The URL can be used to link to this page

boa_10 30 2000LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES OCTOBER 30, 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 September 25, 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 LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT I. DEFERRED ITEM A. Z -6578-A II. NEW ITEMS 1. Z -6907-A 2. Z-6921 3. Z-6922 AGENDA OCTOBER 30, 2000 2:00 P.M. 5525 Scenic Drive 4. Z-6927 5. Z-6928 6. Z-6930 7. Administrative Appeal 8. Administrative Appeal 9. Request for rehearing 10800 Birchwood 7615 Fluid Drive #1 Hogan Drive 1900 S. Grant Street 4822 Country Club 2218 Sawgrass Dr. 22 Melinda Drive 12725 Heinke Road Z -5616-A 15602 Mooser Lane 0 0 0 C: C\j — N 3NId a31ZVa3 0 /�� 11Otl81H1 M 1Y) WSJ — M J U T �- — - MUD o — NIM AVMOVOaB HOatl Np!lyp S3H0 a3N3a0 i ONIN IN — Qi� � g — MOa000M 3NId =3 Id LO N0 11005 N s Spn,�dS si �Jjl Natl ., AlI5apn � 0Sa3nIN0 w SONIad a3A30 S3H0(1H � � IddISS SIM y x 1WIH0 � n, alona3s3a MOaaVg NHOP 3 W PS 'f DN13H —sloays 31 060e31NotlHs g , o YiVHaVd A3NOOa NV OB s S11VNIl A119 3001a AKm Ivoapp3,pylS � Y C > O�yg�l U) Q � w NVA117nS laVM315 ySdb� q- 0 h S16NIl Wo GP i �°oro 31voNa33 m0 W OL fiber 30, 2000 Item No.: A File No.: Z -6578-A Owner: Mary Lee McHenry Address: 5525 Scenic Drive Description: Lot 15 and part of Lot 16, Grandview Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the accessory structure area regulations of Section 36-156. Justification: I have a business at home called Fresh Herbs for Gourmets which supplies herbs to local restaurants and grocery stores. My home at present has no greenhouse, which I badly need in the winter so that I can keep some of my plants out of the winter weather. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located at 5525 Scenic Drive is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame single family residence. On October 26, 1998, the Board approved setback and building line variances to allow for substantial expansion of the home. The property is located at the corner of Scenic Drive and North Taylor Street and has a platted building line varying from 20 feet to 30 feet in width on both street frontages. The applicant now proposes to place a 9 foot X 11 foot accessory building between the home and Scenic Drive. The accessory building is to be Ol her 30, 2000 Item No.: A (Cont. placed across a platted building line and will have a street side yard setback of 1.5 - 2 feet. Although the house faces Scenic Drive, the lot fronts onto Taylor Street and the required setbacks are based on that lot orientation. The code requires accessory buildings to have a minimum setback on the street side line of 15 feet. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Although it can be argued that allowing a reduced side yard setback on this dead-end street is reasonable, there are other issues which must be considered. Other homes east of the applicant's property front onto Scenic Drive. Although the applicant's lot fronts to Taylor Street, her home faces Scenic Drive. Placement of an accessory building of this nature in the front yard is out of character with the neighborhood and could have a detrimental effect on neighboring properties. A 10 foot wide sewer easement extends through the applicant's property, parallel to Scenic Drive. The proposed building is located over that sewer easement. The Little Rock Wastewater Utility has recommended denial of the request based on the structure's proposed placement over the sewer easement. Through its previous action, the Board allowed a substantial expansion of the house. Allowing the accessory structure to be placed on the property will create the visual appearance of the site being overdeveloped. Finally, on November 29, 1999, the Board approved the applicant's home occupation which involves the growing, packaging, sales and delivery of culinary herbs and flowers. She was approved to have 3 part-time employees, working an aggregate total of 54 hours per week. The applicant has indicated that the proposed accessory building is to be a greenhouse for the purpose of growing herbs. Section 36-253(b)(6) of the Code prohibits the use of accessory buildings in relation to a home occupation. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 2000) Mary Lee McHenry and Bill Sneed were present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had discussed the issue with the Wastewater Utility and that it was possible that the sewer line 2 Ot- fiber 30, 2000 Item No.: A (Cont.) was in the street, not in the easement. As such, Wastewater might not be opposed to the item but, no written or verbal statement had been received from the utility. Ms. McHenry addressed the Board. She stated that it was her intent to build a small, attractive greenhouse and that there was no where else on the property to place the structure. She stated that most of the homes along Scenic Drive actually face to the south and have access off of South Scenic Drive. As such, most of the homes have a rear yard relationship to Scenic Drive. Gary Langlais asked Ms. McHenry if she had considered attaching the greenhouse to the home. Ms. McHenry responded that she had not. Norm Floyd commented that there were a lot of mature trees around the property and asked if they would not block sun from reaching the greenhouse. Ms. McHenry responded that the greenhouse would not get as much sun as she would like but that there was no where else on the site to place the structure. In response to a question from Gary Langlais, Ms. McHenry stated that the greenhouse was for her personal use only and would not be used in conjunction with her home occupation. Mr. Langlais noted that the Board was down to four members present and offered Ms. McHenry the opportunity to defer. She asked that the Board vote on the item. A motion was made to approve the variances subject to approval by the Wastewater Utility. The vote was 2 ayes, 2 noes and 1 absent. Due to a lack of 3 votes, either for or against the item, it was deferred to the October 30, 2000 meeting. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 30, 2000) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant was out of town and had requested that the item be deferred for one month. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the November 27, 2000 meeting. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 OL _fiber 30, 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 -6907-A Roman and Lita Novero 10800 Birchwood Drive Lot 1, Birchwood R-2 Variances are requested from the home occupation provisions of Section 36-253 to permit alteration/dressmaking as a home occupation with one non-resident employee, limited customer traffic and signage. The applicant's explanation is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family with home occupation The R-2 zoned property located at 10800 Birchwood Drive is occupied by a one-story; brick and frame, single family residence. The occupants/owners of the home propose to operate an alteration/dressmaking business in the home as a home occupation. The house has approximately 1,499 square feet of living area with an enclosed, 300 square foot garage. for a total of 1,799 square feet. The applicant proposes to utilize the area of the garage and a portion of another room, not to exceed a total of 500 square feet, for the business. The applicant proposes to have one employee who is not a resident of the home. That employee currently works part-time, 4-5 hours per day. The applicant expects O� fiber 30, 2000 Item No.: 1 (Cont. to see an average of 8 customers per day, with each customer staying at least 5-10 minutes. Business hours are proposed to be 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m., Tuesday to Friday and 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m., Saturday. The applicant is also requesting a sign which will be printed on the front window and a 2 square foot ground