Robinson responded that approximately 22 spaces were available. During the ensuing discussion, it was determined that the patio terrace area was approximately 1,000 square feet in area which would require 10 parking spaces. Beverly Wittenberg, of 5207 Stonewall, spoke in opposition. She stated Ms. Yancey's terrace business had disrupted her use and enjoyment of her own property. Ms. Wittenberg cited examples of occasions when loud music and crowd noise from the terrace negatively impacted her. Ms. Wittenberg stated the proposed use seemed to be cloaked as a "ladies' tea room" when in fact it was much more. Ms. Wittenberg stated the terrace was being marketed as a place for dinners, not just a wine cafe. She asked how use of the area could ever be monitored by the City, if it was approved. Ms. Wittenberg stated there had been music on the terrace area late at night. Fred Gray asked Ms. Wittenberg if there was any level of activity on the terrace that she could support. Ms. Wittenberg responded that it would have to be much smaller than that proposed by Ms. Yancey. Michael and Jennifer Selig, of 5219 Stonewall, spoke in opposition. Ms. Selig voiced concerns about crowd noise, particularly late at night. She stated she was about to have a baby and the baby's room was located on the back side of her house, closest to the terrace area. Ms. Selig made note of several occasions when noise from the terrace disrupted her. She asked if allowing use of the terrace would not impact her property value. Ms. Selig stated that any use of the terrace area should be limited to Monday -Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Cindy Harrell, of 5215 Stonewall, spoke in opposition. Ms. Harrell stated that Ms. Yancey's contractor tore down a hedge row that lined the rear of her property, thus eliminating some sound barrier. Ms. Harrell stated she received only an apology for the 5 Ju -Ly 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) removal of the hedges, which were on her property. She stated the dense hedgerow was replaced with sparse plantings of trees. Ms. Harrell made reference to conditions imposed when the original variances were granted. She stated the "fire escape" stars at the rear of the building were being used on a regular basis by persons going back and forth between the terrace and the gallery on the second floor of the building. She stated all other area business that have similar outdoor areas have those areas on the front of the business; facing the street, not adjacent to nearby residences. Ms. Harrell stated crowd noise and music were audible beyond the fence and lighting from the terrace "bleeds through" the fence into her yard. Norm Floyd asked Mr. Robinson about the grill on the terrace. Mr. Robinson responded that the grill could be used by terrace users but it is not used on a daily basis. Mr. Floyd commented that the issue seemed not to be necessarily "what" but "how much." Mr. Robinson stated that there would not be big crowds on the terrace every day; that they would typically be on weekends after 7:00 p.m. or during the day when the cafe would be closed. He reiterated that it was Ms. Yancey's desire to be a good neighbor. He stated Ms. Yancey had worked with the neighbors and was unaware that what she had done was a violation. He apologized if there had been loud music in the past. Mr. Robinson "assured" the Board that Ms. Yancey would operate her business so that it would not distress the neighbors. Norm Floyd asked if the Board could approve the use for a specific length of time, with further Board review at that point. Staff responded that the Board could do so. Michael Selig stated that allowing any outdoor use would negatively impact his family. Anne Cockrill -Laser, of 5422 Hawthorne, stated she helped Ms. Yancey at the cafe and had never heard a complaint from the neighbors. Connie Carberry, of 1810 N. McKinley, stated she also helped Ms. Yancey. She stated there had been an occasion around Memorial Day when the people who rented the terrace invited more people than Ms. Yancey had expected, resulting in more crowd noise. She stated the grill was used by employees and she had never seen it used for the business. L Ju30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) Norm Floyd commented that it was easy to see why there was some question about whether the use was a restaurant. After the ensuing discussion about the possibility of calling the question, a motion was made to approve the variances subject to the agreements outlined in Mr. Robinson's June 21, 2001 letter and the following additional conditions: 1. There is to be no outside music. 2. There is to be a maximum limit of 75 patrons at any event on the terrace. 3. The approval is for a period of 1 year, after which the issue is to be reviewed by the Board. Beverly Wittenberg again raised objections. Mr. Floyd stated that the issue would be back before the Board for reconsideration in one year; if it has been a problem, it will not continue. The vote was 1 aye, 2 noes and 2 absent. Since the item failed to receive 3 votes either for or against it, it was deferred to the July 30, 2001 meeting. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 30, 2001) Robert Robinson, Jr. and Dena Yancey were present representing the application. There were several persons present, both in support and in opposition. Numerous letters of support and of objection had been received by staff and forwarded to the Board. Staff presented the item. Chairman Ruck outlined the hearing protocol; stating each side would have a total of 20 minutes for comments and presentations. Robert Robinson addressed the Board and stated he had supporters present who wished to speak. Ellen Gray, of Country Club Blvd., stated she felt the wine cafe would be an asset to the neighborhood. She stated she had used the facility in the fall of 2000 for an event that had about 50 persons in attendance. Ms. Gray asked for approval of the variances. Sterling Cockrill, of 4801 Crestwood, stated he had been a resident of the Heights since 1925 and he felt the proposed use was a positive addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Cockrill stated 7 Ju -y 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont. Ms. Yancey should control the number of people on the site and should limit noise and hours of operation. Mr. Robinson addressed the Board and presented a map with which he showed the neighborhood to be a mixed-use area. He outlined the use as previously described. Mr. Robinson made note of several businesses in the general area that he felt had similarities to the wine cafe; such as reduced parking and outdoor dining. He specifically mentioned Cheers, Scallions, U.S. Pizza and two banks. Mr. Robinson stated that the nearby banks had authorized Ms. Yancey to use their parking lots