Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_02 25 2002LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2002 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 January 28, 2002 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman Fred Gray, Vice Chairman Scott Richburg Gary Langlais Andrew Francis Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA FEBRUARY 25, 2002 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Z-7134 B. Z-7138 II. NEW ITEMS: 8103 Leawood Blvd. 1112 Claywood Drive 1. Z-6482 Northwest corner of Kanis and Rodney Parham Roads 2. Z-7147 107 East Markham Street 3. Z-7148 12116 Pleasant Tree Drive 4. Z-7149 125 West 4th Street 5. Z-7150 5012 Hawthorne Road 6. Proposed Board of Adjustment Bylaws Amendment 1 • V W — nntlalHl � � �5J d� Q o e 3NId a1MU n N O O N Lj /'� t ` j W NVWa39 ■ w NIM AVMOVONS NOatl NOlNp = 153H7 0MN IN o 83H380 't � 0 a MOa000M 3NId 1,?3dSS � — 3NId HJgy 0 LO a NO1lIWV i100S N S S�Niyys Ld �y AlISa3AINn Na d aIV3 Lt r� o r ^ ulsa3nwn SJNIadS a3A3J E3 V!1 (� S3HOnH Et IddISS IN N Z s6 �' 103 HO co aI�0Aa3S3a MOaatla NHOf 3 w y 3NN13H SIMS T Oa0d31NOtlHS o Oa 31 Otl _ — i WNHaVd 43N008 a � hw 5 NV oe ¢ ~ S11WI7 A110 — x 30018 AWLS o� �baJ '- W � 3JblS OPO�S 0 n 4 � co o v NVAiIInS laVM315 ^V/ ys�d� H— O S11WIl A110yy�y �� 70 d�Ol?J 31YONa33 O m February 2002 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Z-7134 Alan C. Wray 8103 Leawood Boulevard Lot 139, Leawood Heights Second Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the fence regulations of Section 36-516 to allow construction of a six (6) foot tall privacy fence between a required building setback and a street right-of-way. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residence Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residence STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The property at 8103 Leawood Boulevard is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There are single family residences to the north, west, south across Louwanda Drive and east across Leawood Boulevard. The applicant recently began construction of a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence along the Louwanda Drive side of the property. The fence extended beyond the 25 foot building setback line and into the street right-of-way. Consequently, the City's February 2002 Item No.: A enforcement staff issued a notice to cease the fence construction, which was complied to by the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow construction of a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence which extends beyond the 25 foot street side setback along Louwanda Drive. The proposed fence will extend from the rear corner of the house to the Louwanda Drive property line, along this property line to the rear property line, and back to a newly constructed privacy fence located behind the 25 foot setback line. According to Section 36-516(c)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance, fences constructed within the required setback adjacent to streets are limited to four (4) feet in height. Staff is not supportive of the variance as requested. Staff's inspection of the property revealed that the proposed fence would create no sight -distance problems for vehicular traffic. However, the single family residences immediately west of this site, which front on Louwanda Drive, will have a front yard relationship with the proposed fence. Staff feels that the proposed six (6) foot privacy fence extending to the property line along Louwanda Drive will have a negative visual impact on these adjacent properties. However, staff could possibly support a revised application which would move the fence further back from the street side property line. Another possible solution would be to construct, at the location proposed by the applicant, a four (4) foot high solid wood fence with an additional two (2) feet of wood lattice. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not support the variance to allow construction of a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence between the required building setback and the street right-of-way, as proposed. E February( ,,, 2002 Item No.: A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the February 25, 2002 agenda. Staff noted that the applicant failed to complete the required notifications to surrounding property owners. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 25, 2002 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 25, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and noted that the applicant had revised the application according to staff's suggestion. The revision included construction of a four (4) foot high solid wood fence with two (2) additional feet of wood lattice between the platted building line and the property line (Louwanda Drive side). Staff noted support of the revised application subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. 2. The fence must be a good neighbor fence, with the structural supports on the inside. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as revised by the applicant and recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. C �- 13V Date: December 10, 2001 To: Department of Planning and Development From: Alan C Wray Re: Application for a Zoning Variance at 8103 Leawood Blvd I am writing you this letter to better explain my family's request for a residential zoning variance so that we may enclose a portion of our property to the side and rear of our house. I will try my best to explain the chronology of events that have led to this request without being too longwinded. I bought this house in November from the estate of my deceased aunt (Lucille Alexander). We were in the process of looking at the property when I called and spoke to a gentleman with the City Code department about some landscaping and fence work that I was considering having done. I inquired about where a privacy fence could be built as I had heard that there might be an easement that would have to be met. We talked several times that afternoon and said that he would contact his supervisor and call me back as he was unsure as to exactly where the fence would have to be placed. He called me back and as I listened I could hear who he stated to be a supervisor discussing the issue with them on a conference call. After several minutes, the gentleman informed me that the had pulled my survey and by looking at that determined that if I wanted to build a six foot privacy fence eight feet from the sidestreet, that I could. So I contacted a tree service and after negotiating a $2000.00 price, had them remove a large number of old bushes and trees that grew along the curb of Louwanda Drive and on that side of our yard.. The bushes (some of which were up to 15' in height) caused a blind spot when backing from our driveway and grew out into the street. I then contracted a fence company to tear down the existing fence that ran along the back of the property as it was old and falling down, and erect the new one where the old fence had been with the exception of the new section parallel to the sidestreet and the new section parallel to our driveway where the gate would be located. On the second day of construction, my wife called me at work and said that someone from the Code Enforcement Department had stopped by after receiving a complaint and stated that our fence could not be built eight feet from the road and that we would have to stop construction immediately. A very nice man by the name of Kenneth Jones stopped after I arrived home and explained the situation and that the only recourse that I had was to file for a variance. He told me that I would need to speak with Dana Carney the manager of the Zoning and Subdivision Department before moving forward. I spoke with Mr. Carney and he explained the survey and was puzzled that someone had said that there was no easement as the survey plainly shows a 25' building line. I spoke with him at length, and he concurred that the only chance I would have to finish construction of the fence would be to apply for an variance. He stated that I could not even rebuild the fence that had existed along the back of the property. I have stopped construction in any of the disputed areas until the Adjustment Board has a chance to review my case. I am asking for a variance based on the following reasons: 1. Safety — We have several cats and dogs and plan on having children in the next couple of years. We NEVER would have purchased the property if we would have known that we could not enclose the yard. It is a very busy intersection and without any type of barrier there (There is not much left since we had it cleared), we cannot let our pets run around in the backyard without supervision. 2. Privacy — Anyone driving down Louwanda can look right into our backyard, our porch area, and into our house without anything stopping them. 3. Security — As stated above, it is an open back yard and anyone can stop on Louwanda and step right into our backyard. I have already had some firewood that has come up missing and have concerns for anything else of value that I might place in my own backyard. 4. I am replacing a border as the shrubs and existing fence provided a natural fence that extended further than what I am trying to build. We never would have spent the $2000.00 on yard work in preparation for building the fence if someone at the code dept. had not stated that it would be OK to do so. 5. We are bombarded daily (and nightly) with excessively loud stereos from vehicles passing up and down the street. While I know that the fence would not eliminate this problem, a six-foot fence would greatly decrease the amount of noise that is currently coming straight into the yard and house. 6. There are dozens of fences in the neighborhood that have six foot and over privacy fences that are closer than they should be. Some are even within the eight -foot easement. 7. Our fence will affect no one in any adverse manner. A few other reasons are listed but do not bear the weight of the above list. The neighbors to the back of us keep trash piled on the side of their house. Since the old fence line is gone, we now have a splendid view of it. We cannot build the fence as the easement currently states because we would lose two-thirds of our back yard. We currently have an unfinished fence and I had them remove the posts but not fill the holes where the disputed area is. I hope that this has explained the need for the Board to grant my family a variance in this matter, and I really wish to thank you for your time. Sincerely, C0_4'_ C. I-ly Alan C Wray January 22, 2002 Planning and Development Monte Moore 723 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Sir: My name is Lance Olvey and I live at 8200 Louwanda Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72205. I am writing you in regards to a property 3 houses down from mine being considered for a zoning variance. The property is 8103 Leawood. As I understand it they want to construct a fence that will run closer to the street than zoning will allow. I would like to offer my support to the owners. I have never met them but they have dramatically improved the appearance of that property since acquiring it. They have removed a lot of shrub and tree debris, etc. They also removed the old, rotten, fence that was on the property. I assume they want to build the new fence in