mounted sign. Section 36-253(b)(6) establishes the regulations for home occupations. "Dressmaking, sewing and tailoring" is a permitted home occupation. It is one of the uses specifically listed in Section 36-253(b)(6) as permitted, provided they do not violate the standards established for home occupations. There are aspects of the proposed home occupation that, in staff's opinion, require review and approval by the Board of Adjustment. • Any use requiring employees who are not residents of the dwelling must first be approved by the Board of Adjustment. The applicant has indicated that she will have one employee. That employee currently works part- time, 4-5 hours per day. • The applicant expects to see an average of 8 customers each day. Section 36-253 (b) (6) (a) (2) states "home occupations shall be permitted that do not generate traffic ... in excess of what is normal in the residential neighborhood." Although there are home occupations, such as tutoring and music instruction, that have "customer" traffic associated with them, staff has chosen to err on the side of caution and to bring this aspect of the proposed use to the Board. • The applicant is requesting signage identifying the business. Section 36-253(b) (6) (a) (6) prohibits signage other than that which may be required by other government agencies. Other than the requested signage, staff supports the proposed home occupation. The use itself is one which is specifically listed as an appropriate home occupation. Allowing one off-site employee to come to the site will not impact other properties in the area. The applicant has stated that, during business hours, her car and the off-site employee's car will be parked on the driveway area that extends beside and behind the house, leaving the double -wide driveway in front of the house open for customers. In staff's opinion, allowing an average of 8 customers each day 2 O,_ fiber 30, 2000 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) to come to the site will not generate traffic in excess of what is normal in the surrounding neighborhood. The home is located at the very fringe of the Birchwood neighborhood, at the corner of Birchwood and Shackleford. Thousands of cars pass by the eastern perimeter of the site each day. Tutoring and music instruction are home occupations which by their very nature have client or "customer" traffic coming to the home. Section 36-253(b)(6)(b) permits those uses to have up to 2 students at a time come to the home. This applicant has proposed an average of 8 customers over a 9 hour day. The applicant has stated that the customers will come to the home by appointment only. Staff does not support the request to have any signage. Staff feels that it is very important that the property remain clearly a single family residence and that there not be any changes made to the outside appearance of the property. This home occupation is not dependent upon "drop- in" traffic. Each of the customers will come by appointment only. Directions can be supplied by the applicant. The code does allow a 1 square foot, 6 foot tall ground -mounted sign on this R-2 zoned property. This sign may give only the name and address of the occupant. The code also allows one, attached "nameplate," not to exceed 1 square foot in area. A "nameplate" is defined as " a nonelectric on - premises identification sign giving only the name, address and/or occupation of an occupant." Staff believes such signage is sufficient for this use. The applicant's business is currently located at 10500 West Markham. The applicant originally approached the Planning Commission about rezoning 10800 Birchwood Drive to a PD -C to convert the entire structure into an alterations/dressmaking shop. It become clear that such a proposal was not supported either by staff or the neighborhood. At the September 14, 2000 Commission meeting, the subject of a home occupation came up. The applicant agreed to withdraw the PD -C application and to ask for approval of a home occupation accessory use permit (see File No. Z-6907). C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested home occupation accessory use permit to allow alteration/dressmaking as a home occupation at 10800 Birchwood Drive as proposed by the applicant, to include one part-time employee who does not live in the residence and an average of 8 customers per day M OLober 30, 2000 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) coming to the home by appointment only, subject to compliance with the home occupation provisions outlined in Section 36-253 (b) (6) . Staff does not support variances to allow the signage proposed by the applicant. Staff recommends that only that signage permitted in the R-2 zone as outlined in Sections 36-550 and 36-551 of the Code be permitted. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 30, 2000) The applicant, Lita Novero, was present. There was one objector present. Four letters of opposition had been sent to the Board. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval of the variances to allow one, part-time employee and an average of 8 customers per day to come to the house by appointment. Staff recommended denial of the request to have any signage. Lita Novero addressed the Board and stated that she wished to have a part-time employee and that employee could even pick up items and take them to their own home to do the alterations. In response to a question from Gary Langlais, Ms. Novero stated that she was relocating from a business location so that she could stay with her two small children and so that she could lower expenses. In response to a question from the Board, Ms. Novero stated that she would have an average of 8 customers per day and that there might be two customers at the house at the same time if one is dropping something off and the other is picking something up. Ms. Novero stated that she and her husband each had one car and that there would be adequate space on the driveway for the customers to park. Fred Gray asked Ms. Novero if signage was crucial since her business was by appointment only and did not have drop-in traffic. Ms. Novero responded that she would like a sign so that new customers could more easily find the house. Floyd Boyd, of 520 Springwood Dr., spoke in opposition. Mr. Boyd spoke at length about traffic concerns in the area. He stated that the Noveros had another house and asked if they would be required to live in this house. Norm Floyd responded that they would have to live at 10800 Birchwood for them to have a valid home occupation. 4 O� fiber 30, 2000 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) Norm Floyd asked Mr. Boyd if he felt the house still had residential viability. Mr. Boyd responded that it had been occupied as a residence for 30 years and that he felt it should continue to be strictly a residence. Mr. Boyd reiterated his concerns about traffic. In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Dana Carney of the Planning Staff stated that enforcement of the approved home occupation permit would be ensued by a diligent enforcement staff and an active, involved neighborhood. William Ruck voiced concerns about traffic in the area, particularly at the intersection of Shackleford and Birchwood. Ms. Novero stated that her average of 8 customers per day would come by appointment throughout the day and would not create additional traffic problems. After a brief discussion, the Board chose to vote on each aspect of the variance application separately. Fred Gray commented that the neighborhood was a good tool to help staff keep up with the home occupation to assure continued compliance. William Ruck commented that this same applicant had previously attempted to rezone this site to commercial. Floyd Boyd reiterated his concerns about traffic and again questioned Ms. Novero whether her family had another home. Ms. Novero responded that they did have another home. A motion was made to allow the home occupation to have one, part-time employee. The vote was 3 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent. A motion was made to allow up to 8 customers per day, by appointment only and only during the business hours stipulated in the application. The vote was 3 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent. A motion was made to allow the signage requested by the applicant. The vote was 0 ayes, 5 noes and 0 absent. 