when the banks were not open. He showed photographs of the site and the patio area. Mr. Robinson stated that the wine cafe was a reasonable use that would have no more impact on the neighborhood than the uses he had previously mentioned. As regards noise, Mr. Robinson stated this was an established mixed use area, not a rural, undeveloped area. Mr. Robinson surmised that the wine cafe would not disrupt what "is already there." He made note of the adjacent fire station. Mr. Robinson stated that the station had responded to 509 fire alarms and 299 emergency alarms, at all hours of the day and night, last year. He stated the fire station created more noise than would emanate from the wine cafe. Mr. Robinson noted that staff had recommended a maximum of 75 persons on the patio. He stated the applicant would reduce that number to limit the maximum number of persons on the patio to 50. He stated there would be no outdoor music. Mr. Robinson stated Ms. Yancey had operated the wine cafe for over a year without any complaints. He stated Ms. Yancey had apologized to her neighbors for the couple of occasions when noise was generated by crowds on the patio. He asked the Board to weigh the issues and to ask themselves "what is fair?" Mr. Robinson stated the screening fence and the reduced number of windows in the rear of Ms. Yancey's building helped to mitigate the noise created by the use. He stated the small grill was used occasionally but that there would be no other cooking on the property. Cindy Harrell, of 5215 Stonewall, asked if the hours of operation were being reduced from what was initially proposed. Mr. Robinson responded that they were not but that the issue was open for discussion. Ms. Harrell acknowledged that the area was a mixed use neighborhood. She stated Cheers had only 4 outdoor tables and Scallions was open only 1 night a week. Ms. Harrell stated the banks closed early in the evening. She stated all the uses listed by Mr. Robinson were not adjacent to residential properties or they had limited outdoor uses. Ms. Harrell stated the Fire Department did not turn on its vehicle sirens until they were on Kavanaugh Blvd. Ms. Harrell stated the trees on Ms. 8 Jury 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont. Yancey's patio were lit with small lights that were visible through the slats in the fence. She stated the building itself acted as a deflector, sending noise from the patio into her yard. Ms. Harrell referred to the original Board of Adjustment action on the site and commented that staff had tried to protect the neighborhood by limiting windows and doors on the building and by supporting other conditions. She stated neighbors never envisioned having to protect themselves from a use like this. Jennifer Selig, of 5219 Stonewall, stated no complaints were made about the wine cafe because neighbors did not know they had a right to complain. She stated it was not until they received notice of the Board of Adjustment hearing that the neighbors realized the wine cafe was a violation and not allowed. Ms. Selig stated she bought her home knowing the fire station and Yancey's were there. She stated she did not anticipate having an outdoor restaurant in her back yard. She stated the use was prohibiting her from using her back yard. Beverly Wittenberg, of 5207 Stonewall, stated that all of the other restaurants in the area with outdoor dining have the outdoor seating oriented to the street. She stated she would not be opposed to the wine cafe if the outdoor use area was in front of the building. Ms. Wittenberg stated there had been loud events on the patio as late as 10:30 - 11:00 p.m. She stated the only apology Ms. Yancey had made was by mail, 4 days prior to this hearing. Ms. Wittenberg asked how the use could ever be monitored. Ms. Wittenberg stated she did not have a good feeling about the rules being followed since the wine cafe was begun without proper approval. She stated the wine cafe had also been found to be in violation of state Alcohol Beverage Control Board regulations. Nik Fisken, of 5208 Stonewall, stated he had heard loud noise coming from the site over Memorial Day weekend. He stated there were other neighbors who were opposed to the issue but they were unable or unwilling to come to the hearing. Michael Selig, of 5219 Stonewall Road, stated the main problem was private parties going on until 10:00 - 10:30 at night. Scott Daniel, of 5205 Kavanaugh Blvd., voiced his opposition and listed several other area residents who were also opposed to the use. He voiced concerns about noise, hours of operation and traffic. Mr. Daniel made note of the original Board of Adjustment approval and commented that there was to be no use of the area at the rear of the building. 7 Ju -y 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont. Chairman Ruck asked the applicant to discuss the hours of operation. Mr. Robinson stated the hours, as noted in his June 21, 2001 letter. Chairman Ruck commented that "Special Events" seemed to be of primary concern. Mr. Robinson responded that they would not be every day and the applicant would not disturb the neighbors. Dena Yancey stated she would agree to whatever the Board stated and she would conform to the rules. Mr. Robinson stated the site would be monitored by the neighbors and by the City. Chairman Ruck asked how crowd noise would be controlled at an event such as a wedding reception. Ms. Yancey responded that noise typically was not a problem unless more people show up than the event was contracted for. Ms. Yancey stated contracts for use of the patio for special events would include a limit on the number of people attending. She stated she would be present to monitor the events. In response to a question from Chairman Ruck, Ms. Yancey stated people could not bring their own food or drink to the site. Mr. Ruck asked if the contract stated such. Mr. Robinson responded that they would add that requirement as a condition. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles interjected that the question of "what is fair" is a zoning issue for the Planning Commission. He stated that the Board of Adjustment's scope was to determine if there is a substantial hardship or justification to grant a variance. In response to a question from Andrew Francis, Ms. Yancey stated there was no indoor seating. Mr. Robinson stated denying the request would be a severe hardship due to Ms. Yancey's financial investment; albeit made without prior approval. Gary Langlais suggested that additional plantings could be placed at the rear of the site to reduce the noise coming from use of the patio area. Ms. Yancey responded that she had installed particular plants at a neighbor's suggestion and had installed retractable canopies on the back of the building to help reduce noise. 