Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_03 31 2003LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES MARCH 31, 2003 2:00 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the February 24, 2003 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present Members Absent: William Ruck, Chairman Scott Richburg, Vice Chairman Fred Gray Terry Burruss Andrew Francis None City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA MARCH 31, 2003 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Z-7330 B. Z -6774-A II. NEW ITEMS: 1. Z-1 178-B 2. Z -6514-A 3. Z-7367 4. Z-7368 5. Z-7369 6. Z-7370 7. Z-7379 3209 Katherine Street 5513 S. Grandview 3901 Asher Avenue #2 Freeway Drive 4312 S. Lookout 1814 N. Spruce Street End of Belle Meadow Lane 5207 Stonewall Street Southeast corner of West 3rd and Chester Streets CY) O � _ N • � 3HId - 831ZV83 11nV81H1 T_ LIE U cod� °oN° Ntlwa39 r o e ` NIVW 4tlMOV088 H08V /✓01P/0 8 MH0 831-1380 w i 9NIH lW o 0 w 7 �R°NZON MUM 00M S 3HId Ad m a 8V030 NO1lmv 11005 �' `m s SpN/d,/S NBVd diva y✓J o Qo 411S83nINn llIsoon SONIMS 83430 (� 3H9nH Q o IddISSS IW d, 1001H0 x � 810A83S38 M086VB NHOP 3 y2 6� BHNI3H _ o 080331A0VHS o 5108V5 NV 08 a 51 [Nil 4110 39018 AWN NJbpJ3pb1S o` v OR0�1 UV�a>A OR S�p� cn =P d Nvnnlns 18vM31s HSd'b Y O $11WI1 4110���,1 0 l,�OSRJ 31YON833 ' tMO W March 31, 2003 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-7330 Owner: James E. Weaver Address: 3209 Katherine Street Description: Part of Lots 9 and 10, Block 24, John Barrow Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an accessory carport structure with reduced separation and front setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single family residential Proposed Use of Property: Single family residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 3209 Katherine Street is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. There is a single car driveway from Katherine Street which serves as access. A 12 foot by 20 foot metal carport structure covers a portion of the driveway. The metal carport structure existed on the site when the current owner purchased the property in April 1997. The structure is located approximately 14 feet back from the front property line and flush against the front wall of the single family house. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory structures in R-2 zoning be located at least 60 feet from a front property line. Section March 31, 2003 Item No.: A (Cont. 36-156(a)(2)b. requires that accessory structures be separated from principal structures by a minimum of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff's support is based primarily on the fact that the carport structure has been in place for years, with no complaints from neighbors. The City's enforcement staff observed the carport during a neighborhood inspection. Therefore, staff feels that it is reasonable to place the carport structure over the existing driveway. Although staff supports the variance requests, given the fact that the carport structure is not on a permanent foundation, staff feels that the variances should be approved for this property owner's use only. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances for reduced front yard setback and building separation associated with the accessory carport structure, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances be approved for the property owner, James E. Weaver and his son, Reginald Weaver, only. 2. If the property is sold or the Weavers vacate the property, the carport structure must be removed from the site or moved to meet the minimum required setbacks. 3. The carport structure must remain unenclosed on the north, south and west sides. Staff will inspect the property every five (5) years to verify the ownership and occupancy of the property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 23, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the notices to property owners within 200 feet of the site were not completed as required. The Board determined that the item needed to be deferred to the January 27, 2003 agenda to allow the applicant time to complete the required notifications. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 27, 2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 March 31, 2uO3 Item No.: A (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 27, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the February 24, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 24, 2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 24, 2003) The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had not submitted the required proof of notification to property owners within 200 feet of the property. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 31, 2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 31, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 3 A, 3z�ai ����rrv� ) iZcc�Eti✓�� �.fo i ;� rc�»,�I � ,�1 1/�2•t�'� G',>,�- _)4S Ani Cpdf-2 Fbfe- OW 1�k3 �LCj�-�°-,$E-� � GF}fZf'p/�.i •�,J/�-S t�� _ ,� -- ��}Q�-, 1�1�� Yzl ) Y}a9J� �t�e 261-saz.I S,icf6,�,b 1 T.tPU TW EERE 5© IF 6 (-&>�-.l -t?jz� axe- . f rz"ee J is C'c3vt-2 i?/z iz�so I re rte s March 31, 2003 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z -6774-A Owner: William and Peyton Woodyard Address: 5513 S. Grandview Road Description: Lot 46, Grandview Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a carport/porch addition with reduced front and side yard setbacks, and which crosses a front platted building line. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT 0 Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis.- The nalysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 5513 S. Grandview Road is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. A concrete driveway at the northwest corner of the property serves as access. The property slopes from the front building line downward to the east. The applicant proposes to construct a porch and carport structure on front of the house. The carport structure will extend 25 feet out from the house, across a 30 foot platted building line, and be set back five (5) feet from the front property line. The structure will have a four (4) foot setback from the side (north) property line. The applicant notes in the attached letter that the structure will be unenclosed on the north, south and west sides, and March 31, 2003 Item No.: B (Cont.) that the addition will have a flat or slightly angled roofline. The applicant states that the porch/carport addition is needed to provide covered access and parking for his family. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet, and Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet. Additionally, Section 31- 12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that any encroachment over a platted building line be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff feels that the requested five (5) foot front yard setback will be out of character and not compatible with the other residential properties in this area, even though the applicant is proposing to leave the structure unenclosed on the north, south and west sides. As a result of an inspection of the area, staff observed no other single family properties in this immediate area which had intrusions into the front yard setback as proposed by the applicant. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line for the proposed addition. 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 denial of the variances as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 28, 2002) Bill and Peyton Woodyard were present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present in opposition. Staff briefly described the requested variances associated with the proposed carport/porch structure, with a recommendation of denial. Bill Woodyard addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented the Board with photos of the property with the proposed carport/porch addition noted on them. He noted that some of the notices to property owners within 200 feet of the site were late. Staff noted that the persons notified late indicated that they had no problem with the late notification. With a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent, the Board waived their bylaws and accepted the late notification. 6 March 31, 2003 Item No.: B (Cont.) Mr. Woodyard described the proposed carport/porch structure and explained the reasons for requesting the variances. He explained the photos submitted to the Board. He discussed the setback of the proposed structure from the front property line and the street. He also described the proposed construction of the structure. He noted that the structure would have a low profile. He presented a petition of support from the surrounding property owners. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if a shorter structure which covered only a portion of the vehicles would work. Mr. Woodyard indicated that it might be a possibility. The issue was briefly discussed. Mrs. W. B. Sipes addressed the Board in opposition to the application. She stated that the carport/porch addition would not be compatible with the neighborhood and that it would decrease the value of her property. She also noted that the structure would cut off her view and make an existing drainage problem between the two houses worse. She noted that she has lived on the property for 40 years. Vice -Chairman Gray asked Mrs. Sipes if she would support a shorter addition which had the appearance of a porch. She indicated that she was opposed to any addition on this corner of the house. Chairman Ruck asked Mr. Woodyard if he had looked at putting the carport/porch addition on the southwest corner of the house. Mr. Woodyard noted that a carport structure at the southwest corner of the house would eliminate all of the trees in the front yard (4 large trees). Peyton Woodyard noted that the carport addition at the northwest corner of the house allowed the easiest access to the house. This issue was briefly discussed. Chairman Ruck asked about an apparent easement along the south property line. Staff noted that there appeared to be some sort of an easement along the south property line which served the property further to the east. The issue was briefly discussed. Andrew Francis noted that he did not support the requested variances, as the proposed structure is out of character with the neighborhood. Mr. Woodyard asked if a carport which extended 20 feet from the front of the house would be acceptable. Vice -Chairman Gray noted that he would like to see how the carport structure would work into the existing house. This issue was briefly discussed. Gary Langlais asked if an architect had done plans for the carport/porch addition. Mr. Woodyard stated that the plans were not yet ready. KI March 31, 2003 Item No.: B (Cont.) Mr. Francis noted that he also had a problem with a shorter carport structure. Other alternatives to the proposed carport/porch structure were discussed. The issue of deferring the application was discussed. Vice -Chairman Gray asked Mrs. Sipes if she would support any type of addition to the front of the house. She noted that a circular drive would be a possibility. Vice -Chairman Gray stated that he would support a deferral and explained. The issue of deferral was discussed. Mr. Woodyard stated that he would like to defer the application. There was a motion to defer the application to the November 25, 2002 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the December 23, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 23, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 23, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the March 31, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 31, 2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 31, 2003) Bill Woodyard was present, representing the application. There was one (1) objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff noted that Mr. Woodyard had three (3) alternate plans to present to the Board. Bill Woodyard addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented the Board with three (3) alternate designs for the carport structure. He discussed 0 March 31, 2003 Item No.: B (Cont.) the alternate plans with the Board. The alternate plans presented were as follows: • Plan 1 — locate carport structure (addition) to the south end of the residential structure with a front porch addition. Addition would result in a 20 -foot front setback and a 1 -foot side setback. Plan 2 — locate carport addition at the center of the residential structure, utilizing the existing driveway. Addition would result in a 6 to 10 foot front setback. Plan 3 — leave carport addition with porch at original location (northwest corner of residential structure), but shorten it in depth. Addition would result in an 11 -foot front setback. Mr. Woodyard stated that there were other single family structures in the neighborhood which encroached into required front setbacks, and explained. He noted that he preferred Plan 3. Fred Gray asked about the drainage along the south property line, specifically about the two (2) existing drainage structures. Mr. Woodyard explained the drainage situation along this property line. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, asked Mr. Woodyard if he was amending his application to be Plan 3. Mr. Woodyard stated that he was. Fred Gray asked about the orientation of the house immediately to the south with the street. Mr. Woodyard explained that the house was at an angle and not parallel with the side property lines. Fred Gray asked Mr. Woodyard and if he had spoken with a landscape architect about removal of the large oak trees in the front yard. Mr. Woodyard stated that he had and explained. There was a brief discussion regarding the possibility preserving the trees. Andrew Francis asked about the setbacks for Plan 1. Mr. Woodyard explained that the front yard setback would be 20 feet and that the side yard setback would be 1 foot. Mr. Francis noted support for Plan 1. Fred Gray also expressed support for Plan 1. He stated that Plan 3 was too tight with relation to the property to the north. There was general discussion related to the drainage issues associated with Plan 1. There was additional discussion related to the setbacks with Plan 1. 