5 September. 22, 2000 City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR. 72201-1334 Dear Sir/Madam, We Are writting your good office in a proposal to relocate our business, an alteration/dressmaking at our residence which is located at 10800 Birchwood Drive Little Rock, AR. 72211-5702. Our residence is a 3 bedroom and 2 bathroom house. It has approximately 1,499 sq. ft. livable area, and the enclosed garage has an area of 300 sq. ft., total of 1,799 square feet.We planto use the garage and some part of the extension at the rear side of the house. The business will operate 5 days a week, with hours as follows: 9:00am to 6:OOpm, Tuesday to Friday 10:00am to 3:OOpm, Saturdays We also ask for consideration of One employee, who at present work part time 4 to 5 hours a day, A sign that will be printed on the glass window, and a small sign " The Fitting Room/ Professional alteration with dimension of 2ft.x lft. Custumers will be by appointment only. There will be an average of 8 custumers a day, and stay at at least 5 to 10 minutes. During the business hours, we will park our vehicles at the backyard to leave the driveway open for the custumers. We believe that dressmaking is a very queit business and there is no adverse effect to the neighborhood. We are very hopeful that you would give us the opportunity of doing our business at home. Thank you very much. Sincerely, �' Roman C. Novero and Lita I. Novero Zr6l6qowA OLober 30, 2000 Item No.: 2 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: Z-6921 Koon Properties LLC 7615 Fluid Drive Lot 2C, River Subdivision C-3 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-301 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Unfinished motel Motel 1. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. Maximum driveway width at property line is 361. 2. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 3. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. 4. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development (Fluid Drive sidewalks and Fourche Dam Pike widening). 5. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 6. Proposed concrete walk around pool should not extend into drainage easement; relocate. B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property located at 7615 Fluid Drive is occupied by a two-story motel which is currently under O-i_fiber 30, 2000 Item No.: 2 (Cont. construction. A previous owner began the project but abandoned it with the building only partially completed. A new owner has restarted the development and is in the process of finishing the building. It was discovered by the new owner that a portion of the drive-through canopy at the entrance was built over a platted 25 foot building line resulting in a front yard setback of 22 feet. The new owner would also like to install a swimming pool. The pool is proposed to also be built across the Fluid Drive perimeter building line and the I-440 access road building line. The pool is proposed to have a front yard setback of 17 feet. A 25 foot front yard setback is required in the C-3 zone. Staff is supportive of the requested variances for the drive-through canopy. The encroachment involves only a small corner of the canopy. The canopy is unenclosed. Allowing this minor, corner intrusion to remain will have no impact on adjacent properties or on traffic in the street. The canopy edge is actually located 33± feet from the curb of Fluid Drive. Fluid Drive is not a heavily traveled street. It dead -ends approximately 1,000 feet west of this site. Staff is also supportive of the relatively minor variance for the pool itself, however there are problems associated with the 8 foot wide concrete walk which wraps around the pool. The variance for the pool is only for a corner intrusion and should have no impact on neighboring properties or traffic on Fluid Drive. The 8 foot concrete walk extends into a drainage easement. There are stormwater detention issues which are affected by allowing the walk to be built in this area. Staff would prefer to see the pool rotated 900 and moved closer to the I-440 Access Road. Allowing a greater portion of the pool to be built across the platted building line adjacent to the access ramp will have no affect on adjacent properties or entrance ramp traffic. This would allow the pool to remain near the office, which is desired by the applicant, and would remove the concrete walk out of the drainage easement, which is desired by staff. If the Board approves the building line variances for the canopy and pool, the applicant will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line(s) as approved by the Board. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to 2 011 --ober 30, 2000 Item No.: 2 (Cont. determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and building line variances for the canopy subject to a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as approved by the Board. Staff does not support the variances for the pool, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 30, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Board that the applicant had relocated the pool as proposed by staff. As such, staff recommended approval of the requested building line and setback variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Public Works comments including any variance or waiver of those requirements as may be granted by the Director of Public Works or the Board of Directors. 2. A one lot replat reflecting the change in the building lines for the canopy and pool. 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 J. B. VAN HOOK REALTY, INC. Commercial, Industrial & Investment Real Estate 1100 N. Hughes Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 664-7554 • (501) 663-6382(Fax) • (501) 681-5014(Mobil) Email Address: jimvh@mail.snider.net September 7, 2000 Mr. Jim Lawson City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Zoning Variance Lot 2C River Subdivision Pulaski County Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Mr. Lawson: This will have reference to the attached Application for Zoning Variance on the above subject property. A former owner of the subject unfinished motel, constructed the motel building, one corner of the canopy three to four feet into building setback line. It is proposed that the setback line be adjusted to allow a canopy to remain as constructed. Justification and reasons for requesting a variance are as follows: 1) alteration of the canopy will involve a change in the internal structural configuration design of the canopy, which might lead to unsafe canopy if required to chop of one corner, and relocate the structural support. 2) Alteration of the canopy will vary from Travel Lodge design. Sincerely, Br J. B. Van Hook Realty, Inc. CC: Walter Koon Buyer: Walter Kootii OL _ober 30, 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: WWW Donna Bostic #1 Hogan Drive Lot 1, Ouletta First Subdivision RIM Variances are requested from the accessory structure setback and separation provisions of Section 36-156 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family The carport is located in the 50 foot triangular area regulated by the City's blind corner ordinance. The carport is to remain unenclosed on all sides to prevent obstruction to visibility. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located at #1 Hogan Drive is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single family residence. The residence previously had a 12.2 feet by 21.7 feet carport addition on the front which extended across the platted building line and nearly to the front property line. On January 28, 2000, that carport collapsed under the weight of snow and ice. On April 3, 2000, the applicant installed a freestanding, 12 feet by 20 feet, metal carport structure to replace the one that had been destroyed and removed. This new structure also extends to the front property line, is located across a platted building line and tucks under 0�,-..ober 30, 2000 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) the eave/overhang of the house. The code requires accessory structures to have a minimum front yard setback of 60 feet and to be separated from the principal structure by at least 6 feet. The applicant was issued a notice by the codes enforcement staff and subsequently filed for variances to allow the carport to remain. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The previous carport was in existence at the time the area was annexed into the City. It had no obvious detrimental effect on the neighborhood. The new, free-standing carport has been placed in exactly the same location. Staff does not believe the lack of separation between structures is an issue of concern since the new carport is constructed entirely of metal and is open on all sides, allowing unobstructed access to the house. The carport is located back far enough from the intersection of Hogan Drive and Mize Road that it does not create a sight -distance problem. Staff believes it is not appropriate to require a replat of the building line for this free-standing metal carport structure. Granting the setback and building line variances to allow this specific structure to remain should be sufficient. If at some point in the future, the applicant decides to replace the free-standing carport with a permanent carport addition to the house, she will have to return to the Board and a replat will be an appropriate requirement at that time. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback, building line and separation variances to allow the metal, 12 feet by 20 feet, free-standing carport structure, subject to the carport remaining open and unenclosed on all sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 30, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to the carport remaining open and unenclosed on all sides. 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 Da t -74 OL Q 6-e� �,�.�.�-• �,,� (�,�.,�. -------- Lj ^L~. ru- . _- � 0 (] ~' ----- ' OOt—ober 30, 2000 Item No.: 4 File No.: Owner: Address: Z-6927 Donna Elaine Pigge 1900 S. Grant Street Description: North '-2 of Lots 1 and 2, Block 25, Bateman's Subdivision of Cherry and Cox Addition Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: R-2 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit construction of an addition with reduced side and front yard setbacks. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family The R-2 zoned property located at 1900 S. Grant Street is occupied by a small, one-story, frame, single family residence. The applicant proposes to construct a 6 feet by 11.5 feet addition onto the front of the house to expand one room of the home. The proposed addition is to maintain the existing side yard setback of 5 feet and will result in a front yard setback of 20 feet. The code requires side and front yard setbacks of 5.5 feet and 25 feet respectively for this lot. There is no building line issue. Staff is supportive of the requested setback variances. Although the main body of the house now has a front yard Oc:�ober 30, 2000 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) setback of 26 feet, an existing porch extends beyond that point an additional 4.5 feet, creating a front yard setback of 21.5 feet. The proposed addition is not much larger than the porch and will extend 1.5 feet beyond the porch. The additional encroachment is very minor and should have no impact on neighboring properties or traffic on Grant Street. The street itself dead -ends at the southern end of this block. The .5 foot side yard variance is also very minor and should not affect the adjacent property. The existing house now has a 5 foot side yard which is typical of most of the homes in the area which are located on 50 foot wide lots. The house on the lot adjacent to the south actually has a side yard setback of 8-9 feet, providing adequate separation between structures. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested front and side yard setback variances as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 30, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 2 49/19/.. 13:42 FAX 501 371 4892 LRPD OFFICE of CHIEF C]002 September 20, 2000 To: The Board of Adjustment As owner of the North one half of Lots 1 and 2, Block 25, batemans Subdivision of Celulty and Cox Adition of the Cith of Little Rock, ,Arkansas, Y am requesting a residential zoning variance. This request is to extend an existing room six feet east. Approximately 63 years ago when the existing structure was built, lot divisions were made and configured run -ring North anal South rather than East and West, properly. The one story single family dwelling sits on the North one half of Lots 1 and 2. Because of this configuration, the West one half of Lot 1 is where the existizig structure sits and the East one half of Lot 1 is Grant Street and properties located at 1901 South Grant Street. The existing porch extends five feet beyond the front door of the structure. The requested six foot extention world only add a one foot dimension to the current structure. Your approval of the requestS�Jesidential variance is appreciated. r3�17 S E. Piggee Z -W &q JL � O,._ober 30, 2000 Item No.: 5 File No.: Z-6928 Owner: Marcelline Giroir Address: 4822 Country Club Blvd. Description: Lot 8, Block 14, Newton's Addition and North 15 feet of Country Club Blvd. right-of-way abandoned by Ordinance No. 18,323 Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: R-2 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 and the fence height provisions of Section 36-516. The proposed single car garage, ramp and covered entry are to accommodate a resident with hip and lumbar disabilities. The current carport is not wide enough for a ramp. Single Family Single Family The R-2 zoned lot located at 4822 Country Club Blvd. is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single family residence. The applicant proposes to construct a single -car garage and porch addition onto the front of the house, resulting in a front yard setback of 10 feet. The applicant also proposes to enclose the front yard area with a decorative brick fence, creating a courtyard. The brick fence will be 6 feet in height and will consist of a solid 0, -ober 30, 2000 Item No.: 5 (Cont. wall on the side property line and brick columns with metal inserts across the front, even with the porch addition. The code requires a front yard setback of 25 feet for this lot and limits the height of fences erected within setbacks adjacent to streets to 4 feet. Although this is a fairly substantial intrusion into the front yard setback, there are circumstances unique to this property that give rise to staff's support for the issue. The applicant first approached staff several months ago with this proposal. At that time, the proposed addition would have extended over the front property line and into the Country Club Blvd. right-of-way. After determining that a franchise was not an appropriate remedy, the applicant was advised to request the abandonment of a portion of the right-of-way adjacent to her property. Country Club Blvd. was platted with an 80 foot right-of-way, 30 feet wider than called for by the Master Street Plan for a residential street. The applicant subsequently filed an application to abandon 15 feet of the right-of-way. The Planning Commission approved the abandonment as a consent agenda item. On August 1, 