10 Ju -y 30, 2001 f Item No.: A (Cont.) Chairman Ruck asked if people were able to use the rear stairway to go between the patio and the upstairs area during special events. Ms. Yancey responded that they were. Chairman Ruck stated that a mistake had already been made and he was in sympathy with the neighbors. He stated he was pro- business but not when a business requests a variance that will negatively impact its neighbors. Scott Richburg stated that he saw no good reason to grant a variance when there was unanimous objection from those most impacted. Gary Langlais referred to the original, 1999 approval and commented that one of the conditions stated that there was to be no restaurant on the property without Board of Adjustment approval. A motion was made to approve the variance as stated in Mr. Robinson's June 21, 2001 letter with the additional modifications submitted by the applicant that there would be no more than 50 persons on the patio/terrace and that there would be no music of any kind. The motion was seconded. The vote was 0 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent. The motion was denied. 11 Sent By: D; 5013762800; Jun 01 12:43PM; Page 2 ROBERT L ROBINSON. JR. writer's Direct Dial Telephone: (501) 907.7733 (Ertl. 26) ROBINSON,,STALEY, MARSHALL & DUKE, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT IAw 28TH FLOOR, REGIONS BANK BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL AVE., SUITE 2891 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3415 June 21, 2001 VIA FACSIMILE 371-6863jU.S. MAIL Mr, Jim Lawson, Director, Department. of Planning & Development Mr. Dana Carney, Zoning and Subdivision Manager City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 RE: Your File: Z-6675 A 5208 Kavanaugh Blvd. Dena Yancey Trujillo Revocable Tn.ist, Owncr Dear Mcssrs. I.awson and Carney: TELEPHONE (501) 3743816 FACSIMILE (501) 376.2800 E-MAIL bobro6rwn@mmd.com This confirms that we met June; 20, 2001 concerning the above matter and yo -Lu recent StaffReport regarding this application for zonuig varianccs. At the conclusion of that meeting we came to the following agreements that would change your staff recommendation from denial to approval. A. Concerning the use of the outside terrace as a "wine cafe" and private party/banquet special events area: (1) No outside inusic audible beyond the premises'; (2) Hours of operation for "wine cafV or regular hour special events limited to six (6) days per week (Monday through Saturday) from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. with the hours subject to further consideration by you prior to June 25, 2001, Board of Adjustment hearing; 'You actually requested no outside music, but I ann asking that you permit soft music when The occasion requires it. Sent By:( &D; Mr. Jim Lawson Mr. Dana Carney June 21, 2001 Page 2 5013762800; Jur 01 12:43PM; Page 3 (3) Services provided as "wine cafe" limited to the sale for consumption on premises of wine, coffee, espresso, tea, soft drinks, and beer and limited LO the sale for consumption on premises or take out of prcparcd foods assembled on premises such as salads, fruits, pastries, sandwiches, cheese plates, and cold cuts with no cooking indoors and no use of a frill service restaurant kitchen; provided,. however, the use of a microwave to warm food and the use of the snrall outdoor grill is permitted; (4) Services provided as a private party/banquet area for special events limited to catering prepared food and serving wine, coffee, espresso, tea, soft drinks, and beer suitable for such occasions with a limit of patrons per: event during regular hours (when "wine cafe' is closed for such events) -and after hours on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, no later than 10:30 p.m.; (5) Wine tasting supper once per month limited to fifty (50) people ending no later than 10:30 p.m.; (6) Lighting to be soft and low level so as not bleed over back fence; and (7) No further additions or stmctures added to the outdoor terrace without required building permit. B. Concernuag use of the upstairs art gallery area: (1) No full service restaurant or "wine cafe" use; (2) Use limited, to special events for private parties such as art showing, wedding receptions, etc. and not otherwise limited so long as conducted indoors and within fire code; and (3) Everyday use as an art gallery or other use from time to time, The applicant is also attempting; to provide written confirmation of revocable license to use parking lots of the two neighboring banks after the banks' business hours. Copies of letters from Firstar and Bank of Little. Rock are enclosed_ 2Dena recommends the limit at 150 patrons. Sent By: ( :D; 5013762800; Jun 01 12:44PM; Page 4/6 Mr. Jim Lawson Mr. Dana Carney June 21, 2001 Gage 3 If I have missramcd or omitted any part of our agreement, plcasc advis-e ilnniediately so that this letter can be corrected. Thanks again for your time and patience. Very truly you Robert L. Robinson, RLR/lhb Enclosure P:\IiLlt`15U5.1.�wsun,ltZ.wFxl cc: VIA FACSIMILE 663-2626 Dena Yancey Cafe des Artistes 5208 Kavanaugh Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72207 Sent By: ( T; FROM : PPIERICAS UNITED FIRSTM Amjk wiNnrn Lkx,,N (-* June 20, 2001 Mr. Jim Lawson Little Rock Board of Adjustment Dear Mr. Law60W. 5013762800; Jun{ )1 12:44PM; Page 5/6 PMONE NO, : 5016532626 Jun. 21 2001 09:19AM Pi RE; Cafe des ArtistQs a the baa* t Ids, lotRaty$200CRavanaughafe des rBlvd- astistes aoverflow parking permission outilize. Derm Of thebrauchia closed. Parking iz►g If thare is further information I mi8ht supply, please do not hesitate to let ane know. . Sinc.er�ly'•, , Stacy Hu tZel Branch Manager The Heights Office 501-666-0218 Sent By: 'l 0; . FROM : PNERICAS UNITED June 201 2001 5013762800; Jun-( 112:44PM; Page 6/6 PFS NO. : 5016632626 Jun. 21 2001 10:51AM Pi Mr. Jim Lawson Little Rock 110ard of Adjustment be&-- Mr. Lawson. - RE: We des Artistes Ms. Dena Yancey of Cafe des Artistes has the bank's permission to utilize our Parking lot at 5120 Kavanaugh Blvd, as overflav parking when the bramh is closed. If there is further information I might supply, please do not hesitiate to let me know. Sincerely, -A, Amy Lee Branch Manager Heights Office 501--661-OBW P-0. Box 34090 + 200 No. State Sheet I Little Rock. Arkansas 72203 • (SUI) 376-0800 • Fax (50 1) 376-1642 Member intc June 21, 2001 Mr. Jim Lawson Little Rock Board of Adjustment Re: Caf6 des Artistes Dear Mr. Lawson: Ms. Dena Yancey of Cafe des Artistes has the bank's permission to utilize our parking lot at 5120 Kavanaugh Blvd. as overflow parking when the branch is closed. If there is further information I might supply, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, OF LITTLE ROCK Pe Chairman and Chief Executive Officer PM: cg P.O. Box 34090.200 No. State Street • Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 • (501) 376-0800 • Fax (501) 376-1642 Member FDIC ROBERT L. ROBINSON, JR. RoBINSON, STALEY,,MARSHALL & DUKE A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 400 WEST CAPITOL, SUITE 2891 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3416 May 25, 2001 Little Rock Board of Adjustment c/o Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: 5208 Kavanaugh Boulevard, Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Members of the Little Rock Board of Adjustment: TELEPHONE (501) 374-3818 FACSIMILE (501) 376-2800 E-MAIL mailslot@rsmd.com Dena Yancey, Trustee, the applicant, seeks variances regarding parking limitations, outdoor business operation limitations, and signage limitations to operate C66 des Artistes as a `vine cafe" on the beautifully landscaped patio/terrace located at the back (north side) of the building located on the premises. The attached site plan and survey reflect the location of the proposed "wine cafe", which is not a typical restaurant commercial use. It is more of a drop-in place to read a book, magazine, or newspaper, drink a cup of coffee, glass of tea, soft drink, or beer, taste wine, and have a snack to eat. There is no food cooking kitchen located in the building as most foods will be catered in from other merchants such as bakeries, delicatessens, and outside caterers. Some cold cuts, hors d'oeuvres, and sandwiches will be prepared on premises and served. Likewise, this beautiful terrace will be used for special events such as wedding receptions, art showings, etc. There is a separate art gallery located on the second floor of the building that will also be utilized for these special events as needed. The property has a private parking lot (one of the largest parking lots in the Heights) consisting of 16 parking spaces. There are also 2 parking spaces in the public domain adjacent to the property to the west. Also, Firstar Bank and Bank of Little Rock have both graciously consented for the applicant to use their parking lots after hours and on weekends. The property has 100 feet of frontage on Kavanaugh and is 140 feet deep. The two- story building has approximately 7,652 feet of floor area. For C-3 business or retail, the required off-street parking is a 1 to 300 ratio, or 26 parking spaces. Since the existing property will support 16 vehicles, the applicant is requesting a variance for the other 10 spaces. Please note that the portion of the premises devoted to the proposed `vine cafe" use is limited to the area of the outdoor patio/terrace. EXHIBIT "A" Little Rock Board of Adjustment May 25, 2001 Page Two C66 des Artistes is one of those special places in the neighborhood. It is a very low key, subtle, and beautifully landscaped terrace such as one finds in Paris, New Orleans, and Washington, D.C. The applicant respectfully requests the granting of any necessary variances to operate her business. Those required variances pertain to parking, operating of the `wine cafe" outside of the building on the terrace, and possibly signage. Respectfully submitted, f S Robert L. Robinson, Jr. Attorney for Dena Yancey RLR:bt Encl. P:\PLLR.\1505.Bd of A4.1tr Jury 30, 2001 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: Z -6924-A Kidco Properties, Inc. 5500-5508 Kavanaugh Blvd. Lots 13 and 14, Block 22, Newton's Addition C-3 and 0-3 Variances are requested from the on-site parking provisions of Section 36-502 and the buffer requirements of Section 36-522. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Two buildings; day-care center and photography studio Bank Branch With Building Permit: 1. Dedication of right-of-way on Polk and Kavanaugh and corner dedication will be required. 2. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. Widen Polk Street to 18 feet from centerline. 3. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. Reduce driveway on Kavanaugh to 30 feet. 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. B. Landscape/Screening Issues: The plan submitted does not allow for the minimum 6.7 foot wide land use buffer required along the northern perimeter Jury 30, 2001 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) of the site. The full width requirement along the northern perimeter, which abuts residential property, is nine feet. Since this property is located within the designated mature area, staff may administratively reduce this requirement by 25% or to 6.7 feet. The Landscape Ordinance also requires a minimum 6.7 foot wide landscape strip along the northern perimeter of the site. The City Beautiful Commission reviewed a landscape variance request for this site on July 12, 2001. There were no objectors present. The Commission Chair stated she had personally visited with the owners of the abutting residential property. The Commission voted unanimously to grant a variance from the Ordinance requirement to have a 6.7 foot wide landscape strip along the northern perimeter. The plan originally submitted by the applicant showed 8, 60° angle parking spaces along the north perimeter with only a "sawtooth" landscape strip in front of each space. The plan approved by the CBC had the following: 1. The landscape strip along the north perimeter is to be a minimum of 3 feet in depth, with the "sawtooth" islands extending out from the 3 foot strip. This plan brings the landscape strip much closer to an average of 6.7 feet . 2. Appropriate trees are to be planted in the "sawtooth" islands. 3. A 6 foot tall, brick wall is to be constructed along the north perimeter of the site. 4. Four (4) trees are to be planted in the western perimeter landscape strip. 5. Three (3) trees are to be planted in the grassy, Polk Street right-of-way, if permitted through the franchise process. The change in the northern landscape strip requires that the parking be changed to 450 angle. This reduces the number of parking spaces from 8 to 6. 