5 March 31, 2003 Item No.: B (Cont.) Mr. Woodyard stated that there was another plan which he had considered (Plan 4), and explained it as follows: • Plan 4 — A porch addition extending 11 feet out from the northwest corner of the residential structure, running along the front of the house to the south end of the front gable. Addition would result in a 20 foot front setback and a 7.4 foot side setback (same as existing house). This plan was briefly discussed. Mr. Woodyard amended his application to Plan 4. Mrs. W. B. Sipes addressed the Board in opposition to the application. She stated that any addition to the front of the house near the northwest corner of the structure would decrease her view. She stated that the addition was not compatible with the neighborhood. She stated that it would decrease her property value. She also expressed safety concerns. Fred Gray asked Mrs. Sipes what rooms were on the south side of her house. She noted that the master bedroom, bath and living room were along the south wall. Andrew Francis asked Mrs. Sipes about Plan 1. Mrs. Sipes stated that she was OK with Plan 1. Chairman Ruck expressed concern with any addition along the north property line. Chairman Ruck asked about staff's recommendation on Plan 4. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, noted that staff supported Plan 4 with the following conditions: 1. A replat must be completed. 2. The porch structure must be unenclosed on the north, south and west sides. There was a motion to approve the amended application (Plan 4) as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes and 2 nays. The amended application was approved. H BILL & PEYTON WOODYARD 5515 SOUTH GRANDVIEW RD. LITTLE ROCK, AR 72207 W(501) 664-8044 H(501) 664-2753 September 27, 2002 Dept. of Planning & Development Board of Adjustments 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Sir or Madam: Attached, please find the required application and documents for making a request for a residential zoning variance. I am requesting this variance so that we can build a porch and carport to provide covered access and parking for my wife and expected twins. Currently; we have a 20 foot exposed walk through our yard to the parking pad. This house was built in 1975 with a one -car garage. Since that time, the garage was converted into- a sitting area. When we purchased the home two years ago, the seller had removed the north/south walkway attaching the front walk with the driveway. The driveway was converted into a parking -pad 14 feet from the front of the house. Our plan is to build a covered front porch that extends from the front door to an open carport that is attached to the house and porch on the east side. Since the parking -pad starts 14 feet from the house, our cars currently extend 33 feet from the house. The new carport will only extend 25 feet from the house, bringing the cars to within five feet of the house and increasing the north/south line of sight by 8 feet. The porch and carport will be open on the north, south, and west sides, allowing a line of site through the structures. To limit the profile of each structure, the roofs of both will be flat or slightly angled into the roofline for drainage. Although this project will encroach on our front property line, there is an additional 13 feet to the street. This will help diminish the overall impression of the structures. Thank you for. this consideration. If I you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me. Sincerely; Bill Woodyard N 4 - . W-�e , }:..•v�,• � _ }!^• t. � '� vilDi�•'• :q�- ^rF ' S { �yi*a�uy ✓s�� '.�..��. _t"y.. ,f,,•H"'�-_�=,d�� �F'.;� •r .F,¢ y :%�ktia ri' ° "'�C`c�e5 ss`��•,�BI�'y��i .s y, ���" �~ti� n e.y"� .�wti:..���"^-� e'�Ye' f .. .r's°v Wit` -st �. ' _,� '"�;� -s�� �w•�,+�'�cL�. -.92 a� '... �.._ •'' �' -' �aa�•F'c` w• _ '� .�%s - •' • �� '� �:.: ;':aims r'� ...�.: z. SA`.. _ -+, ,•"ems i�r, "a`f: • ;.%'• _ 'ti�a-'tib£ '4 �-'q whlr• y Awl, 27, MA 3.1 MK, U?& m Uc V?I' RE. AM -2:2 March 31, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z-1 178-B Owner: Edward and Joyce Leece Address: 3901 Asher Avenue Description: Part of Lots 1-4, Block 1, Dickson Mills Addition Zoned: 1-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-320 and the parking provisions of Section 36-502. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vehicle radiator shop with storage/warehouse space Proposed Use of Property: Same with additional storage/warehouse space STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: An upgrade in landscaping equal to the building expansion proposed (75%) will be required prior to a building permit being obtained. However, because this site is located within the designated mature area of the city and is a rehabilitation of an existing site, considerable flexibility with this requirement may be allowed. C. Building Codes Issues: 1. Provide a minimum two (2) hour rated firewall for outside exposure for the west wall of the proposed addition. March 31, 2003 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) 2. There are to be no combustible roof overhangs. 3. Contact Mark Whitaker at 371-4839 for details. D. Staff Analysis: The 1-2 zoned property at 3901 Asher Avenue is occupied by a one-story metal building containing Arkansas Radiator Works and Distributing, Inc. The existing building is approximately 3,700 square feet in area and contains office, service and warehouse space. There are two (2) drives from Asher Avenue which serve as access to the property. There is paved parking between the building and the street. The general area is made up of a mixture of office, commercial and industrial uses along Asher Avenue and Roosevelt Road. The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,800 square foot addition to the west side of the existing building for more warehouse/storage space. The proposed building addition will have a four (4) foot side yard setback along the west property line and a four (4) foot rear yard setback along the south property line. Section 36-320(e)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of 15 feet and Section 36-320(e)(3) requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the requested building setbacks are reasonable given the small overall size of this property. Staff also feels that the requested side and rear yard setbacks will not be out of character with other properties in this general area. A number of the buildings in this area of 1-2 zoning along the south side of Asher Avenue as well as many of the commercial buildings along the north side of the street do not conform to the minimum required setbacks. The proposed building addition should have no adverse impact on the general area. With the proposed building expansion, a minimum of 16 parking spaces will be required by ordinance for the overall development. Six (6) parking spaces along the west property line will be eliminated with the building addition, but there is adequate paved area between the building and the front property line to provide the required parking. E. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances, subject to the following conditions: 2 f March 31, 2UO3 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) 1. Compliance with the landscape and buffer comments as noted in paragraph B. of this report. 2. Compliance with the Building Codes Comments as noted in paragraph C. of this report. 3. Compliance with the approved site plan. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 31, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 3 ,�, -,T 1'`TY --41 LITTLE ROCK CITY OFFICIALS .�? - // % V TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN ARKANSAS RADIATOR WORKS & DISTRIBUTING, INC. IS A BUSINESS OF LONG STANDING IN LITTLE ROCK. WE CONSIST OF A 95% SALES & 10 % SERVICE. WE WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION ON THE POSSIBILITY OF GRANTING US PERMISSION TO ADD ON TO OUR FACILITIES SO THAT WE MAY BETTER SERVICE OUR CUSTOMERS. WE HAVE JUST ABOUT OUT GROWN OUR PRESENT WAREHOUSE & DESPERATLEY NEED MORE SPACE. ASKING THE BOARD MEMBERS TO PLEASE CONSIDER THE VARIANCE BY LETTING THE _ BUILDING BE BUILT CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. BECAUSE OF THE ODD SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE WAY THE EXISTING BUILDING IS PLACE ON THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE ONLY DIRECTION WE CAN GO TO EXPAND OUR WAREHOUSE. BECAUSE OUR BUSINESS CONSIST OF ONLY 10% SERVICE, WE HOPE YOU WILL ALSO CONSIDER THE VARIANCE ON THE PARKING SPACES. -- EDWARD LEECE ----- - -- - - --- - -- --- -- X f1ld4_+�C D���------.-_.. ------ -- - ___ PNONE # 663-4860 THANK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ON THIS MATTER t March 31, 2003 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: No Comments. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Z -6514-A Noland Properties, Inc. #2 Freeway Drive Lots 2 and 3 (unrecorded), Freeway Business Park C-3 A variance is requested from the buffer provisions of Section 36-522. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Undeveloped Office — showroom/warehouse The City Beautiful Commission, at its March 6t" meeting, approved the 21 foot landscape width variance along Interstate 630 provided the applicant add additional 15 foot tall evergreen leyland cypress trees to help decrease the site's visibility from the freeway access ramp. C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at #2 Freeway Drive is currently undeveloped and mostly grass -covered. The property is comprised of Lots 2 and 3 (unrecorded), Freeway Business Park Subdivision. The applicant is planning an office — showroom/warehouse development for the property. The proposed site plan shows a 20,000 square foot building on each lot, with associated parking areas and drives. There will be two (2) driveways March 31, 2003 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) from Freeway Drive which will serve as access to the development. Cross access will be provided between the two lots. As part of the proposed development plan, the applicant is requesting a variance from the required street buffer along the 1-630 right-of-way. Section 36-522(a)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum street buffer width of 30 feet when abutting an interstate. The proposed site plan provides for a 9 foot buffer along the north (interstate) property line. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The property is located adjacent to a very wide interstate right-of-way, given the fact that the interstate's on-ramp runs along the property's north boundary. The property is located over 400 feet from the interstate's main travel lanes. Additionally, the property sits from 10 feet to 25+ feet below the grade of the on-ramp. Staff feels that the buffer width as proposed will provide an adequate landscape strip given the location of the property in relation to the main travel lanes of the interstate. As noted in paragraph B. of this report, the City Beautiful Commission reviewed this variance request and approved it at their March 6, 2003 meeting. A condition of their approval is that the applicant provide additional 15 foot tall leyland cypress trees within the north buffer area to help decrease the visibility of the site from the interstate's access ramp. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested interstate buffer variance, subject to compliance with the City Beautiful Commission's approval as noted in paragraph B. of this report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 31, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 abstention (Burruss). 2 IM, WHITE - DATERS &ASSOCIATES, INC. 0 24 Rahling Circle 13 Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 February 21, 2003 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Neighborhoods and Planning 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Lots 2 & 3 Freeway Business Park Zoning Variance Mr. Moore, _t -77e� Z - Please find attached six copies of the above referenced site plan for the proposed office, showroom, warehouse development. The developer would like to request a variance from the required 30 ft. buffer along I-630 to allow a 9 ft. buffer. Currently, the average buffer distance between the proposed parking area and the on-ramp from Rodney Parham Road is 80 ft. The buffer distance varies from 40 ft. on the west to 120 ft. on the east. Also, the vertical separation ranges from 10 ft. on the west end to 30 ft. on the east end. This situation is very similar to that of the "U -STORE -IT" Mini -Storage that was approved by the City Beautiful Commission several months ago. There is more distance between the main travel lanes of I-630 with this development than with the mini -storage development. Please place this item on the next Board of Adjustment Meeting. Do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or require additional information. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. Best regards, Brian Dale CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 4312 S. Lookout contains a two-story stucco single family residence. There is a two-story garage (18 feet by 18 feet) located at the northeast corner of the property. There is a paved alley along the north property line which serves as vehicular access to the site. The applicants propose to construct a 2,400 square foot addition to the northeast corner of the principal structure, connecting the house to the existing garage building. The proposed addition will have a height of two (2) stories. The proposed building addition will be located 0.7 foot from the side (east) property line. The accessory garage building will become part of the principal structure with the proposed building addition. The existing garage is located 1 % feet from the rear (north) property line at the structure's northwest corner. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning March 31, 2003 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-7367 Owner: J. Richard and Christina E. Newland Address: 4312 S. Lookout Description: Lot 11, Block 13, Hillcrest Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 4312 S. Lookout contains a two-story stucco single family residence. There is a two-story garage (18 feet by 18 feet) located at the northeast corner of the property. There is a paved alley along the north property line which serves as vehicular access to the site. The applicants propose to construct a 2,400 square foot addition to the northeast corner of the principal structure, connecting the house to the existing garage building. The proposed addition will have a height of two (2) stories. The proposed building addition will be located 0.7 foot from the side (east) property line. The accessory garage building will become part of the principal structure with the proposed building addition. The existing garage is located 1 % feet from the rear (north) property line at the structure's northwest corner. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning March 31, 2003 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet for this lot. Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear yard setback for principal structures of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these ordinance standards. Staff does not support the variances as requested. Although staff has no problem with the concept of connecting the principal and accessory structures to make one large house, staff cannot support the requested variance to allow a 0.7 foot side yard. Staff has no problem with the rear yard setback variance due to the fact that the accessory structure is existing and next to a 15 foot wide alley right-of-way. Staff feels that the building addition is located too close to the side (east) property line as proposed. Staff feels that a minimum three (3) foot side yard would be more appropriate for the proposed addition, and allow room to address issues such as overhang, maintenance and water run-off. The applicants noted in the attached cover letter that they have a commitment from the next door neighbor to the east to provide a maintenance easement. However, staff has seen nothing in writing regarding this issue. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the setback variances as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 31, 2003) Richard Newland was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Richard Newland addressed the Board in support of the application. He gave a brief description of the surrounding neighborhood. He noted that the neighbors were in support of his proposed addition. He stated that any additional setback along the east property line would be wasted space. He gave additional description of the property and of the requested building addition. Terry Burruss asked if there would be a fence along the east property line. Mr. Newland stated that the existing fence would be removed and explained. Vice Chairman Richburg asked about the stone patio along the east property line. Mr. Newland stated that the stone patio would extend to the new building addition. Vice -Chairman Richburg asked about the house immediately to the east and its relationship to the proposed building addition. Mr. Newland described the 0 1 March 31, 2003 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) location of the house. He noted that it was located approximately 8 feet from his east property line. Andrew Francis expressed support for the variances if a maintenance easement could be obtained from the property owner to the east. Mr. Newland stated that it was likely he could obtain the easement. Fred Gray asked how much of a problem it would be to move the addition and provide a 3 foot side yard setback. Mr. Newland explained that moving the addition would adversely effect the structure. He explained that this was due to the location of an interior stairway. Mr. Gray asked about the side yard setback requirements for the property to the east. This issue was briefly discussed. The issue of natural lighting between the two houses was briefly discussed. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, asked if there would be windows on the east side of the building addition. Mr. Newland explained that there would be windows on the east side of the addition and that the property owner to the east would have input on the number of windows. Staff suggested that if the Board required a maintenance easement on the property to the east, that the easement have a maximum width of 5 feet. This issue was briefly discussed. A motion was made to approve the requested setback variances subject to the following conditions: A 5 foot wide maintenance easement must be obtained from the property owner to the east. The easement must run the length of the new addition and existing garage structure. 2. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto the east property. 3. Compliance with items #2-5 found in Elizabeth G. Howitt's letter dated February 18, 2003. There was additional discussion of the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was approved. 3 NEWLAND&ASSOCIATES, PLLC Attorneys at Law - Certified PublicAccountants 20 February 2003 The Little Rock Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 SUBJECT: Application for Zoning Variance for 4312 S Lookout, Little Rock, AR. Board Members: - -7 3 �2pG � Richard and Christy Newland purchased 4312.S Lookout on 27 November 2002. The house is currently in a dilapidated condition. It has rotten windows with duct tape holding them together. It has holes in the kitchen pantry floor where rodents have accessed the house. There are several broken windowpanes allowing water into the house. The roof and windows have numerous leaks causing rot to occur. The electrical system is 65 years old and is a fire hazard. We are planning to completely update and repair the existing home with new electrical, plumbing, windows, roofing, insulation, and bring the existing residence compliant with current code. We plan to expand the existing residence from 2,000 feet to approximately 4,400 square feet by connecting the back of the house to the existing separate garage. Our survey indicates that the garage is .7 feet off the eastern property line. My measurements indicate that the garage wall is 1 foot off the property line. Our planned addition will mirror the garage's location to the eastern property line. A letter from our builder detailing the improvements along with our survey and architect's plans are attached. We are requesting a variance from the required 5 foot set back from the eastern property line. Building our addition with the 5 foot set back would create a 5 foot x 36 foot area of unused space to the east of our addition. Our addition plans French doors opening to a covered patio and courtyard to the west. Positioning the addition close to the eastern property line will match it with the existing garage as well as maximize the remaining usable back yard. This positioning will also provide the best chance to preserve a very large oak tree on the western side of our back yard. Our neighbor sharing the eastern property line, Mrs. Elizabeth Howitt, along with her children who may move into the house within the next few years, have reviewed our plans in great detail. They agree that a 3 or 5 foot set back for the addition would create wasted space between our properties. She has provided a letter indicating her support for our requested zoning variance. She has also committed to grant a maintenance easement for access on her property during construction and for later maintenance. 