2000, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 18,323 abandoning the 15 feet of right-of-way. Throughout the entire process, it was clear to the Commission and the Board that the purpose of the abandonment was to accommodate the proposed addition. Now that the abandonment of the right-of-way is complete and the additional 15 feet added to the applicant's property, the proposal becomes one of requesting a reduced front yard setback based on the new front property line. Although the addition will have a 10 foot front yard setback, it will actually sit 24 feet back of the curb of Country Club Blvd. This distance provides for adequate back -out space and safe sight -distance. The entire side yard east of the house and a large portion of the rear yard were paved several years ago. The applicant proposes to remove this pavement and return that area to landscaped yard. The house as recently as a month ago had a 24 foot deep carport attached to the east side. This carport was built to the east property line. The applicant has removed that structure and that area will also be returned to yard. The garage and an accompanying handicap ramp are to accommodate the resident who has hip and lumbar disabilities. 2 Oc:cober 30, 2000 Item No.: 5 (Cont. In the larger scope of things, the fence height variance is relatively minor and should have no greater impact on the surrounding properties than the garage/porch addition. Staff believes the proposed remodeling will result in a more attractive home that will be compatible with the neighborhood. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested front yard setback and fence height variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 30, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 Ot—ober 30, 2000 Item No.: 6 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-6930 Kevin and Rosalina Johnson 2218 Sawgrass Drive Lot 27, Pebble Beach Estates R-2 Variances are requested from the accessory structure area regulations of Section 36-156, 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 R-2 zoned property located at 2218 Sawgrass Drive is occupied by a new, two-story, brick and frame, single family residence. The property is a corner lot and has 25 foot platted building lines on both the Sawgrass Drive and Dorado Beach Drive perimeters. The house has been pushed even farther off of the front property line, providing a 34 foot front yard setback and further reducing the rear yard area. Additionally, there is a 7.5 foot utility easement along the rear property line. The combination of the siting of the house, the platted building lines and the utility easement greatly reduces the buildable area available in the rear yard. The applicant wishes to build a 15 feet by 35 feet swimming pool in the rear yard. Due to the previously 0, --ober 30, 2000 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) mentioned constraints, the pool is proposed to be located beyond the 25 foot building line adjacent to Dorado Beach Drive. The pool will have a street side yard setback of 11 feet. The code requires accessory structures, including swimming pools, to have a street side yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant also proposes to enclose the rear yard and a portion of the side yard with a 6 foot tall privacy fence for security and privacy purposes. The fence is to extend across the platted building line to the property line adjacent to Dorado Beach Drive. The code limits the height of fences erected within setbacks adjacent to streets to 4 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Apart from the building line issue, the 4 foot reduction in the street side yard setback for the pool is relatively minor. The pool is an "in -the -ground" model and no above -grade structures will extend into the setback or building line area. Allowing the two foot fence height variance to permit a 6 foot tall fence versus a 4 foot tall fence seems reasonable in light of privacy and security concerns related to the pool. The home under construction on the lot adjacent to the west does face Dorado Beach Drive. This adjacent home is located 30± feet west of the common lot line but there will still be some visual impact from this proposed fence extending into the "front yard" along Dorado Beach Drive. That impact is somewhat reduced by the difference in elevation between the two properties. The adjacent property is somewhat higher than the applicant's property. In any event, the opinion of this neighboring property owner should be taken into account when considering the fence height variance. If the Board approves the building line variance for the pool, the applicant will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as approved by the Board. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. Additionally, the applicant should determine if the proposed fence is a violation of the Pebble Beach Estates Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height, building line and accessory structure setback variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: 2 O.-cober 30, 2000 Item No.: 6 (Cont. 1. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line for the swimming pool. 2. The fence is to be constructed in "good neighbor" fashion, with the finished side facing outward. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 30, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. Staff informed the Board that several of the required signatures on the notice form were obtained 7 or 8 days prior to the hearing, not 10 days as required by the Board's Bylaws. A motion was made to accept the notices as completed by the applicant. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. Gary Langlais commented to Kevin Johnson, the applicant, that it appeared he was building a pool in his neighbor's front yard. Mr. Johnson stated that he had met with the owner of the adjacent property and the builder who is constructing the home on that lot. He stated that neither individual had any objections. Mr. Johnson stated that he had also discussed the issue with Winrock, the developer of the subdivision, and Winrock also had no objection to the proposal. Mr. Johnson stated that the home on the adjacent lot was at a higher elevation than his own home, reducing the visual impact of the fence and pool. In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Mr. Johnson stated that the pool could not be located elsewhere in the rear yard, due to the slope of the lot and the existing deck. Chairman Langlais called the question, including staff comments and conditions. The vote was 4 ayes, 1 noe and 0 absent. 3 Kevin Johnson 2218 Sawgrass Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 (501) 225-7310 23 September 2000 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ref Residential Zoning Variance Dear Sir: I recently purchased a new home located in Pebble Beach Estates. My home is the first one to be completed in the new Phase II addition. I am located on a comer lot (Sawgrass and Dorado Beach Drive) I am requesting 2 zoning variances. They are: To install a 6 foot privacy fence To install an inground swimming pool 15' X 35' Variance #1 Request I am planning to install a swimming pool in my back yard. I need to install a 6 foot privacy fence around the yard for safety reasons, in order to keep small children away from the pool and out of the yard. I am requesting permission to install a 6 foot privacy fence around the back of my home and along the street side of the house up close to the driveway. The PIN is located 8 feet off of Dorado Beach Drive. I am requesting permission to install my fence just inside of the PIN at 10 feet off of the street. Variance #2 Request: I am also requesting permission to install my swimming pool just inside of the privacy fence area at 5 feet away from the PIN (13 feet from the street). Due to the size limitations of my back yard, there is no other