2 July 30, 2001 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property located at 5500 Kavanaugh is occupied by a 3,750 square foot commercial building. The property has no on-site parking. The adjacent, 0-3 zoned property at 5508 Kavanaugh is occupied by a 1,600± square foot structure. A residential style driveway is located on this site. The applicant proposes to combine the two properties into one development. The building at 5508 Kavanaugh is to be removed. The building at 5500 will be remodeled into a bank with drive-through facilities extending into the 5508 property. The proposed building remodeling will conform to all setback requirements. A row of angle parking will be placed at the rear of the site. A one-way drive will enter from Polk and exit onto Kavanaugh. The drive-through facility will consist of 3 lanes, with an escape lane allowing passage without having to go through the drive- through facility. There will be no ATM in the drive-through facility. A 3,750 square foot bank requires 12 on-site parking spaces. The applicant has requested variances to have 6 parking spaces and to reduce the depth of the landscape buffer on the north perimeter. A 6.7 foot landscaped buffer is required along the north perimeter. Staff has reviewed the proposal and is supportive of the development. After a thorough review of the issue, staff has determined that no parking variance is needed for the proposed bank. As was previously mentioned, neither the 3,750 square foot building on the C-3 zoned property at 5500 Kavanaugh nor the 1,600± square foot building on the 0-3 zoned property at 5508 Kavanaugh have any on-site parking that conforms to code standards. They each have non- conforming parking relationships of 12 spaces and 4 spaces respectively. The larger building has been occupied by a steady stream of uses including beauty shops, clothing stores, interior design studios and the day care since its construction. At one time, up to 4 commercial uses occupied the building at the same time. The building at 5508 Kavanaugh has been used as a photography studio for 40± years. The development proposed by the applicant will not increase square footage and actually will result in the reduction of square footage by the removal of the photography studio building. Placing a canopy over the drive-through lanes does not add to the parking requirement. Section 36-506 of the Code states: 3 Jury 30, 2001 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) "When a building or structure erected prior to or after the effective date of this chapter shall undergo any increase in number of dwelling units, gross floor area, seating capacity, number of employees or other unit of measure used in determining required parking facilities, and when the increase would result in a requirement for additional parking facilities, such additional facilities shall be accordingly, provided as a condition for obtaining a building permit or privilege license. In computing the number of spaces required for such a building, however, only the increase in unit measure shall be considered." Consequently, remodeling the existing 3,750 square foot building for a bank does not generate a requirement for increased parking. The 6 spaces proposed by the applicant will be 6 more than the site has had in the past. If a use were proposed that had a greater parking requirement, such as an eating place with a parking requirement of 1 space per 100 square feet, the issue would be different. A 6.7 foot land use buffer is required along the north perimeter where the site is adjacent to residential property. With the modification to the site plan as a result of the City Beautiful Commission's Action, the land use buffer will be no smaller than 3 feet and will average greater than that because of the "sawtooth" design. That design, in conjunction with the required 6 foot brick wall, will suffice in staff's opinion. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested land use buffer variance subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the 5 conditions proposed by the City Beautiful Commission and outlined in the "Staff Analysis" of this item. 2. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any variance or waiver as may be granted by the Director of Public Works or the Board of Directors. 4 Jury 30, 2001 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) 3. All site lighting is to be low-level and directional, aimed away from the adjacent residential property. Staff would prefer to see bollard lighting used in the parking lot area between the building/drive-through canopy area and the north property line. 4. There is to be no parking or ATM located in the designated escape lane west of the drive-through lanes. Staff does not believe a parking variance is required. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 30, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Troy Laha, of the City Beautiful Commission, was present to answer any questions regarding that group's action. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. A motion was made to approve the requested variance subject to compliance with the conditions recommended by staff. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. W KIJCC A Little College for Preschool Knowledge June 10, 2001 City of Little Rock Dept. of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 Re: 5500 Kavanaugh 5508 Kavanaugh Dear Plans Review Specialist, Enclosed, please find a survey for each property referenced above and a proposed site plan for the intended use of the property. KidCo Properties, Inc. is requesting from the City of Little Rock, a landscape and parking variance for the above referenced properties. The properties have been operating as a child care facility and photography studio for a number of years and is being considered as a possible bank branch site by a local financial institution. In order to proceed and make the required improvements to the property, we formally request the following: Landscape Variance. Current landscape requirements call for a minimum nine (9) foot landscape buffer to be placed around new property developments. The property located at the corner of Kavanaugh and Polk Streets will not involve construction of a new facility. The existing property located at 5500 Kavanaugh (formerly known as the KidCo Child Care Building) will be modified to include three (3) bank teller windows and escape lane (on the 5508 property) for egress purposes on to Kavanaugh. The plans provide for a landscape buffer along the west property line and privacy fence for the north property line. The variance requested will enhance the existing landscaping currently in place on the property. Parking Variance. Parking for the proposed development includes eight (8) designated parking spaces. City code requires a total of twelve (12) parking spaces for a bank branch facility of this size. Currently the two properties utilize approximately two (2) parking spaces and on -street parking along Kavanaugh and Polk Street. The intended use of the property will actually increase the number of parking spaces from its existing number and will reduce the parking pressure experienced previously. Should you have any questions, please give me a call at (501) 666-2118 and I will discuss in more detail the intended plans for the proposed development. Sincerely, KidCo Properties, Inc. 4_�k L. Walter Quinn TT fk11 11 f July 30, 2001 Item No.: 2 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues Z-7065 The Lighthouse Center, Inc. 1516 Commerce and 414-418 East 16t' Street Lots 7 and 8, Block 53, Original City R-5 Variances are requested from the development criteria of Section 36-370. The applicant's proposal is presented in an attached letter. Vacant lots 4, Single-family residential dwellings 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. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. Revise address on proposed structures (414 East 16th needs to have address on Commerce Street). B. Landscape Review: Unless there is a dedicated alley to the west, a minimum 6.7 foot wide perimeter landscape strip will be required along the western perimeter. July 30, 2001 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) C. Staff Analysis: The Lighthouse Center, Inc. proposes to build four (4) single family homes on the 2, R-5 zoned lots located at the northwest corner of East 16th and Commerce Streets. Two homes will be built on each lot. Three of the homes will be 1,029 square feet in size. The fourth will be 1,265 square feet in size. Two homes will front onto Commerce Street and will have driveways taking access directly from the street. A third home will face East 16th Street and will have a driveway taking access from the alley. The fourth home does not face either street. It faces to the alley and also has a driveway taking access from the alley. The development will conform to R-5 density and setback requirements. The property lies within the Central City Redevelopment Corridor. A design overlay district was established for this area, roughly following the path taken by the January 1999 tornado which damaged or destroyed so much of the southern downtown area. The design criteria were established to assure that new construction would be compatible with the established neighborhood. The specific criteria of the overlay district are as follow: (1) Roofline. A roof pitch of less than 4:12 shall be prohibited. (2) Materials. The materials of the exterior shall be wood, brick or a material that resembles wood. (3) Orientation. The orientation shall be consistent with that of other structures on the developed block face. (4) Entrances. The primary entrance shall be consistent with that of other structures on the developed block face. (5) Parking. Parking shall be prohibited in the front yard setback. (6) Nonresidential setbacks. Nonresidential new construction shall be sited at the front property line of the block face. The development proposed by the applicant has generated the need for three variances. 2 July 30, 2001 Item No.: 2 (Cont. The orientation of the two units identified as 414 and 416 East 16th Street is not altogether consistent with that of other structures on the developed block face. Homes in the immediate vicinity front onto the named streets, not the numbered streets. The pattern is not, however, uniform and has been further disrupted by the large number of homes in the area that were destroyed as a result of the tornado. Allowing the placement of the homes as proposed would not, in staff's opinion, so disrupt the variegated pattern of the neighborhood as to have a negative impact. Those same two units require a variance from the requirement that the primary entrance be consistent with that of otbpr structures on the developed block face. Again, although the immediate block face of East 16th Street is characterized by vacant lots and boarded structures, most homes in the larger area have their primary entrance onto the named streets. 414 East 16th is proposed to have its primary entrance off of the alley and 416 East 16th is proposed to have its primary entrance off of East 16th. Staff does not believe allowing the variance will negatively impact the neighborhood. The lots are zoned R-5, which allows multifamily development at a density of 36 units per acre. Such multifamily development would most likely have individual units that do not meet all of these criteria. It seems more desirable to have the proposed detached, single family homes, even if the entrances are not completely consistent with other structures. The two homes fronting onto Commerce Street have driveways and a parking pad in the front yard. The design overlay prohibits parking in the front yard setback. The concept encouraged by the overlay is to have parking off of the alley. That is not possible in this case because of the other two dwellings. Other homes in the area have front yard parking. Allowing this variance seems appropriate. Staff is supportive of the proposal. This infill development consisting of four, detached single family residences is a positive step for this neighborhood. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: 3 { Jury 30, 2001 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) 1. Submit a revised site plan showing correct lot depth and the two units identified as 414-416 East 16th Street having driveways off of the alley, not off of East 16th Street. 2. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any variance or waiver of those requirements as may be granted by the Director of Public Works or the Board of Directors. 3. Compliance with the remaining provisions of the Central City Redevelopment Corridor Design Overlay District, specifically the following: (a) Roofline. A roof pitch of less than 4:12 shall be prohibited. (b) Materials. The materials of the exterior shall be wood, brick or a material that resembles wood. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 30, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. It was noted that a Revised Site Plan had been received which addressed the issues raised by staff. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 4 The Lighthouse Center, Inc. June 4, 2001 Department Of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR To Whom It May Concern: Outlined below is the proposed development for the Lighthouse Center, Inc. to be reviewed by the City of Little Rock's Planning Commission. Proposed Project Site Review Plan for the City of Little Rock The Lighthouse Center, Inc. have been awarded funds to develop 13 single-family houses near the Little Rock downtown area. The proposed request is to utilize lots 7 and 8 of block 53 that are zone R5, a multifamily zone, to develop four single-family housing units of the proposed 13 single family houses to be built in the area. The proposed development meets are exceeds the present land usage and density requirement as identified in the city ordinance for R5 zones and also adds significant value to existing properties located in the area. The Lighthouse Center proposed development in the area will utilize the in -fill model for community development that significantly mirrors the city's model block program that is geared to revitalizing the areas that were devastated by the tornado. The total appraised value of the proposed 13 single-family houses will be in excess of two million dollars. Attached is the site plan indicating. typical buildings, siting and access to the site. Also included is vicinity map and aerial view of the property. Please feel free to call at (501) 562-3910 if you have need of additional information. Sife�r ly, Rev. Clarence Harville President i Ju.Ly 30, 2001 Item No.: 3 File No.: Z-7069 Owner: Simmons First National Bank Address: 8500 West Markham Street Description: Long Legal Zoned: O-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-553. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Office building Proposed Use of Property: Office building Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No issues related to this sign variance. B. Staff Analysis: The 0-3 zoned property at 8500 West Markham Street is occupied by a three-story office building. The building has housed a bank branch for many years. Simmons First National Bank now proposes to open a branch in the building, utilizing the area and drive-through facilities that have historically been occupied by banks. The property has no ground -mounted signs. Simmons proposes to erect two ground - mounted signs on the property; one on the Markham Street frontage and one on the Rodney Parham frontage. The signs would specifically identify Simmons First National Bank. The sign on the Markham Street Frontage is proposed to be 17.5 feet in height and to have an area of 70± square feet. The sign on the Rodney Parham Frontage is to be 16 feet in height and is to have an area of 64 square feet. The code Ju.Ly 30, 2001 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) limits the height and area of ground -mounted signs in the office districts to 6 feet and 64 square feet respectively. On February 18, 1974, the Board of Adjustment approved variances allowing Union National Bank to erect two ground - mounted signs on the property. The sign on the Markham Street Frontage was approved at 36 square feet in area and 15 feet in height. The sign was actually erected at 21± feet in height because the 15 foot height was applied to the pole, not the overall sign. The sign on the Rodney Parham Frontage was approved at 24 square feet in area and 15 feet in height. Again, the sign was actually erected at 21± feet in height because the 15 foot height was applied to the pole, not the overall sign. Whether the discrepancy in sign height was the result of misinterpretation of the code by the Board or by staff, the fact remains that this property has a 25± year history of having two ground -mounted signs at 21± feet in height. Staff is supportive of the requested sign variances. As was previously mentioned, the site has a history of having two ground -mounted signs taller than the height proposed by this application. The signs will meet or only slightly exceed the area allowed by the code. Neither sign will appear incompatible with the overall surrounding neighborhood. Commercially zoned and developed properties are located south and east of this site. Much larger signs are permitted on those commercial properties. Staff would prefer to see the sign proposed for the Markham Street Frontage moved further east, away from the residential property adjacent to the west. The previous sign on that frontage was located approximately mid -way between the two driveways, 100± feet away from the west property line. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign height and area variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. There are to be no other ground -mounted signs on the property other than directional signs. 2. The total height of the signs are not to exceed 17.5 feet for the sign on the Markham Street Frontage and 16 feet for the sign on the Rodney Parham Frontage. 2 t Jury 30, 2001 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) 3. The sign on the Markham Street Frontage is to be moved eastward so that it is no closer than 100 feet from the west property line. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 30, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. One letter of opposition had been received from R. S. Peters of 11 Markbrook Lane. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 June 21, 2001 City of Little Rock Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street, 2nd Floor Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Attn: Kenny Scott Subject: Zoning variance application Condray Sign on behalf of Simmons First National Bank is requesting consideration for a variance from the city of Little Rock for its pylon signage at the 8500 Markham Street location. Our justification for the request is visibility and safety hardship. We believe a monument sign as recommended in the zone would present multiple problems. A monument sign on the Markham side would have to be placed very close to street to be seen but would create a hazard to oncoming traffic. It would block the vision of traffic leaving the parking lot. If the sign was placed further back into the parking lot area, it would block lot traffic. On the Rodney Parham side, similar conditions would exist and there would be a slope to contend with. Normally in these situations, adequate wall signage can help overcome these problems, but not at this location. The building is tucked away behind two other businesses and wall signage would not be visible. Our reasoning for elevating the pylon sign 10 feet above grade is not to compete for the skyline, but to prevent visibility obstructions, identify the location and reduce the risk of vandalism from pedestrians. The signage package we have submitted is consistent in size and format as other locations in our regional market. We understand that economic reasons are not sufficient justification for waiving sign requirements; however, we believe the 24 hour banking service provided to the community would be appreciated by the community and should be sufficient justification for waiving the existing sign requirements. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, pz", A Perry 01 r SIGNS MANUFACTURED • INSTALLED • SERVICED s July 30, 2001 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: Z-7070 Arthur Pfeifer 32 Shannon Road Part of Lots 46 and 47, Paschal's Heights RIM Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12. The house has no garage or carport. The property has an unusually deep front building line. Single Family Single Family The R-2 zoned property located at #32 Shannon Road is occupied by a two-story, brick and frame, single-family residence. The house has no garage or carport. It appears that what may have been a one -car garage was enclosed several years ago. The property does have a two -car driveway. The applicant proposes to construct a two -car carport addition onto the front of the house. The carport will be built across a platted building line and will have a side yard setback of 3.5 feet. The code requires a side yard setback of 8 feet for this lot. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The property has a platted front building line varying from 30 i Jury 30, 2001 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) feet to 38 feet. Even with the carport addition, the structure will have a front yard setback of 31 feet; greater than the R-2 district requirement of 25 feet. The addition will not "stick -out" so far beyond the existing front of the house as to be a noticeable intrusion that could be construed as incompatible with the neighborhood. The carport is to be built over an existing, concrete -paved driveway. The house on the property adjacent to the east sits below and slightly behind the applicant's home. This change in elevation and setback helps to reduce the impact of the reduced side yard setback. There is good separation between structures. The proposed carport should remain open and unenclosed to further mitigate the visual impact of the reduced setback. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line. 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 variances 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 carport addition is to remain open and unenclosed on all sides other than at the point it adjoins the house. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 30, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 Ju.Ly 30, 2001 Item No.: 5 File No.: Owner: Address: Z-7070 R. David and Lisa Black 4206 Woodlawn Description: West 1­� of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 11, Pulaski Heights and a portion of an adjacent, abandoned alley right-of-way. Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: R-2 A variance is requested from the Home Occupation provisions of Section 36-253 to permit use of an accessory structure. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family No issues related to this home occupation variance. B. Landscape Review: The R-2 zoned property at 4206 Woodlawn is occupied by a two-story, stucco and frame, single family residence and a detached, stucco and frame accessory building. The occupant of the home has an approved home occupation accessory use permit as a business consultant. Since he began the home occupation, he has moved his office from room to room within the house, creating, in his words, "disorganization and chaos." He is now requesting approval to use a portion, approximately 300 square feet, of the accessory building for his office. The business does not include the storage of any materials, the visiting of clients or customers, or Ji, -y 30, 2001 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) advertising of any kind. The applicant is the sole employee of the business. The criteria for home occupations are outlined in Section 36-253 (b) (6) a and are as follow: Home occupations shall be permitted that will not: 1. Change the outside appearance of the dwelling or provide product display visible from the street. 2. Generate traffic, parking, sewage or water use in excess of what is normal in the residential neighborhood. 3. Create a hazard to persons or property, result in electric interference or become a nuisance. 4. Result in outside storage or display of any material or product. 5. Involve accessory buildings. 6. Result in signage beyond that which may be required by other government agencies. 7. Limited to five hundred (500) square feet in area, but in no case more than forty- nine ( 4 9 ) percent of the floor area in a dwelling. 8. Stock in trade shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the floor area of the accessory use. 9. Require the construction of, or the addition to the residence, of duplicate kitchens. 10. Requirement or cause the use or consumption on the premises of any food product produced thereon. 11. Provide medical treatment, therapeutic massage or similar activities. 2 Jury 30, 2001 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Allowing the applicant to utilize a portion of the accessory building for an office use as he has described it should have no effect on adjacent properties. With no customers, employees, deliveries or signage, it is unlikely any passerby could tell that the structure serves any purpose beyond that of an accessory building. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the applicant R. David Black to utilize a portion of the accessory structure for his home occupation subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. This approval is granted only to this applicant and is not transferable to any subsequent occupant of the property. 2. Compliance with the remaining home occupation criteria as outlined in Section 36-253(b)(6). 3. The business is to be operated as described in this application. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 30, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 From: Y david black [rdavidblack@msn.com] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 10:28 AM To: dcarney@littlerock.state.ar.us Subject: Fw: variance ---- Original Original Message ----- From: david black Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 5:07 AM To: dcarney@littlerock.state.ar Subject: variance Per our conversation last week and your directions, I am respectfully submitting the reason I need a variance from the City of Little Rock. I would like to use an accessory building located behind my permanent residence at 4206 Woodlawn, as a business office. My accessory building is attached to the garage portion of the property which is detached from the main structure, the office would be approximately 300 square feet. I have gone into the business consulting field and have been using several different rooms in the main structure which creates disorganization and chaos. I have already applied for, and been granted, a small business permit and only need a simple structure in which to operate. The business I will be doing from this location will not include the storage of any materials, the visiting of client/customers, or advertising of any kind. I have no other employees except myself and there is no intention of changing my business model in the future. I am currently in the process of getting the neighbor's needed signatures. This property has a facade easement which will also be in effect for this or any other remodel so you can be assured of historical credibility with the structure and it's uses. I look forward to the opportunity to meet with the Variance Committee at their next scheduled meeting. If you need any additional information please do not hesitate to call upon me at 501-690-1352, in the meantime please call me, about any quickly approaching deadlines, thanks. Ly w 0 z U) cl LL 0 0 0 m e� I I PE VA w z w Q 1 I a wLL- w¢ LU Qo�cUnQ L LU CD } fr_ C6 J�� z J �- O v � _:j of PE VA w z w Q I 0 w E- 0 Z Z_ w w C� o z U z � Cl w LL > � } U Uj Q (D z �~- co C7 z U Q < J Y PE VA w z w Q I July 30, 2001 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Chairman