Loading...
boa_08 28 2000LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2000 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 July 31, 2000 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Gary Langlais, Chairman William Ruck, Vice Chairman Norm Floyd Fred Gray Scott Richburg Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson and Debbie Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA AUGUST 28, 2000 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEM A. Z -6689-C 300 East Markham B. Z-6882 5918 "C" Street II. NEW ITEMS 1. Z-6891 5100 Country Club 2. Z-6896 1910 East 38th Street 3. Z-6901 4121 Sugar Maple Lane 4. Z-6902 2117 N. Van Buren Street 5. Z-6903 3422 West 11th Street III. OTHER MATTERS 6. Time Extension, Z-6842 Kanis and Rodney Parham 7. Administrative Appeal 9108 Tedburn 8. Request for rehearing, Z-6870 1123 Kavanaugh Blvd. O O O N 00 N a3Qtlad ` Cl) 11ntl81Ht / , $ w i c w � � a V g0� i NVrva30 NIM AtlMOtl0aB HUY g v 3LS3Fq ONIN lry � a3H3a0 � � 3 'a{ Oa000M a 3NId f �S c O Nld w NOl"My 11005 ; H,7 Z 6, J ' Nava altl3 a 0 � l/ ) � 4 A1xa3nlNn � A1rsa3nlNn s�Na� a3{3� IddISS Iry OHMH � "J \_ Y 100IH0 L j ,y 81On83S3a � MO atl8 NH f 3 € c3 4 i AR 3 3NN3H z rvtlHatld G n tl nao331MvHs a y 5 WHYS j f V J A3N00a — F, NV 08 0 1 Sllrvfl Alq 330la Arvin NS U s H NvmmrIs O LUVM31S �trdy �r C) CE O �'�I00 31VON833 m AL.7 ust 28, 2000 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: Z -6689-C Melissa Tanner/Vesta's 300 East Markham Part of Block 35, Original City GB A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 353(a) to permit a sign which does not conform to the River Market Design Overlay District Guidelines. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Retail Retail No issues related to this sign variance. B. Staff Analysis: This issue is before the Board as the result of action by the Code Enforcement staff. Vesta's is a retail business located in the recently remodeled building at 300 East Markham Street. The site is located in the River Market District. Vesta's occupies the corner of the building with frontage on East Markham and Cumberland Streets. Vesta's has been placing a small, easel -mounted sign within the portico (recessed entry) of the business. The River Market District Design Overlay regulations specifically address allowable signage. The Overlay regulates the number, location and appearance of signs within the District. The easel sign does not conform to district standards. Signage is specifically limited to walls and awnings within the District. Free standing signage is not permitted. Ai.7ust 28, 2000 Item No.: A (Cont.) The sign is approximately 2' X 3' in size and is placed upon an easel. The applicant states the sign will only be placed out during business hours and will be placed in the portico so that it does not obstruct the sidewalk. The sign will be used to show that the store is open, to advertise River Market events and to advertise store specials. The River Market Design Review Committee voted to allow the sign subject to three conditions: 1. The sign is not to be placed in the right-of-way. 2. The sign is to only be placed outside during normal working hours. 3. The sign is not to advertise prices of items. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance to allow the sign. Although the sign is within the portico (recessed entry) of the building, it is still a temporary sign. Temporary signs are not permitted in the City without a special event permit. Staff is concerned that the precedent which could be set by allowing this sign could lead to a proliferation of similar signs in the area. On December 27, 1999, this applicant appeared before the Board with an application for multiple sign variances for sign size, lettering size, illumination and to have a total of 5 signs. Each business is limited to no more than 3 signs in the River Market District. The Board approved some, but not all, of the variances requested. The Board did approve the request to have 5 signs. This proposed easel sign would bring that total to 6 signs, 3 more than permitted in the District. Vesta's now has as much, if not more, signage than other businesses in the District. The Purpose and Intent section of the River Market District Design Overlay states, in part: "Buildings, signs, street furnishings and landscaping should all be designed to complement and encourage pedestrian use during the day and at night. Careful planning is necessary to ensure the proper placement of such items to avoid visual clutter. Visual clutter is not a major problem in the district at present, but good planning anticipates and prepares for future problems, 2 Ai.yast 28, 2000 Item No.: A (Cont. especially in consideration of positive economic development. Guidelines and strategies must be in place to protect the district from the negative impact of poorly planned or incompatible projects. Incompatible development has the potential to destroy the attributes which will attract people to the district." It is staff's opinion that the proposed sign violates the purpose and intent of the River Market District. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested deferral of the item due to a death in her family. The required notices had not been completed. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 31, 2000 meeting with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: Gary Langlais abstained on this item. (JULY 31, 2000) The applicant, Melissa Tanner, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. It was noted that the River Market Design Review Committee had submitted a letter of support on Ms. Tanner's behalf. In that letter, the committee had suggested three conditions to be attached to approval of the sign. Ms. Tanner addressed the Board in support of her variance. She stated that although she had 5 signs, they were smaller than other signs in the district. Ms. Tanner stated that the easel sign was also used to advertise convention center and River Market activities. Fred Gray expressed concern about the number of signs already approved for "Vestals" and asked Ms. Tanner if she would consider "swapping -out" one of her previously approved signs for this 3 Ai mast 28, 2000 Item No.: A (Cont.) easel sign. Ms. Tanner responded that she would prefer not to lose one of her existing signs. Scott Richburg asked about several other temporary signs he had seen in the River Market area. Ronyha O'Neal, of the Code Enforcement Staff, responded that those signs would be investigated by the staff. In response to a question from Fred Gray, Ms. Tanner stated that the sign was of no real financial benefit to her business but that it added to the atmosphere of the River Market. There was a brief discussion of existing "Vestals" signs and of the easel sign. the possibility of redoing the removing the word "Vestals" from A motion was made to allow the easel sign without the word "Vestals" and subject to compliance with the 3 conditions proposed by the River Market Design Review Committee. The vote was 2 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Langlais). The item was automatically deferred to the August 28, 2000 meeting. STAFF UPDATE: Melissa Tanner contacted staff on the afternoon of July 31, 2000 and stated that she was "tired of fighting" and wanted to withdraw her request. In light of Ms. Tanner's comments, staff recommends withdrawal of the item. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2000) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested that the item be withdrawn. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for withdrawal by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 4 Z-66Yr, -c taTies s Friday, May 19, 2000 City of Little Rock, Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Requestfor Zoning Variance (Sign) This application is fora variance to place a sign within the portico of the entrance of Vesta's Gifis at 300 East Markham in The River MarketDistrict. The proposed sign is approximately 2 feet by 3 feet and is placed upon an easel. The sign will only be placed during business hours. The entrance portico was specifically designed to accommodate such a sign without obstructing the sidewalk. The sign will be used to 1)show that the store is open; 2)advertise River Market events; and 3)advertise store specials. Although the RiverMarketDistrict has been open forseveral years, it is only recently that retailers have opened stores in the area. This sign is essential to advertise that the store is now open and no longer a warehouse. I believe that such portable signs that are not obstructing the sidewalk, are of modest size, and not electrical or automated are within the spirit and decor of this area. Sincerely, Melissa Tanner, Owner Melissa Tanner, Owner 300 East Nark Lam River Market Litt& Rock, AR 72201 River Greg Hait, Chairman Mafket Larry Jacim ore, Member Design Frank Porbeck, Member Review Don Renshaw,Member 1 Commiftee ''Christie Godwin,Member Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock • Arkansas • 72201.501-371-4790 • fax 371-6863 June 12, 2000 Mr. Langlais, Chairman Board of Adjustment 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Chairman Langlais and Board Members, The River Market Design Review Committee (DRC) has met and discussed the temporary sign for `Vesta's' at 300 East Markham. The DRC feels that it would be appropriate to allow Ms. Tanner to place a temporary sign in her vestibule to advertise events in the River Market District and to advertise any specials in her store. The DRC, did place three conditions on their recommendation: the sign is not to be placed in the right of way, the sign is only to be placed outside during normal working hours, and the sign is not to advertise prices of items (ie. "shirts $9.99" not allowed, but "shirts on sale" would be allowed. The DRC members look forward to working with the Board of Adjustment members on protecting the visual integrity of the district. Shawn Spencer DRC Staff Ai..sast 28, 2000 Item No.: B File No. Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: Z-6882 Annette Wahlgreen 5918 "C" Street Part of Lot 16, Howard Adams and R. D. Plunketts Subdivision R-3 A variance is requested from the location of off-street parking provisions of Section 36-507 to permit development of an office parking lot on residentially zoned property. The applicant's justification is presented in the attached letters. Residential Parking lot to serve adjacent medical offices 1.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e) will be required with a building permit. 2.A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) will be required with a building permit. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant proposes to develop a parking lot on the R-3 zoned property located at 5918 "C" Street. The parking lot is to serve the medical offices located on the 0-3 zoned properties west of the site. The parking is needed to replace an existing parking lot located across "C" Street directly south of the site. The area of the existing parking lot is to be incorporated into a new 25,060 square r" Auyast 28, 2000 Item No.: B (Cont.) foot retail development planned for the property east of University Avenue, between "B" and "C" Streets. The proposed 39 space parking lot takes access via a single driveway onto "C" Street. The property consists of 2 lots, one of which currently contains a single family home. Staff's support for this issue is contingent upon the proposed retail development actually being built. Unless the existing parking lot south of "C" Street is displaced by the new development, there is no need for this proposed new parking lot. If the retail development is constructed, the character of this end of "C" Street changes so that the proposed new parking lot will be compatible with development and uses in the area. The proposed 25,060 square foot retail store is to be located directly south of this site. Areas set aside for perimeter landscaping on the proposed parking lot exceed ordinance requirements. No areas of interior landscaping are shown. As many as 5 parking spaces may be lost to provide the required interior landscaping area. Appropriate screening will be required along the north and east perimeters. The applicant has not proposed any lighting for the parking lot. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow for development of the R-3 zoned property at 5918 "C" Street as a parking lot to serve the adjacent "0-3" zoned medical offices subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. No permits are to be issued for development of the parking lot until such time as a building permit has been issued for the proposed retail development located on the south side of "C" Street. 2. Compliance with Public Works Comments 3. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 4. There is to be no lighting of the parking lot. E A,-.,.ist 28, 2000 Item No.: B (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2000) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the abstract company had made errors in identifying property owners within 200 feet of the site and, as such, the applicant had sent notices to the incorrect people. Staff recommended that the item be deferred and the applicant renotify. The Board concurred and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the August 28, 2000 Board meeting. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: At its August 15, 2000 meeting, the Board of Directors voted to deny the proposed rezoning for the commercial development to be located on the south side of "C" Street. In light of the Board's action, staff believes it is appropriate to withdraw this item. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the Board of Directors was to reconsider its vote on the related commercial development at its August 29, 2000 meeting. In light of that action, the applicant had requested deferral of this item to the September 25, 2000 Board of Adjustment meeting. The request for deferral had been received by staff on the morning of August 28, 2000. A motion was made to waive the Board's Bylaws to accept the late request for deferral. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 IRW1N&SAUIF,RS COMPANY A Real Estate Brokerage, Detelopment &Investment Firm June 26, 2000 Dana Carney Dept of Planning & Development City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR RE: Application for development of a parking lot located at 5918 "C" Street adjacent to an existing parking lot. Dear Dana: The purpose of the application for development of the above described parking lot represents a portion of the recently approved PCD immediately south of this proposed lot and will result in a relocation of an existing lot on the south side of "C" street. This new lot will serve a series of medical buildings immediately west and will be incorporated into an existing lot that is a part of this complex. Please call me if you have any questions or comments regarding this application. Very truly yours, IRWIN & SAVIERS COMPANY /a % Ronald E. Tabor Cc: Jim Irwin David Lewis Little Rock: 1701 Centerview, Suite 201 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 • 501-225-5700 • FAX 501-227-0280 Northwest Arkansas: 1526 Plaza Place, Suite 1 • Springdale, Arkansas 72764 • 501-872-1000 • FAX 501-756-8861 Texas: 730 North Post Oak, Suite 400 • Houston, Texas 77024 • 713-812-6543 • FAX 713-812-6542 420-67ydx MCGETRICK & MCGETRICK, INC. PLANNING - ENGINEERING - LAND DEVELOPMENT June 26, 2000 Mr. Dana Carney Zoning Administrator Department of Neighborhoods & Planning 721 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Off -Site Parking for Lot 16 Howard Adam & R. D. Plunkett's Dear Mr. Carney, We would like to request a variance for off-site parking for the Doctor's Office Building located at the NE corner of University Ave. & "C" St.. This parking will be on R-2 Zoned property adjacent to the Doctors Office Building. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, MCGETRICK & MCGETRICK, INC. Patrick M. McGetrick, P.E. PMM: rm 319 East Markham Street, Suite 202 - Little Rock, AR 72201 - (501) 223-9900 - FAX (501) 223-9293 At lst 28, 2000 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 issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z-6891 Jewele Jacoby Jones 5100 Country Club Lot 14, Block 12, Newton Addition R-2 Variances are requested from the accessory structure separation and area coverage provisions of Section 36-156. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family The R-2 zoned property located at 5100 Country Club Blvd. is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single-family residence. A side -loaded carport is located on the north side of the house. The applicant proposes to enclose the carport area and convert it into expanded living space. To replace the carport, the applicant proposes to construct a detached, 22 foot by 22 foot; two -car garage. The garage occupies 395 of the required rear yard and is separated from the house by 5 feet. The code limits accessory structures to 305 coverage in the required rear yard and requires a minimum of 6 feet of separation between structures. The side and rear yard setbacks are met or exceeded. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Both the area coverage and separation variances are minor in nature zst 28, 2000 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) and should have no impact on adjacent properties. The increase in area coverage from 30% to 39% should not be visually noticeable. The property fronts onto Van Buren and Country Club, both of which are residential streets within 80 -foot rights-of-way, resulting in the appearance of large front and side yards due to the excess right-of-way. The slight reduction in separation should not be an issue since all other setbacks are met or exceeded, providing adequate access to the structure from all sides. A similar structure is located on the lot adjacent to the north. The proposal is not incompatible with the neighborhood. The garage will be built over the existing paved driveway. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested area coverage and separation variances subject to the eave/overhang on the south side of the proposed garage being limited to no more than 6" to provide as much separation between structures as possible. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to the eave/overhang on the south side of the proposed garage being limited to no more than 6 inches. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. KA Mrs. Jewele M. Jones 5100 Country Club Boulevard Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 July 3, 2000 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Gentlemen: Z �7q I am requesting a variance from the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance to build a garage on my property at 5100 Country Club Boulevard, Little Rock, Arkansas. The reasons I am requesting a variance are: 1. The existing carport is being enclosed to increase living space. My lot is on the corner of Van Buren Street and Country Club Boulevard. The required set back of 40 feet for the Van Buren side of the lot includes 28.5 feet of my lot. That leaves only 11.4 feet from the set back and the existing building. To build a garage large enough to accommodate two cars and a storage area would reduce the required back yard space. The present back patio area would remain and the enclosed yard space would be increased to include the area behind the requested garage. That would actually increase the amount of cultivated back yard space. There are 55.9 feet of lawn space on the Country Club side and between 40.8 and 39.9 feet of lawn space on the Van Buren side of the lot. That entire area would remain as lawn/yard space. That is more yard space than exists on non - corner lots. 2. Because of the way the house is situated on the lot, there is no other area that could be used for a garage. To build a garage without the requested variance would require extensive building reconstruction and still require a set back variance on the Van Buren side of the lot. The grade of the driveway slopes toward Van Buren and a garage could not be built on that slope. If a variance is granted, a garage could be built using the existing flat portion of the driveway and open space on the Van Buren side. 3. For security purposes and to avoid damage to vehicles from ,exposure to the elements, enclosed parking is the preferable type of vehicle storage. In the area where my home is located the streets are narrow and there are no streetlights, making it hazardous for overnight on -street parking. Very few cars are parked on the street or in driveways at night. Most homes have enclosed garages or covered carports to accommodate vehicle parking. On -street or non -covered parking would be a departure from standard neighborhood usage. Thank you for your consideration of this Residential Zoning Variance. Yours truly, e le M. Jones r t Ai. ,sst 28, 2000 Item No.: 2 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Z-6896 Lonnie and Laverne Evans 1910 East 38th Street Lot 27, Block 2, Granite Heights Second Addition R-2 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-554 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12. Justification: The house has no covered parking. The applicant, who has a disability, would like to have a sheltered way to exit the car and access the house. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Single Family Single Family The R-2 zoned property located at 1910 East 38th Street is occupied by a one-story, single-family residence. At some point in the past, the carport was enclosed and converted into living space. The house has no covered parking. The applicant proposes to construct a two -car carport addition onto the front of house. The addition will be built across a platted 25 -foot building line and will result in a front yard setback of 8± feet. The code requires a front yard setback of 25 feet. At-ust 28, 2000 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the requested variance. East 38th Street is a dead-end residential street within an 80 -foot right-of-way. The proposed carport addition will be set back 34-35 feet from the curb of the street. The carport will remain open on the sides and front and will have a hip roof similar to the existing home. The slope of the roof, without a large gable on the front, helps reduce the visual impact of the addition. If the Board approves the 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 setback and building line variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line. 2. The carport is to remain open and unenclosed on all sides other than at the point it adjoins the house. 3. The carport addition is to have a hip roof constructed in a style similar to the existing house, without a large gable. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2000) 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 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 2 Al—,ast 28, 2000 Item No.: 3 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: M A ON William H. Berg 4121 Sugar Maple Lane Lot 490-R, Phase 8-B, Pleasant View R-2 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254, the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the fence height provisions of Section 36-516. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family The property is allowed only one driveway on Christopher Cove. The existing 18 foot wide driveway may be widened to 24 foot. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located at 4121 Sugar Maple Lane is occupied by a split-level, brick and frame, single-family residence. Although the house fronts onto Sugar Maple Lane, the lot fronts onto Christopher Cove and required setbacks are taken on that basis. The applicant proposes to remodel the house, including substantial additions onto the south and east sides. The addition onto the south side will result in a rear yard setback of 20 feet with a deck landing and steps extending to a point 14.5 feet from the property line. The addition on the east side will extended across a platted 25 foot building line and will result in a front AL,ast 28, 2000 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) yard setback of 20 feet. The applicant also proposes to extend a 6 -foot privacy fence across that same building line. The code requires front and rear yard setbacks of 25 feet for this lot and limits the height of fences erected within setbacks adjacent to streets to 4 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Other than for the stairs and landing, the addition to the south side of the house encroaches only slightly into the required setback. Due to the angle of the house on the lot, the encroachment involves only a corner intrusion. The landing and stairs are themselves only a minor intrusion and should not impact the adjacent property. The property slopes steeply down from Sugar Maple Lane and the deck landing and stairs will likely not be visible from the street. The proposed addition onto the Christopher Cove side of the house encroaches 5 feet into the required 25 -foot front yard setback. This minor encroachment is only for the 22 -foot width of the addition. The addition will result in a setback of 31± feet from the curb of the street. Christopher Cove is a short cul-de-sac street and allowing this slight encroachment should not impact traffic. The proposed privacy fence will not extend any farther than the addition and should have no greater impact than the addition itself. The proposed addition on the east side includes additional garage space to take access off of Christopher Cove. The property has one, 18 -foot wide driveway. A maximum driveway width of 24 feet is permitted. The proposed new garage must take access off of the existing driveway, which may be widened to 24 feet. 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 setback, building line and fence height variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: 2 At mast 28, 2000 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) 1. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as approved by the Board. 2. Compliance with Public Works Comments 3. The fence is to be designed in "good neighbor" fashion, with the finished side facing outward. 4. The landing and stairs extending off of the deck are to remain uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2000) 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 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 2-6�L William H. and Ann M. Berg 4121 Sugar Maple Lane Little Rock, AR 72223 Subject: Request for Variance for lot #490R on the corner of Sugar Maple Lane and Christopher Cove in the Pl6rnt`View Subdivision -Phase VIII -A. We would like to add onto our home by adding a third garage. Our proposed addition would extend over the current platted building line by 5'. This would leave the end of the proposed garage 31.5 feet from the street (and still well within our property line). This should not present any "limited sight" problems for anyone coming around the corner or for backing or pulling out of the driveway, This will allow us to garage our third (company work) vehicle which will be more secure and will look better for the whole neighborhood by not being on the street or outside in the driveway constantly. The added length is needed to accommodate our longer vehicle and the ability to walk around it without having to raise the garage door. The proposed addition will be built to match and blend with the current home style so as to not look "added on" and the privacy fence will be moved up to the new end corner of the garage to look consistent with other fencing in the neighborhood. Third garages are not that unusual in homes nowadays. There are currently many newer "three garage" homes on Sugar Maple and Christopher down the hill and more "three garage" homes off their side streets. At ,.Ast 28, 2000 Item No.: 4 File No.: Owner: Address: Descri-Dtion: Zoned: Variance Requested: Z-6902 Patricia Goodson 2117 N. Van Buren Street Part of Lot 7, Block 16, Newton's Addition R-2 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit rebuilding a portion of an existing home with reduced setbacks. Justification: The portion of the house proposed for remodeling and replacing was deteriorated by water and termite damage. The applicant proposes only to replace what was existing. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Single Family Single Family The R-2 zoned property located at 2117 N. Van Buren is occupied by an older, one-story, stucco and frame, single- family residence. The home is now in the process of being remodeled. During the remodeling, it was discovered that the southern portion of the structure was so damaged by water and termites that it had to be removed and replaced. The property consists of the southern 60± feet of a 50 -foot wide lot and the house does not meet any of the current ordinance setback requirements. The area proposed to be replaced will have a front yard setback of 11.8 feet, a rear k�_.Ast 28, 2000 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) yard setback of 0.7 feet and a side yard setback of 1 foot. The code requires front and rear yard setbacks of 25 feet and a side yard setback of 5.5 feet for this lot. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The circumstances surrounding the history of the site are questionable. Most likely, the structure started out as an accessory building for the house located on the remainder of the lot. Some years ago, the structure was converted into a residence and sold off from the rest of the lot. The structure has existed for years with the setbacks as indicated. In fact, the southern end of the house actually extended .3± of a foot across the property line. The applicant proposes to pull that portion back within the property and to provide a 1 -foot setback. The properties adjacent to the east and south are occupied by single family homes. The structures on those lots appear to have setbacks of 5-6 feet from the applicant's property. 6 foot tall privacy fences are located along each property line. The house has a 10 foot front yard setback. The portion to be replaced will sit back an additional 1.8 feet. Van Buren Street is a two-lane residential street in an 80 foot right-of-way. The addition will sit back from the curb of the street 35± street. Replacing the dilapidated portion of this nonconforming residence should improve the property and will not increase any impact on neighboring properties. Staff believes it is appropriate to limit the eave on the structure and to require guttering. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances to allow for replacement of the dilapidated portion of the residence as indicated subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Guttering is to be installed on the east and south perimeters of the structure to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent properties. 