possible way of installing a pool without this adjustment. The backside of the yard facing the street is very large, and ideal for my purpose. Z_6930 Summary: There are no utilities located anywhere in this area. The 6 foot fence would not cause any street obstructions. It would improve the appearance of this area and provide more privacy. I have talked with the Developer of this area and he has no objections to my requests. In addition, I have spoken with the other Home Builders around me and they also have no objections and fully support my request. There is another home located just down the street (Sawgrass and Montvale) that recently received a variance on there 6 foot privacy fence that also extends right up to the PIN. The layout of my fence will be nearly exact with that. Your most serious consideration of my (2) requests are greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact me at (501) 225-7310 Home or (318) 473-3390 Work. Sincerely, Kevi Johnson O -ober 30, 2000 Item No. 7 Name: Address: Gary R. Jackson 22 Melinda Drive Type of Issue: Administrative Appeal of staff's denial of a request to permit parking of commercial vehicles in a residential zone. Staff Report: Gary Jackson is the occupant of the home located on the R-2 zoned property at 22 Melinda Drive. Mr. Jackson has recently been cited by the Codes Enforcement staff for violation of Section 36- 512 of the Code which prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles in residential zones. The Enforcement notice was issued in response to a complaint filed by a neighbor. Mr. Jackson has lived at 22 Melinda Drive for approximately 23 years. He has been self-employed for 18 years and has over those years parked in his driveway an open bed trailer, a 20 foot covered trailer and/or a box van. Currently, the 20 foot covered trailer and the box van are kept at his residence. Mr. Jackson is in the furniture business and uses the trailer and van for the business. The furniture is stored in a rented warehouse space. Section 36-512(a) states: "...no portion of any lot or parcel of land zoned for residential usage ... shall be utilized for the parking of commercial vehicles with a load carrying capacity of one ton or greater." Section 36-512(b) states that trailers who designed intent is storage or transport of material or equipment (4) and vans of one ton or greater in load carrying capacity (6) are expressly prohibited at any time in residential zones. The commercial vehicle section was added to the Ordinance in 1990. There is no provision for nonconformity. The Planning Director may approve variances from the provisions of Section 36-512 provided the property owner can evidence a circumstance or hardship unique to the property. Mr. Jackson, through his attorney, did request just such a variance. In light O�,ober 30, 2000 Item No.: 7 (Cont. of the neighbor's complaint, Jim Lawson the Director of Planning and Development felt it would be inappropriate to approve the variance. Appeals from the administrative judgment of the staff are to be filed with the Board of Adjustment. Subsequent to Mr. Lawson's action, the applicant did file this appeal. He is asking that the Board continue to allow his parking of the commercial vehicles at his residence. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 30, 2000) The applicant, Gary Jackson, and his attorney, Casey Tucker, were present. Staff presented the item. Gary Langlais commented that he had observed Mr. Jackson's truck parked in the street. Mr. Langlais commented that it appeared to create a traffic hazard. Casey Tucker addressed the Board. She responded to Mr. Langlais' comment by stating that Mr. Jackson had been parking either a truck or trailer in the same spot on the street and there had never been an accident as a result. She stated that Mr. Jackson was in the furniture business and kept his inventory in a U -haul storage center. Ms. Tucker stated that U -haul would not allow Mr. Jackson to keep his truck and trailer at that location. Fred Gray asked if Mr. Jackson had considered locating his business in a commercial location where he could also keep his truck and trailer. Ms. Tucker responded that Mr. Jackson had operated his business in the same manner for 18 years and had not found it necessary to consider relocating. Norm Floyd commented that he also felt that parking the truck or trailer on the street created a traffic hazard. In response to a question from Gary Langlais, Mr. Jackson stated that there were 4 vehicles kept at the site; his pick-up, his wife's SUV, the business truck and the trailer. Norm Floyd stated that he was not opposed to Mr. Jackson's business vehicles but that he would like to see them moved off of the street. Mr. Jackson stated that he could widen his driveway, allowing all vehicles to be moved off of the street. 2 O, -..ober 30, 2000 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) The chair called the question on the issue of Mr. Jackson's appeal. The vote was 4 ayes, 1 noe and 0 absent. By its vote, the Board approved Mr. Jackson keeping the commercial truck and trailer at his home. Staff noted for the record that the Board's action included no conditions. The Board members acknowledged staff's comment. 3 BARRON, BARRON & TUCKER, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN W. BARRON, JR. 212 CENTER STREET THOMAS L. BARRoN SUrrE 600 CASEY R. TUCKER LrrrLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 September 7, 2000 Mr. Jim Lawson City of Little Rock Planning & Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TELEPHONE(501)376-7934 FAx (501) 376-7942 BARRONPA@SWBELL.NET RE: My Client: Gary Jackson Courtesy Notice: 7562 Subject Property: 22 Melinda Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Dear Mr. Lawson: It is my understanding you are the Director of Planning and Development for the city of Little Rock. Dana Carney kindly advised that you might be able to grant a variance in relation to commercial vehicles being parked in a residential subdivision. My client, Gary Jackson, resides at 22 Melinda Drive, located in Town and Country Subdivision in southwest Little Rock. He has lived at that address for approximately 23 years. Melinda Drive connects two adjoining streets — McDaniel Drive and Edwina Drive; however, those streets have their own entrance as well. In other words, Melinda Drive is not a busy street. Mr. Jackson has been self-employed for approximately 18 years and over the years has parked in his driveway one of the following, an open -bed trailer, a 20 foot covered trailer and/or a box van. Presently, Mr. Jackson parks a 20 foot covered trailer in his driveway and a box van on the street. Mr. Jackson discovered a first and "final" Courtesy Notice laying in his driveway on August 30, 2000 that he was in violation of two city ordinances regarding parking of the trailer. He has never had any complaints by neighbors of his trailer or the van. Moreover, there has never been a traffic problem or accident related to the vehicles being parked in the street. Given that there have not been any problems to his knowledge, he would very much like to continue parking the trailer and van at his residence. Since he is self-employed and uses the trailer and van for business purposes, he does not have anywhere to park them. Please advise whether you will grant Mr. Jackson administrative relief from the ordinances and allow him to park the trailer and van at his residence. Author's email: casey@barronbarrontucker.com CRT/jm Very truly yours, BARRON, BARRON & TUCKER, P.A. Casey R.uc Author's email: cascy@barronbarrontucker.com City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Jim Lawson 723 West Markham Director Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 (501) 371-4790 FAX (501) 371-6863 September 12, 2000 Casey Tucker Barron, Barron and Tucker, P.A. 212 Center Street, Suite 600 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: 22 