10 Corporate Bili Drive • Suite 330 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Telephone 501-221-9393 • Fax 501-221-7058 wwwNewlandAssociatesPILC.com The addition's roof ridgeline will run east/west and will include adequate controls to redirect all runoff to drains in the front of the existing house. We will also improve the garage's runoff controls to match the addition. The eastern wall of the addition will include all fireproofing required by current code. Utilities including phone, cable, and electricity access ours and Mrs. Howitt's properties overhead from a common utility pole in the alley to the north of our properties. This addition and variance request will not affect those utilities or any service access to them. Mrs. Howitt's residence, at its closest point, is approximately 8 feet from my eastern property line. This addition and zoning variance would not bring the two houses any closer than approximately 9 feet. I appreciate your consideration of my variance request. I welcome the opportunity to discuss it in person with you. With kindest regards, J. Richard Newland, Jr., J.D., C.P.A. Enclosures CC: Mrs. Howitt GARISON CONSTRUCTION, LLC General Contractors Construction Managers February 20, 2003 Mr. Richard Newland 4312 South Lookout Little Rock, AR. 722.05 Re: House Addition and Remodel Dear Richard: I have used David's drawings, dated February 17, 2003 to budget price your addition and remodel. In the many trips to your house with my men and a variety of subcontractors, we believe that we understand of what you would like to do. The following is a general description of the work we budgeted. 1. General Conditions — permit, layout, supervision, dumpster, cleanup, and insurance. 2. Demolition — removal of scheduled walls, stairways, wall and ceiling plaster, windows and doors, the removal of the two large trees in the rear, and the removal of the fencing as needed. 3. Concrete — slab on grade work as drawn for the addition, walkways and rear paving. 4. Carpentry— remodeling work as shown, new framing work and plywood, kitchen millwork and trim carpentry. 5. Moisture - plaster patching on the existing house and garage along with new plaster on the addition, caulking, and insulation in the new and existing structures. 6. Doors and Windows — new doors and hardware where needed, and all new windows with exterior metal cladding. 7. Finishes — drywall ceilings and walls, interior and exterior painting, tile kitchen and bathroom floors, wood den flooring, carpet in new bedrooms, carpet stairway, and refinish wood floors as needed. 8. Specialties — kitchen appliances and granite counter tops, bathroom accessories, and washer with dryer. 9. Plumbing — all new water and sewer piping, new plumbing fixtures, and new gas piping, and new P water service from meter. 10. HVAC — all new Carrier 90% furnaces and 14 SEER condensers, programmable thermostats with zone kits and dampers, supplies and returns. 11. Electrical — rewire the existing house, all new fixtures with spots in the kitchen and lighted fans in the bedrooms, heat/ vent/exhaust in bathrooms, and new 400 amp service. There is no provision for any landscaping or fence work in this pricing. Everything in the project is "A" grade material and craftsmanship. This leaves room to move down for many areas. The overall budget is $424,500.00. Sincerely, And Garison President PO Sox 55918 — Little Rock, AR.72215 Phone -(501) 280-9994 Fax (501)280-9995 E-mail: garisonconst@msn.com d .. ELIZABETH G. HOWITT 1-- 4308 South Lookout Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 February 18, 2003 J. Richard Newland 1:106 Beechwood Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Dear Richard, I have considered your request to support the zoning code variance you desire and am willing to support it contingent on your commitment to several conditions. I hope that you will understand the proposal from my perspective. The proposed addition to your house will considerably alter the feel of my property. Currently, my property looks out over wooded open space mi your yard. The construction of the addition following the plans you showed me will considerably alter that. I enjoy the benefits of the afternoon sun and open feeling that I currently have. No doubt future owners of my property would also. I With that in mind, I am providing my qualified support for your request to build the addition you have proposed' The design you showed me shows the addition following a line from the garage to the current back of the house. You have indicated that this is one foot from the property line and it is that fact that requires you to receive approval from the Board of Adjustments. My support is qualified in the following ways: 1. That the construction of the addition in no way creates restrictions on future construction on my property. 2. That all rain runoff be diverted, not just by the use of roof gutters but by some feasible channeling or underground piping so that rain runoff from your roof and from your back yard does not spill on to my property, which would inevitably result in erosion along our common property line downhill to the front street. 3. Thatany air conditioning units that may be necessary for the addition be located more than 10 feet from our current shared property boundary. 4. That the future t, o -story wall of the addition that will face my property contain design elements that are decorative, such that the view from my property is not simply an unbroken blank two-story wall extending from the rear of the existing house structure out to and including the existing garage structure wall ending at the alley. i Page I of I I i 5. That any damage to fence, paving or vegetation on my property as a result of construction will be returned to original or comparable condition. Furthermore, since the tree outside my kitchen window, which spans the property line, is likely to be damaged by the construction, I propose that you remove the tree and stump as part of the construction so that it does not die and become a hazard to both our homes. If you are agreeable, please indicate so by writing me a letter enumerating these points and I will prepare a letter of support for your request to the Board of Adjustments. Richard, I look forward to your family becoming my neighbors, Regards, Elizabeth Howitt Page 2 of 2 March 31, 2003 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT Q Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7368 Martin M. and Patricia J. Rhodes 1814 N. Spruce Street Lot 79 and the South % of Lot 80, Shadowlawn Addition M A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single family residential Single family residential The R-2 zoned property at 1814 N. Spruce Street is occupied by a two- story stucco and frame single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from Spruce Street which serves an access. The property owners propose to construct a 1,140 square foot addition (one-story) to the rear of the single family structure. An "L" shaped addition beginning at the northwest corner of the existing structure is proposed to create a courtyard and maximize the usable rear yard area. The proposed addition will be located approximately seven (7) feet from the rear property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. The proposed addition conforms to the minimum required side yard setbacks. March 31, 2003 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the proposed building addition will not be out of character with other single family structures in this general area. The addition will have the appearance of an accessory building connected to the principal structure by way of a 10 foot wide enclosed breezeway. With the proposed building addition being one-story in height, there should be no adverse impacts on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance, subject to compliance with the approved site plan. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 31, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. OJ 4e"' Z94 4 .�Z- 73 �'S-11 To: The Planning Commission From: Martin and Patricia Rhodes 1814 N. Spruce St. Little Rock, AR 72207 501-66-5782 It is our desire to apply for a variance at our residence in order to make an addition to our home. As our family needs have changed, we now need a ground floor bedroom and bath. In order to construct the addition and to maximize the use of the yard as a courtyard, we need a variance in the rear yard setback. We plan to match the present construction with similar exterior and roofing on this one story addition. The new addition would enhance the appearance of the dwelling and increase the value of the property. We feel that this addition would in no way be a visual hindrance for our neighbors. We currently have a privacy fence which will remain. In our neighborhood, it is very typical to make additions as needed. Thank you fo�consi a ion. _ Martin and Patricia Rhodes March 31, 2003 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned.- Variance oned:Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT 0 Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7369 Douglas McIntire and Nancy Noel North end of Belle Meadow Lane Lot 14A, Plantation Acres, Phase II R-2 A variance is requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Undeveloped Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at the north end of Belle Meadow Lane (Lot 14A, Plantation Acres Phase II Subdivision) is undeveloped and mostly wooded. The property slopes upward to the north from Belle Meadow Lane and downward to the west. There is a drainage ditch which runs north/south through the lot, approximately 160 feet back from the front property line. The applicant proposes to construct an approximate 3,700 square foot single family residence on the lot, as shown on the attached site plan. The lot has a 100 foot platted front building line. The building line is actually located approximately 120 feet from the lot's east property line. The single family residential structure is proposed to be located entirely outside the platted building line, between the platted building line and the east property line. Section 31-12 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance March 31, 2003 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) requires that all encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. The proposed house is located 50 feet back from the east property line, 60 plus feet back from the southeast corner of the property and 50 plus feet back from the pavement of Belle Meadow Lane. The minimum required front yard setback, as typically required by the City's Zoning Ordinance, is 25 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the variance is reasonable given the uneven topography of the lot and the location of the rather wide drainage ditch. The placement of structure as shown on the proposed site plan should prove not to be out of character with the other homes along Belle Meadow Lane, given the fact that the lot is located at the end of the cul-de-sac. The applicant has provided a letter from the Plantation Acres Architectural Control Committee expressing no concern with the proposed home placement. The applicant has also submitted photos of the lot which will be provided to the Board in a separate attached package. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line for the proposed single family residence. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. The adjusted (replatted) front building line should follow the outline of the proposed single family residence and not extend outside the building's footprint. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested building line variance, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 31, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 TO: Monte Moore �Z ^ 3 6, -) FROM: Larry R. Brown SUBJECT: Request for Variance from Established Building Set -Back Line Lot 14A Plantation Acres Subdivision, Pulaski County DATE: February 14, 2003 This request is for a variance from the 100 foot set back line for building, as drawn on the plat for Plantation Acres Phase II, that I am attempting to purchase. My desire is to purchase the property and build a home. The hardship represented is outlined as follows: On the attached survey you will note the surveyor's reference to a ditch. The approximate width of this ditch is in excess of 40 feet. Building a home at that point would require a major portion of the home to be built over the fill that will be required for the ditch (or ravine ). Since this lot is at the end of a cul-de-sac this request is to allow the building line to be moved as drawn on the surveyor's plat. This would allow construction of the home outside the filled area. This should not present a problem to other homes in the subdivision. It would not be a distraction since most of the trees will be left standing on the south side or front of the house. All the houses on Belle Meadow face east or west toward the street, except the house on lot 15A, which also faces south. The request is for a variance larger than the footprint of the house. This is to allow for potential problems that may be encountered with the bedrock. It is my intention to build the house as far north on the lot as is possible, however I am aware there could be some problems in digging out the foundation, thus requiring the request for a larger than needed area. I have secured the signatures of many of my future neighbors and from the architectural control committee of the subdivision. I have provided pictures of the property and the problem as it now exists which should explain the reason for the request to build further east on the lot. Since my offer to purchase is based on the approval of the variance, I will await your approval. March 31, 2003 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Owner: Address: Description.