2. The eave/overhang of the structure is to be limited so that, when combined with the guttering, it does not extend over the property lines. K k_4ust 28, 2000 Item No.: 4 (Cont. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2000) 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 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 A -L _Lst 28, 2000 Item No.: 5 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: FAM*11N Jeanette Booth 3422 West 11th Street Lots 5, 6, 7 and West 30 feet of Lot 8, Block 4, T. B. Martin's Addition R-3 A variance is requested from the fence height provisions of Section 36-156. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family Per Section 32-8, City of Little Rock Code, applicant needs to provide triangular area free of obstructions to visibility at intersections between property line and a diagonal line joining points on the property line 50 feet from the point of intersection. The Public Works Director has approved a 25% reduction in this requirement. The triangular area has been reduced to 37.5 feet from the point of the intersection. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property located at 3422 West 11th Street is occupied by a one-story, frame, single-family residence. The property consists of 3 lots and a portion of a 4th. The house is located on the south side of the property, fronting onto West 11th Street. The rear yard extends north to West 10th Street. The property borders Valmar Street on the At .st 28, 2000 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) west. The applicant proposes to enclose her rear yard with a 6 -foot tall, wood privacy fence. The fence is to be located on the property line. The code limits the height of fences erected within the required setbacks adjacent to streets to 4 feet. The applicant states the fence is needed to provide security and privacy. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Allowing the 6 -foot tall fence, versus the 4 -foot tall fence allowed by right, should have no impact on adjacent properties. The only issue of concern is that portion of the fence at the intersection of West 10th and Valmar Streets. The City's traffic ordinance require the area at the intersection (blind corner) to be kept free of obstructions for a distance of 50 feet back from the intersection. The Public Works Director has approved a 25% reduction in that requirement, meaning that the fence must stop on both the Valmar and West 10th perimeters at a point 37.5 feet from the intersection. Staff feels"that the fence should be constructed in "good neighbor" fashion, with the finished side facing outwards. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the fence height variance subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Public Works Comment 2. The fence is to be constructed in "good neighbor" fashion, with the finished side facing outward. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2000) 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 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. E I -tAu-x",� C, Ai,,ust 28, 2000 Item No.: 6 File No.: Name Address: Z-6482 Toll Corporation; Richard Toll Kanis and Rodney Parham Roads Type of Issue: 2 year extension of previously approved variances from the area regulations of Section 36-320. The variances were initially approved on April 27, 1998. A 4 month extension was approved on April 24, 2000. Staff Report: On April 27, 1998, the applicant received Board of Adjustment approval of a front yard setback variance to allow for construction of a new 14,000 square foot office building on this I-2 zoned property. The building has not yet been constructed. On April 24, 2000, the Board granted a 4 month extension of that previous approval. The applicant had been negotiating a lease and was concerned that it would not have been possible to consummate the lease agreement, design the building, draw the plans and obtain the required permits by April 27, 2000. Article IV, Section 2 of the Board of Adjustment Bylaws states: If an application is approved by the Board, all permits necessary for the initiation of work shall be obtained within two (2) years from the date of approval, unless an extension of time is granted by the Board. Otherwise, the Board approval of the application shall be considered void. During the course of obtaining the building permit, the applicant became embroiled with Public Works over an issue that has stopped the process. The applicant is now asking for an additional extension to allow for resolution of the matter. Staff is supportive of a final extension through, April 27, 2002. This amounts to a total of a 2 year extension beyond the initial 2 years. Circumstances in the area have not changed that would be affected by the setback variance. A'u.�lst 28, 2000 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of an extension through April 27, 2002, subject to compliance with all conditions noted in the April 27, 1998 Board minute record of File No. Z-6482. f iTf. Pa`9 4'ul (AUGUST 28, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended approval of an extension through April 27, 2002 subject to compliance with all conditions noted in the April 27, 1998 Board minute record of File No. Z-6482. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. K Corporation P.O. Bax 2140 a Little Rock, Arkansas 72221-1 W a (501) 221-3224 MEMORANDUM TO: MR, DANA CARNY, BOARD SECRETARY, LR CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE: 7/11/00 FROM: RICHARD F. TOLL SUBJECT: ZONING CASE # Z-6426 ON 2/2/001 SENT YOU SUBJECT ZONING BOARDUESTING THAT THE NG CASE UNTIL AUOUS7 XTEND THE EXPIRATION OF THE2000, WHICH THEY DID, DURING THE COURSE OF OBTAINING THE BUILDING PERMIT AND BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND I HAVE BECOME IN A DISPUTE OVER A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER THAT HAS STOPPED THE PROCESS, AND i AM ASKING THE CITY BOARD VIA MR. DAVID SCHARER ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER TO SETTLE FOR US. THE MATTER IS NOW IN THE HANDS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY MR, SCHARER THAT IT WILL TAKE SEVERAL WEEKS FOR THE STAFF AND CITY ATTORNEY TO ACT ON THE MATTER. THERE IS A STRONG POSSIBILITY THAT WILL O F THIS IS COURTS IS VERYINDEFINITE AND COUP EXTEND FOR REQUIRED FOR QUITE A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I WISH TO REQUEST THAT THE BOARD ALLOW AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME LIMIT ON THE SUBJECT ZONING CASE UNTIL THE MATTER IS SETTLED WITH THE CITY OR IN THE COURTS. IF IT IS NECESSARY FOR ME TO, APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, WILL YOU PLEASE WILL BE WIL HEARING WL APPRECIATE HEARING FROM YOU VIA A LETTER R FAX AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE. THANK YOU, (W -t -k/ RICHARD F. TOLL ZO'd ZSLT 6TZ TOS T=QI Noll doduoo Z'TO.L SZ: TZ OO -OT -LO A( ,sst 28, 2000 Item No.: 7 File No. Name: Address: N/A Kevin R. Holmes 9108 Tedburn Circle Type of Issue: Administrative appeal of staff's denial of a home occupation accessory use permit. Staff Report: On July 19, 2000, Kevin Holmes applied for a Home Occupation Accessory Use Permit to operate a business from his home at 9108 Tedburn Circle. The property is zoned R-2. Mr. Holmes proposed to operate a sign company, utilizing one room of his house as an office with all sign production taking place at the C-4 zoned property at 9830 I-30. The application was denied by the Codes Enforcement staff as not being a permitted home occupation. Mr. Holmes is appealing that action. Copies of Mr. Holmes application, a letter in which he explains his business and the relevant sections of the Code are attached. The Board is asked to determine if the proposed business, as described by the applicant, is an appropriate home occupation. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2000) The applicant, Kevin Holmes, was present. Staff presented the issue. Mr. Holmes addressed the Board and described his business operation. He stated that most of the work in the home involved computer generating vinyl lettering. He stated that he had done some work on the carport. Mr. Holmes proposed to use his home for his office with one bedroom being used for sign layout. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Holmes stated that most of the sign work was done at the customer's location. He stated that all he would do at the home would be to cut and apply the computer generated vinyl letters. Mr. Holmes stated that he could do the application at the U -Haul location but that there was no electricity at that site so he could not cut the letters there. Ai— ust 28, 2000 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) In response to a question from Gary Langlais, Mr. Holmes stated that he had one other employee. Mr. Holmes stated that small amounts of wood and metal material had been kept at the home but that those materials would be moved to the other site. William Ruck asked Mr. Holmes what percentage of his home was used for the business. Mr. Holmes responded that he currently used one room in the 1,500 square foot house and that he wanted to use a second room. Fred Gray expressed concern about the actual production of signs taking place on the site. He asked if Mr. Holmes could not locate to a business site. Mr. Holmes responded that he could not afford to rent a business location. Mr. Holmes responded to questions from William Ruck by stating that customers did not come to his home and that he did not build the signs, only produced the "readable part not the structural part of the sign." Mr. Holmes stated that he had operated his business at this location for 4 years. Mr. Holmes stated that he would keep all materials off-site other than for a small amount of the vinyl material needed to produce letters. Mr. Holmes stated that he had no sign advertising the business at his home. Norm Floyd asked Mr. Holmes if all that would occur at the home was telephone calls, billing and generating vinyl graphics with all other construction and materials to be located at the C-4 zoned site. Mr. Holmes responded affirmatively. Mr. Holmes restated that all visible sign materials would be removed from the home. There was then a discussion of the Board's action setting a precedent. Deputy City Attorney Cindy Dawson stated that the Board was to determine if this specific application was appropriate and that no precedent would be set. Scott Richburg commented that technology had advanced to the point that more nontraditional home based businesses were possible. There was a brief discussion of home based businesses. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, stated that the Planning Commission and Board of Directors were looking at the issue. 2 August 28, 2000 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) In response to a question from the Board, Kenny Scott, Zoning Enforcement Supervisor, stated that any conditions imposed by the Board would be enforceable. A motion was made that the Board determine that Mr. Holmes sign business, located at 9108 Tedburn Circle, is an appropriate home occupation as described by Mr. Holmes and including the following stipulations: 1. The business activity at the home is only to include taking orders, bookkeeping and billing and generating of computer generated vinyl art work. 2. There is to be only one plotter at the site. 3. No materials other than vinyl lettering stock are to be kept at the home. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 l August 08, 2000 To A hom It May Concern: I Kevin Holmes/Owner of Holmes Signs & Artwork. I'm Proposing to operate my business which is a home base operation. I would like to operate my office out of one of the rooms in my house and produce my signs in a near by storage building location off I-30 (U -Haul) space. My home address is 9108 Tedburn Circle and storage building address is 9830 I-30 (U -Haul storage). In my business we produce aluminum signs, wooden signs, computerized vinyl lettering. Some signs are painted most done in vinyl. Please consider my propose to operate my business out of my home in this manner. Thank you. Respectfully, Kevin R. Holmes /o -t�z k+&&� �yp�� ,dSG�j -V Cvs to c� 4 � . All mP L� City of Little Flock TREASURY MANAGEMENT DIVISION 500 WEST MARKHAM STREET 100 CITY HALL LITTLE ROCS AR 72201 APPLICATION FOR BUSINESS PRIVILEGE LICENSE THIS FORM MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ZONING AND SIGN UNIT AND PROTECTIVE CODES DIVISION BEFORE A PRIVILEGL LICENSE CAN BE ISSUED TO A NFW BUSINESS OR PRIOR TO CHANGE OF LOCATION OF AN EXISTING BUSINESS. IN ADDITION "1'IiiS FORM N1LI,4'P 13E RGi1JRNiiD FOR'FHF. PLIRPOSE OF ASSESSING TILE AMOIINf OF TAXES DUET. ANY QUES-rION ABOUTTIIIS APPLICATION CALL'PREASURYMANAGEMEN'PDIVISION 371-4687011371-4438ABOU T11F:ZONINGCAL1,371-4844. PLEASE; MAR K;1'i 1 E, APPROPRIATE EXPLANATION. NEW BUSINESS CHANGE OFOWNERSHIP EXISTING BUSINESS (CHANGE OFADDRESS) ROME BUSINESS LOCATIONS MUST HE APPROVED BY ZONING IN PERSON AT 723 WEST MARKHAM STREET A NAME OF BUSINESS- kAcAme5 S k; ,ns L ASA oil c - B. BUSINESS STARTED: MONTH (Q YEAR O�7 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES C. FORM OF BUSINESS: CORPORATION_,LSOLE PROPRIETOR PARTNERSHIP OTHER 1). PRESENT RUSIN ESS LOCATION: q U 0 TCA3y V (\ Lin F� CITY: �-1 Ie ROCA(- STATE:M-'LIPCODE: 7-A1 ', J PHONE# (05 8-8¢57FAX S(o5—(04V BILLING ADDRESS: 01 1 S ��� K,U f CITV- L1 i� Ile-2Lacl c_ STATE: A(Z %IP CODE: '72' `. PHONE# b: o'9 41S7 FAX 56 S-64�4�i E. PREVIOUS BUSINESS LOCATION: CITY: STATE: // ZIP CODE: P110NE# FAX �- F. BUSINESS OWNER'S NAME., �j D�+`L>� HOME PHONE: ^7 r-IiOMEADDRESS: IQ�4)LSw4�C.li-CTI Y: �� ISTATE:ZIP: Zz-,d9 BUSINESS OWNER'S SOCIAL SECURITY #_44W_ '// - I5�ZDATE OF BIRTH:___ -% SEX: MALE: FEMALE r� RACE:__ G.DESCRIPTiONOFOPERATION: --14��� ryknr -3l llf4 '` .r� C1�11 !g±2' + L' -/ - Go' -�crvl cc �r,c1 r'� I„ ed-^1�5-,1, -.5 /�% 04,0442 Per H. PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: V-c-vIr\ t` 40IMdci _PHONE ##StQoff-'loci FAX 3. DO YOU SELL ANY FORM OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS? YES NO I __ �✓ �� �� 4.. ARE YOU CURRENTLY INVOLVED WITH OR DO YOU PLAN ANY CONSTRUCTION OR REMOLDING ATTHIS LOCATION? EXPLAIN: IVC) ` rV S. DO VOU STORE OR STOCK FLAMMABLE OR EXPLOSIVE MATERIAI S?ALQ— NOTE: TYPE AND QUANTITIES: A FALSE STATEMENT OR MISREPRESENTATION MAY MAKE THF LICENSE; NULL AND VOID AND CONSTITUTE FORFEITURE OF PAID FEE. ,1y�/ a 6. SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR OWNER REPRESENTATIVE: 1+� �. _ DATE: -7 le( FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: PROPERTY IS ZONED: PROPOSED USE IS: APPROVED FOR PROPOSED USE IS: DENIED BECAUSEr LJ 8r✓YI iT LISA 'z - Z ZONING OFFICIAL �-F-Pt*7 r� DATE: _ BUILDING OFFICI J DATE: CONTACTED BY: _DATE: —ACCOUNT t1- 0.) (1 1 WHEN NO LONGER W BUSINESS PLEASE SEND A LETTER TO CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNT OUT THIS WILL HELP FROM KEEPING YOUR BUSINESS FROM GETTING A WRITTEN CITATION TO APPEAR IN COURT: (2.) WHEN YOU MOVE YOUR BUSINESS LOCATION BE SURE TO COMPLETE ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR AN ADDRESS CHANGE. APPLICATION NO. 6400 DATE: r� " i0� --00 APPLICANT'S NAME: _.K„CV 1 rY\eS TELEPHONE NO.: S C`Da - (o c� 0 NAME OF BUSINESS: n,cs 5E� OWNER OF BUSINESS: w l -_ , • H of Me (S�1 ', ADDRESS OF BUSINESS: nuns �eAi3u(v\- lei ck, PROPERTY OWNED BY: Vek( 1 , ADDRESS: r%aVDur� DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS OR SERVICE ACTIVITY OFFERED BY THIS BUSINESS: 1 r S\C)Yl`> (1^e-` -&. .1-.