Melinda Drive, Gary Jackson Dear Ms. Tucker: I have reviewed your September 7, 2000 letter regarding the commercial vehicle issue at 22 Melinda Drive. I also spoke with the Codes Enforcement staff to determine the source of our involvement in the matter. A complaint was made by a neighborhood resident alleging that your client was in violation of City Code by parking commercial vehicles on his property. That allegation was confirmed by our staff and -a notice was issued. Since a neighbor filed a complaint, I feel it would be inappropriate for me to approve a variance allowing the commercial vehicles to remain on the residentially zoned property. This decision may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. I have attached the required appeal application form for your use. The appeal should be filed with Dana Carney, Zoning Administrator, at our office. The next filing deadline is September 22, 2000 for the October 30, 2000 Board of Adjustment meeting. If you have any question, please call me at 371-4790 or Dana Carney at 371-6817. Sincerel L n, Director cc: Codes Enforcement File BARRON, BARRON & TUCKER, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN W. BARRON, JR. 212 CENTER STREET THoMAs L. BARRON SurrE 600 CASEY R. TUCKER LrITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 September 7, 2000 Board of Adjustment Department Planning & Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TELEPHONE (501) 376-7934 FAX (501) 376-7942 BARRONPA@SWBELL.NET RE: My Client: Gary Jackson Subject Property: 22 Melinda Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Town and Country Estates Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: My client, Gary Jackson, resides at 22 Melinda Drive, located in Town and Country Estates in southwest Little Rock. Town and Country Estates is a small residential development with 4 main streets and 3 small coves. Melinda Drive connects two adjoining streets — McDaniel Drive and Edwina Drive; however, those streets have their own entrance as well. In other words, Melinda Drive is not a busy street. Mr. Jackson has lived at 22 Melinda Drive for approximately 23 years. He has been self- employed for approximately 18 years and over those years has parked in his driveway one of the following, an open -bed trailer, a 20 foot covered trailer and/or a box van. Presently, Mr. Jackson parks a 20 foot covered trailer in his driveway and a box van on the street. He has had a furniture business for approximately 15 years and uses the trailer and van for his business. He rents warehouse space to store the furniture, but he does not have anywhere to park the trailer or van near the warehouse. To his knowledge, there have never been any complaints by neighbors of his parking the trailer or the van on or in front of his property. Moreover, there has never been a traffic problem or accident related to these vehicles being parked in the street. Please consider granting Mr. Jackson a variance from the zoning ordinance that prohibits parking of commercial vehicles on or near the property. I have enclosed his application and filing fee in the amount of $50.00 for consideration. Author's email: casey@barronbarrontucker.com CRT/n-ilk Enclosure Very truly yours, BARRON, BARRON TUCKER, P.A. Casey R. Tuc er Author's email: casey@barronbarrontucker.com O' --ober 30, 2000 Item No. 8 Name: James Brown Address: 12725 Heinke Road Type of Issue: Appeal of staff's denial of a home occupation. The applicant proposes to utilize a portion of an accessory building for the business and is requesting a separate electric meter for the building. Staff Report: The R-2 zoned tract located at 12725 Heinke Road is occupied by a single family residence and a recently completed storage building. The storage building is located 300± feet north of the house. The occupant of the home and his son, also an occupant of the home, operate a janitorial service. The business has been located at 72 Westminister Drive. The applicant now desires to operate as a home occupation. He is requesting to utilize 500 square feet of the storage building to store equipment and supplies for his business. Most all of the business' everyday needs are actually kept at the various account locations. Carpet cleaning equipment is kept in the applicant's van. Section 36-253(b)(6)(a) 5 states: Home occupations shall be permitted that will not involve accessory buildings. Based on the applicant's indication that he will be using a small portion of his storage building for the business, his privilege license application for a home occupation was denied. The applicant has appealed that action to the Board and is asking that the Board determine it is appropriate to allow his home occupation, as described in the attached letter, including the use of a portion of the storage building. Additionally, due to the distance between the house and the storage building, the applicant is requesting permission to have a separate electric meter on the storage building. Staff brings this issue to the Board to determine if it is appropriate, in light of the applicant's proposed home occupation involving the storage building, to allow the separate meter. O' --ober 30, 2000 Item No.: 8 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 30, 2000) The applicant, James Brown, was present. Staff presented the item. Mr. Brown stated that his was a small business, employing only him and his son. He stated that he wanted to move the business to his home in order to save money. Mr. Brown stated that his "office" consisted of a desk, telephone and answering machine. In response to a question, Mr. Brown stated that the materials and equipment kept in the storage building were not used on a daily basis, rather they were used on a quarterly or monthly basis. Mr. Brown stated that the storage building was located approximately 170 feet from the house and it would be expensive to extend power from the house to the storage building. Norm Floyd commented that he did not have a problem with the business use but that he did have concerns about allowing a separate electric meter. Mr. Floyd expressed concern that allowing separate utilities could make it easier for the property to be divided and a separate commercial business established in the commercial style storage building. Norm Floyd noted that there was an existing power pole located midway between the two structures. He suggested that Mr. Brown move the meter to the pole and run power from it to the storage building. Thereby, having only one meter on the property, serving both structures. Mr. Brown agreed. A motion was made to approve Mr. Brown's appeal application with the exception that there be only one electric meter on the property. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 2 October 3, 2000, To: Board of Adustment From: James H. Brown 12725 Heinke Road Mablevale, Ar. 72103 Subj: Residential Zoning Variance I have been in business since June 1989, in operating a ServiceMASTER Franchise dealing with Jantorial Services. My house located at 12725 Heinke Road in Mablevale burned to the ground in February 1995. I applied for building permits on 5-26-95 for rebuilding my house and a storage building. I completed my house in October 1995 but did not have the funds to build storage building at that time. I have had extensions put on building permit 3 times during the period froml995 to present. During this period of time between 1995 and present time. I have lost two partners in my business and I'm still involved in a lawsuit with ServiceMASTER. Since February 1997 I have been operating my business by myself and my son, which lives at home with me. My business location presently is at 72 Westminster Drive, where we have operated since 1992. My business consist of Jantorial accounts and Residential and Commericial carpet cleaning. I have no need for this office since 1997 except for storage of equipment and supplies. My business