- Zoned: escription:Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification.- Present ustification:Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT U Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7370 Beverly Wittenberg 5207 Stonewall Street Lot 2, Block 25, Newton's Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single family residential Single family residential The R-2 zoned property at 5207 Stonewall Street is occupied by a one- story frame single family residence. There is a single car driveway from Stonewall Street which serves an access. There is also an existing six (6) foot high wood fence which runs along the east property line. The applicant proposes to add four (4) feet of lattice on top of a portion of the six (6) foot high fence. The lattice would be located on approximately 25 feet of the overall fence length, near the center of the east property line. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet in single family residential zones. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the 10 -foot high fence section. The applicant notes that the 10 -foot high fence section is desired for privacy reasons. Natasha McMinn, the abutting property owner to the east, submitted a letter supporting the requested variance. t March 31, 2003 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff feels that the request is very minor in nature. The four (4) foot added height will be of lattice, therefore the resulting 10 -foot fence will not be entirely opaque. Additionally, the 10 -foot high fence section will provide privacy, which previously was attained by way of foliage which existed for years between the two properties but had to be removed. The 10 foot high fence section should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to a building permit being obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 31, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 Beverly Wittenberg 5207 Stonewall Road Little Rock, AR 72207 TO: The Board of Adjustment RE: Fence Addition to the rear of personal residence DATE: February Z1, :2-()6,3 I am writing you to request a variance to allow me a small addition to the rear part of a fence between my house at 5207 Stonewall Road and my neighbor's house, Natasha McMinn's, 5201 Stonewall Road, to the east of me. She is in total agreement with my desire for this addition.( Please see her letter which I have included.) The existing fence, and it is hers, begins halfway down my driveway and extends south to the east of my garage, at least 22 feet from the street. What I am asking to do is simply to add a 4 foot high lattice piece to the rear half of the existing fence (The diagram from Ingle Fence Co. is attached.) Please note that this section of the fence is set so far back from the street that it is visible only to Ms. McMinn and me. The additional height to this fence will be an asset to both of us, affording her some privacy for her yard/ pool and, likewise, for my deck. (When I bought the property 2 years ago we both had privacy/coverage in this small area from an unusually massive vine which extended from her yard across into and over my garage and drive. This had to be destroyed because it was damaging the fence. I am just wanting to restore that visual division.) Please know that I very much appreciate your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Beverly Wittenberg 7 3 7 Natasha McMinn 5201 Stonewall Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RE: ADDITION TO FENCE Dear Sirs: I am writing a letter to explain that I very much in agreement with my neighbor's wishes to add some lattice to the rear section of her fence which is between our two houses. Beverly Wittenberg, who lives adjacent to me at 5207 Stonewall Roadjhas discussed with and shown me the details of the proposed addition. I certainly hope that you will allow this height extension to the back of my fence, which will provide some privacy for my back yard and pool as well as for her deck. She discussed this with me in full before any efforts on her part to contact your board and receives my unconditional endorsement of this small project. Sincerely, Natasha cMinn March 31, 2003 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF NOTE: Z-7379 Jason Adams 925 West 3rd Street Southeast corner of West 3rd and Chester Streets UU An appeal is requested from the administrative procedure/policy regarding the restrictions for displaying and selling items from a transient location. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Vacant Commercial catering trailer The applicant submitted a letter to staff on March 12, 2003 requesting that this application be deferred to the April 28, 2003 agenda, as he has a scheduling conflict and will be unable to attend the March 31, 2003 public hearing. Staff supports the requested deferral. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 31, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting the application be deferred to the April 28, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 28, 2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 737 Adams Catfish Catering has been setting up a mobile catering unit at the comer of third and chester streets in down town Little Rock for about 4 years. I recently had a power pole put in this location so I would be able to leave the trailer in Little Rock from time to time. 75 - 90% of my business is in the Little Rock area and it just makes sense to not have to drag my catering wagon back and forth from Conway every day. Fuel prices are going through the roof and it saves me at least $300 per month in fuel expenses to leave my catering wagon in Little Rock 2-3 days per week The trailer will never be left at this location for more than 2 days in a row because I must take it back to Conway and clean it at least that often. Also there are times when my truck must be serviced and I don't have any other way to pull the trailer back to Conway. People in Little Rock expect me to be open every day and I intend to provide them with that servuce. Sincerely, 62.C� ason Adams owner, Adams Catfish [7 N0 w O U W w W 0 w E U) a e - L O Q A /O W V l ml W VA z LU U) m Q W Q z m LU Q 4 m3 s 6� z �( D O W 2 20 LU - F- F- 0 ❑ z W /� v/ Q o a�<,U)�X� NW Lf_ N IOf ❑ ❑ L.LW ❑ C Q of ¢ u� � Lr U w U- m CD 2 X W �LLm(D o W U W VA z LU U) m Q W Q z m LU Q L z �( D O W 2 20 LU - F- F- 0 ❑ z W /� v/ Q o a�<,U)�X� T- ❑ W Q Q m = U F- U- m CD a� X W VA z LU U) m Q W Q z m LU Q March 31, 2003 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. MAIER- E �� z�// Chairman (ilecreitD