�� ac ,r\A tC `s(4-\ F_ O -A f h4-eGd `'J1�i ✓\ 5 /-],/ , 040�- .4�v- TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT: A. RESIDES ON PREMISE: B. RESIDES OFF PREMISE: WILL PROPOSED USE GENERATE PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OR DELIVERY BY MAIL OR COURIER? YES NO " LIST THE TYPE OF STOCK OR MERCHANDISE TO BE STORED ON THE PREMISE: I-xu LIST ANY SERVICES OR REPAIRS DONE ON THE PREMISES: WHAT TYPE OF BUSINESS ADVERTISING IS PROPOSED: u TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF DWELLING UNIT: o 0 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF DWELLING UNIT DEVOTED TO BUSINESS: PLEASE USE THIS SPACE FOR ANY COMMENTS OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: PROPERTY ZONED: i2 INSPECTOR'S NAME: APPLICANT'S SI DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION: APPROVED DISAPPROVED UJ- /-70� �D����; � � P f Z CHAIRM N ATE APPLICANT SHOULD BE APPRISED THAT HE/SHE SHOULD INVESTIGATE ANY "BILL OF ASSURANCE", RESTRICTIONS PLACES ON THIS PROPERTY. MATERIAL PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION IS PRELIMINARY AND, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE COMMITTEE. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE RECEIVED, READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE RESTRICTION ON THE USE OF MY RESIDENCE FOR A HOME OCCUPATION. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE § 36-253 LITTLE ROCK CODE to extend the time limit allowed in item 2, above, not to exceed an additional thirty-six (36) months. 4. The subdivision sales office shall be removed and the model homes shall be discontinued as a model' home on or before the termination date set forth in item 2, above or upon expiration of the extension granted by the board of adjust- ment pursuant to item 3, above, or after six (6) months following sale or occupancy of all lots in the sub- division other than the model homes, whichever occurs first. 5. For the purpose of items 1, and 4, above, "subdivision" means all land included within a plat submitted to the city. c. Garage sales (not to exceed two (2) a year and two (2) days for each event). (4) Conditional uses. The following uses may be permitted in this zone subject to the approval of a condition use permit and all required showings and conditions thereof: a.. Churches and other religious institu- tions and their accessory buildings and uses. b. Educational institutions, including but not limited to colleges, universities, public and private elementary, junior or senior high schools and their acces- sory buildings and uses. c. Public utility buildings and facilities when necessary for serving the sur- rounding area, provided that no public business office and no repair or storage facility are maintained therein. d. Municipal or governmental recreation use, including public parks, play- grounds, tennis courts, golf courses, community centers, fire stations, mu- seums, libraries and other similar uses. e. Country club, golf course, swimming pool or other private recreational uses usually associated with or incidental to a social country club or subdivision Supp. No. 22 2310 association operated for mutual recre- ation for the members, and not as a business for profit. f. Group care facilities. (5) Special uses. The following special uses may be permitted subject to the criteria contained in section 36-54 and approval of a special use permit by the planning com- mission: a. Bed and breakfast house. b. Family care facility. c. Day care family home. (6) Home occupant. a. 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 neighbor- hood. 3. Create a hazard to persons or prop- erty, result in electric interference or become a nuisance. 4. Result in outside storage or dis- play 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 (49) percent of the floor area in a dwelling. S. 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 dupli- cate kitchens. 10. Requirement or cause the use or consumption on the premises of any food product produced thereon. ZONING 11. Provide medical treatment, thera- peutic massage or similar activi- ties. b. e following are permitted home oc- cupations, provided they do not violate any of the provisions of the previous subparagraph a: 1. Dressmaking, sewing and tailor- ing. 2. Painting, sculpturing or writing (artistic endeavors). 3. Telephone answering service or ra- dio monitoring service. 4. Home crafts such as model mak- ing, rug weaving and lapidary work- 5. ork5. Tutoring limited to two (2) stu- dents at a time. 6. Music instruction limited to two (2) students at a time. 7. Catering and home cooking. 8. Computer programming. 9. Clock or watch repair. 10. Personal or home care products marketing without stock in trade on premises. c. The following are prohibited as home occupations: 1. Barbershops and beauty shops. 2. Animal hospitals. 3. Dance studios. 4. Mortuaries. 5. Nursery schools. 6. Private clubs. 7. Small appliance repair shops. 8. Restaurants. 9. Stables or kennels. 10. Animal grooming. 11. Engine or motor repair shops. 12. Paint shops. d. Any proposed home occupation that is neither specifically permitted by sub- paragraph b, nor specifically prohib- ited by subparagraph c, shall require an accessory use permit and be granted Supp. No. 22 2311 ¢ 36-7.53 or denied by the city department des- ignated by the city manager upon con- sideration of those standards con- tained in this paragraph. Appeals from the administrative judgement of the staff shall be filed with the board of adjustment. The content of the filing shall consist of (1) A cover letter ad- dressed to the chairman and members of the board of adjustment setting forth the request; (2) a copy of all pertinent graphic materials or correspondence. This filing shall occur within thirty (30) calendar days of the action by the stag. No activity which requires an accessory use permit shall be con- ducted prier to issuance of the permit. Any proposed use requiring employees who are not residents of the dwelling shall be approved by the board of ad- justment prior to the issuance of per- mits. (c) Height regulations. No building hereafter erected or structurally altered shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet. (d) Area regulations. (1) Front yard. There shall be a front yard setback having a depth of not less than thirty-five (35) feet. (2) Side yard. There shall be a side yard set- back on each side of the building having a width of not less than ten (10) feet. Not- withstanding the above requirement, no conditional use in this district will be ap- proved having a side yard setback of less than twenty-five (25) feet. (3) Rear yard. There shall be a rear yard setback having a depth of not less than twenty-five <25) feet. In the case of a corner lot, however, when providing a twenty -five- foot exterior side yard, the rear yard may be reduced to not less than ten (10) feet. (4) Lot area regulations. There shall be a lot area of not less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. In addition, there shall be a minimum lot width of not less than August 28, 2000 OTHER MATTER File No.: Z-6870 Name: Kathryn Karr Address: 1123 Kavanaugh Blvd. Type of Issue: Request for rehearing Staff Report: On July 31, 2000, the Board granted variances allowing the owner of the R-3 zoned property located at 1123 Kavanaugh Blvd. to construct a bathroom addition onto the house and a freestanding carport to be located in front of the house. There were no objectors present at the meeting and no letters or phone calls of objection had been received by staff. On August 8, 2000, the adjacent property owner contacted