operates off answering service and pagers. I have just been able to get funds to build my storage building which was completed on September 14th, 2000. My request is that I be able to move my business equipment and supplies into my storage building located at 12725 Heinke Road. The following items would be what would be stored there: 2 desks, copier, computor equipment, table, 4 filing cabinets, 1 small automatic scrubber, 1 propane buffer, 10 vaccum cleaners, 1 proable extractor, 1 dryclean machine, 6 barrels, 6 mop buckets w/wringers, 11 blowers, 7 de-humifiers, 3 floor scrubbers, 15 cases of chemicals and waxes and storing of old files and guide books. All these items can be put is less than 500 S.F. of buiding. The remaining area of building would be for personal work area, tractor and race car. There is no reason for business activity within the building except for accounting and using equipment which is stored there, for a job requiring a piece of equipment. My Janitorial Accounts have areas to store my everyday needs to service the acounts. My carpet cleaning is performed with truck mount which is inside my work van. I was also requesting a meter base on my buiding being that my house is over 100 yards away, with under ground service and the power pole is right beside the building. Thank you for your time and I hope that we can work together on this. James H. Brown 0 --ober 30, 2000 Item No. 9 File No.: Z -5616-A Name: Leroy and Josie Hamaker Address: 15602 Mooser Lane Type of Issue: Request for rehearing Staff Report: On September 25, 2000 the Board approved setback and building line variances for a period of 10 years allowing the multi - sectional manufactured home to remain where it had been placed on the property at 15602 Mooser Lane. There were no objectors present at the meeting, no letters of opposition had been received by staff and, subsequent to the application being filed for the September 25 hearing, no telephone calls of opposition. On September 26, 2000, Kelton Brown, owner of property located across Rummell Road, submitted a letter voicing objection to the Board's action and requesting a rehearing. In his letter, Mr. Brown states that he was not notified of the Board's September 25, 2000 hearing. Mr. Brown was the one who brought the issue to staff's attention, prompting the September 25 hearing. The notice form submitted by the applicant, giving the date and time of the hearing appears to have Mr. Brown's signature. Article V of the Board's Bylaws states: 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 04�ober 30, 2000 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) 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 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 require 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 applicant and Mr. Brown were notified that the request for rehearing would be placed on the Board's October 30, 2000 agenda. If the Board chooses to rehear the item, it will be placed on the November 27, 2000 agenda. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 30, 2000) Leroy and Josie Hamaker were present. Kelton Brown was present to request the rehearing. Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, explained the procedure and stated that the Board must determine if there is new evidence which could not reasonably have been presented at the last hearing. Kelton Brown addressed the Board and stated that he did not receive timely notice, that he was notified only a day or two prior to the meeting. Mr. Brown stated that he did not receive notice from staff and others in the neighborhood did. Mr. Brown stated that there were others in the neighborhood who were opposed to the item. In response to a question from the Chair, Dana Carney of the Planning Staff noted that Mr. Brown had signed the notice form on September 14, 2000 at 8:35 p.m., 11 days prior to the September 25, 2000 hearing. Mr. Carney also stated that there was no staff notification to any area residents or property owners. Norm Floyd asked Mr. Brown where the other neighborhood residents were who were allegedly opposed to the issue. Mr. Brown stated that they were not present but that they would come if a rehearing was scheduled. 2 0,--ober 30, 2000 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) Mr. Brown stated that he would help the Hamakers relocate the home. Fred Gray asked if he had talked with the Hamakers about moving the home. Mr. Brown responded that it would take the Board denying the Hamaker's variance request to force them to consider that option. Gary Langlais asked Mr. Hamaker if Mr. Brown had made overtures to him about helping to move the home. Mr. Hamaker responded that Mr. Brown had not, that Mr. Brown had cursed Mrs. Hamaker when she approached him with the notice form and it would take several thousand dollars to relocate the home. Norm Floyd asked Mr. Hamaker if he would agree to move the house if somebody paid the relocation cost. Mr. Hamaker responded that he would. In response to a question from Mr. Floyd, Mr. Brown stated that he would not pay the entire cost but that others might help him pay for the relocation. After a brief discussion of whether there was, in fact, any new evidence, a motion was made to rehear the item. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 5 noes and 0 absent. 3 City of Little Rock Department of Flanning ana-Ueivelopment Planning Zoning and 723 West Markham Subdivision Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 (501) 371-4790 October 2, 2000 Leroy and Josie Hamaker 15602 Mooser Lane Little Rock, AR 72223 Re: Board of Adjustment action Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hamaker: On September 25, 2000, the Little Rock Board of Adjustment approved your requested setback and building line variances for a period of 10 years and also deferred the required replat for a corresponding length of time. On September 26, 2000, I received a letter from Kelton Brown, President of Ridgelea Development Corporation, 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 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. The request for rehearing will be put on the October 30, 2000 agenda. The meeting begins at 2:00 and is held in the Board of Directors' chamber in City Hall, 500 W. Markham. If the Board votes to grant a rehearing, it will be scheduled for the November 27, 2000 meeting. I encourage you to be present at this October 30, 2000 meeting in support of your application. If you have any questions, please call me at 371-6817. Sinc rely: Dana Carney, Zoning Admi is ator Cc: Kelton Brown 6 Eagle Glenn Cove Little Rock, AR 72223 RIDGELEA DEV=LOPStIENT LvRP. 6 EAGLE GLENN COVE LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 o 0- r T y or- (-(T7-Le- RdCl-- M R, 'DAWR O-ARNG'Y MR, CAR NCY -�t-T WAS ROOG87-' 70 MY ll— rE1TidW FP,om some 7-94T INE THIS �Lc� Poosg AT 7 -Hc- :vN-rCKSCCTlC)4 oY- Roniw 1, FOAL I�Nb rroosEW t A N& WAS z-t� veaLATIOA) OF Cl-ry 7-14 AT w A S /\T 1 -/l47 - 1_ o C7� 7-lC)d wA v A N b A A16 k) TRA t L Ec2 WAS ��c�U�t�T .� r� AFT "- T�JE IPEOP6X7Y W AS ALSa A ri 611� 7 -PC 1Vc/-50-OCA'L,64 U)AS -z7 -r WAS t�15cDV�[Z=b 11 AT AS, OF SC—T- e ACk E QV612 t2' 1 � rl,l� 0w46 -P6 W6I?E T 6A) L-7 De,6® 7-0 AS K Folz A VA rpt ANCA of T4 6; C- -bei ' w H teN -'9-y w6A Iab of ►IZE� s T�v Y� TSE T�r9 t �c, �� N �>�� ov TN 6 AJ G— Q c1 E57"E TN -T N e A TTS N "ie) iV O F rl-1,57 OF A hs"U<5 7-M 6 N . TN� /-I CAP, r wli& Sc 0cwl'a U�j �S SE for oo -r f.•/� S N0T- A)67"1FI Eb OFThrE 1�6A,,Q I'16 Aa jL) W6&tF ANY of Mr /f45'1 6- y t-?0PE, i�cs�E�F-u�Cy /�&K- roR A f E6fi flVc, O -N) rids of %l rn N rJ S A T E ITE(-,FTV"ED s a c -s p�-C/-y )l z) o g,5 SEP 2 2000 %�a'6�x'Cj2t BY: Till� 0 O U W W Z r�r^ VI D a LL 0 Q M0 W ME 0 I CD WC no Q m Q z W U) m J Z 0 wLL Z � 2 CD � OJ � Q U p LL C� 0 I CD WC no Q m Q z W U) m October 30, 2000 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. Date: Z 0C) Chairm