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