staff and voiced objection to the proposed carport. It is that neighbor's contention that the applicant indicated that the carport would not be built. The neighbor was informed by staff that the carport had always been part of the application, that it was included on the notice (which had been signed by the neighbor), that staff was not made aware of any objections and that the Board had approved the variance request. After conferring with the City Attorney's office, staff advised the neighbor that he could request a rehearing as outlined in Article V of the Board's bylaws. Article V reads as follows: ARTICLE V. Rehearings Section 1. No rehearing of any decision by the Board of Zoning Adjustment shall be had except on motion by a member of the Board to reconsider the vote, made and acted upon at the next meeting following the hearing at which the decision being appealed was made, and which is carried by unanimous consent of all members present at the meeting. Section 2. No motion for a rehearing shall be entertained except: upon written request for rehearing, received by the Secretary to the Board within ten days of the final action by the Board from which appeal is made, and then not unless new evidence is submitted which could not reasonably have been presented at Ai._lst 28, 2000 OTHER MATTER (Cont.) the meeting at which the hearing was originally had, which information is to be included in the written request to the Secretary. Section 3. If a rehearing is granted, the matter shall be put on the calendar for the next meeting, and the required notices issued in accordance with the notice provisions of these rules. Section 4. No additional application to the Board of Adjustment shall be allowed, unless there shall have been a substantial change in the circumstances affecting such property since the prior decision on the same property. The neighbor submitted a letter on August 9, 2000 requesting the rehearing. The applicant and the neighbor were advised that the issue would be placed on the Board's August 28, 2000 agenda for consideration of a rehearing. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2000) The Board was informed that Tom Peterson, of 304 Charles Street, had dropped his request for a rehearing and that no action was required by the Board. Fa 304 Charles Street Little Rock, AR 72205 August 9, 2000 Mr. Ia#na Carney Zoning Administrator 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR Dear Mr. Carney: I am writing this letter to request that the Board of Adjustment rehear the item concerning the planned additions to the property owned by Ms. Kathy Karr at 1123 Kavanaugh, particularly as they relate to her carport plans. My wife and I own the home at 304 Charles Street which is next door to Ms. Karr's property, and we share a driveway with her. Our home is a rather unique design. It is called an "end on end" home — the front of our home actually faces Ms. Karr's property. When Ms. Karr approached us with the paper to be signed regarding her additions, we asked her what she was planning to do. She described the additions regarding the bathroom, but did not mention the carport. We signed the form without reading it thoroughly because we thought she had told us verbally what her plans were. 4. Later, when I spoke with Ms. Karr, she then mentioned her intentions to build a carport. We were both very concerned about this plan because such a carport would greatly affect the view from our home throughout the house, including the front porch, living room, dining room, kitchen and the bedroom downstairs that faces her house. (There is very limited view from the western side of the house because of the proximity of the home on that side.) After talking this over with my wife, we decided that we needed to tell Ms. Karr that we did not want a carport built anywhere on that side of her house because of the extreme effect it would have on the views. My wife discussed this with Ms. Karr and invited her into our house to show her how such a structure would effect the views. Ms. Karr said that she understood our concerns and reassured my wife that she would not build anything there that we were not comfortable with, and that she would be sure to check with us before proceeding with any carport plans. We have always had a good relationship with Kathy, so we believed her and, thus, did not think it would be necessary to attend the Board of Adjustment meeting. Yesterday morning I happened to see the the contractor hired by Ms. Karr and asked him about his project. He informed me that he will be building a carport on the spot in Ms. Karr's yard that was previously planned by Ms. Karr. We regret now that we did not attend the board meeting and express our objection to the carport. We have spoken with another neighbor, who also was told verbally about the bathroom, but not the carport, and feel that others would've come forward in objection to the carport had those plans been made clear. We ask that you consider rehearing this item. The carport would greatly affect our home both in our enjoyment of the views from the "front" of our home and, thus, in its overall value. Si _ RE�'F'j� F Tom Peterson AU� �9 2000 M. o 26 4 6 c., o. A. City of Little Rock Department o annmg and DevelopmentPlanning Zoning and 723 West Markham Subdivision Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 (501) 371-4790 Augui;t 10, 2000 Kathryn Karr 1123 Kavanaugh Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72205 Re: Board of Adjustment action Dear Ms. Karr: On July 31, 2000, the Little Rock Board of Adjustment approved variances allowing you to construct a bathroom addition and a freestanding carport on your property located at 1123 Kavanaugh. On August 9, 2000, I received a letter from Tom Peterson of 304 Charles Street voicing objection to the Board's action and asking that the Board rehear the issue. Article V of the Board's Bylaws states: Section 1. No rehearing of any decision by the Board of Zoning Adjustment shall be had except on motion by a member of the Board to reconsider the vote, made and acted upon at the next meeting following the hearing at which the decision being appealed was made and which is carried by unanimous consent of all members present at the meeting. Section 2. No motion for a rehearing shall be entertained except: upon written request for rehearing, received by the Secretary to the Board within 10 days of final action by the Board from which the appeal is made, and then not unless new evidence is submitted which could not reasonably have been presented at the meeting at which the hearing was originally had, which information is to be included 1n the written request to the Secretary. Section 2. If a rehearing is granted, the matter shall be put. on the calendar for the next meeting, and the required notices issued in accordance with the notice provisions of these rules. The request for rehearing will be put on the August 28, 2000 agenda. The meeting begins at 2:00 p.m. and is held in the Board of Directors' chamber in City Hall, 500 W. Markham Street. If the Board votes to grant a rehearing, it will be scheduled for the September 25, 2000 meeting. I encourage you to be present at this August 28, 2000 meeting in support of your application. If you have any questions, please call me at 371-6817. Sinc r��e""ly: f C/et �dministrator Dana Carney, Zonin Cc: Tom Peterson 324 Charles Street Little Rock, AR 72205 0 O U W w w O > Z LLI F— D 7 Q � U— O 'Q O m bi Q pfd A `OJ w Lo to N O 'Z7 Q C O N z Q Q O 0 w (DO 0 � wLL < m CY] W O¢ -J=Y z U Q LL Of O Q U N O 'Z7 Q C O N z Q m m Q a� F— Z W U) m Q W a z o w �- O � � -j C) —� -� W ZoLg� W0 Q co 2 C� z U H LL 0 Q _U C� August 28, 2000 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. Date: Chairma