roughly the same location. I believe they should be allowed to build the fence. Not only would it look nice but if I owned that property I would want a 6 -foot privacy fence as well. The property is on the corner of two busy streets and the way the house is situated on the property makes it necessary to build the fence in such a way that it will approach the edge of the property closer that zoning normally allows. For this reason I support allowing an exception in their case. Sincerely, Lance Olvey 8200 Louwanda Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 501-312-2933 RECEIVED JAN 2 d 2002 BY: February �_�, 2002 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7138 Carlton and Becky Cooper 1112 Claywood Drive Lot 311, Leawood Heights Addition R-2 The applicant is requesting an appeal of an administrative interpretation, in order to operate a "clothing consulting" business as a home occupation. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential with Home Occupation The R-2 zoned property at 1112 Claywood Drive contains a two-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located on the west side of Claywood Drive between Leawood Blvd. and Linda Lane, in an area that is exclusively single family residential in nature. There are existing single family residences to the north, south, west and across Claywood Drive to the east. On September 10, 2001, the City's Zoning Enforcement Staff issued Becky Cooper a 15 -day courtesy notice to February( -,, 2002 Item No.: B cease the operation of a retail woman's apparel shop at 1112 Claywood Drive. The notice was issued as a violation of Section 36-254(b)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, permitted uses in R-2 zoning. On November 20, 2001, Mrs. Cooper received a 15 -day letter to comply (final notice) from the City Attorney's Office. The enforcement initiated by staff against Mrs. Cooper was a result of complaints issued by Louis Burgess who is the property owner and resident of 1024 Claywood Drive. The notices were issued by the Enforcement Staff based on the fact that staff feels that the type of business being operated at 1112 Claywood Drive by Mrs. Cooper does not conform to Section 36-253(b)(6)b., uses permitted as home occupations. Additionally, based on information received by Mr. Burgess of 1024 Claywood Drive, staff feels that the amount of traffic generated by Mrs. Cooper's business is in excess of what is normal for residential traffic in this area of the subdivision. The applicant, Becky Cooper, is requesting an appeal of this administrative interpretation, in order to operate her "clothing consulting" business at 1112 Claywood Drive as a home occupation. Mrs. Cooper contends that the City has mischaracterized her use of the property and that her specific "clothing consulting" business qualifies as a home occupation and conforms to the requirements of Section 36-253 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. An attached letter from Marian McMullan, Mrs. Cooper's attorney, gives a detailed description of Mrs. Cooper's use of the property at 1112 Claywood Drive and the justification for requesting an appeal of staff's administrative position. Also attached is a copy of an invitation to the clothing sale which took place at this location between August 2 and August 12, 2001, which was given to staff by Mr. Burgess. The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine if Mrs. Cooper's use of the property at 1112 Claywood Drive qualifies as a home occupation according to Section 36-253 of the ordinance. In reviewing this requested appeal, staff would suggest that the Board consider the following questions: 1. Who are Mrs. Cooper's clientele? Individuals? Retail Clothing Shop owners? 2 February _ -j, 2002 Item No.: B 2. Is the clothing ordered by Mrs. Cooper's customers shipped directly to the customer or to 1112 Claywood Drive? 3.If the orders are shipped to 1112 Claywood Drive, does Mrs. Cooper deliver the orders to the customers or do the customers come to 1112 Claywood Drive to pick them up? 4. Is the traffic generated by this specific business in excess of what would be considered normal for a residential neighborhood? BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) Marian McMullan and others were present, representing the application. There were no persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item, noting that Louis Burgess of 1024 Claywood Drive had submitted a package of information to each board member, including a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the February 25, 2002 agenda. It was noted that Mr. Burgess was a concerned neighbor who had an out-of-state trip planned for several months before the public hearing and therefore could not attend this meeting. Chairman Ruck explained the request made by Mr. Burgess and made a motion to defer the application to the February 25, 2002 agenda. He noted that Mr. Burgess should have an opportunity to address the Board. He asked for the Board's opinion on the deferral issue. Andy Francis asked the applicant if there would be any hardship in deferring the application. Marian McMullan, attorney for Becky Cooper (the property owner), stated that there would be a hardship in deferring the application. She stated that Mrs. Cooper had experienced emotional strain over the situation. She also stated that, as a trial lawyer, she did not know whether or not she could be present at the next hearing. She asked to present information to the Board at this meeting. Chairman Ruck stated that he wished to hear both sides of the issue at the same meeting. He also stated that 3 February _5, 2002 Item No.: B Mr. Burgess needed to hear the applicant's side of the issue. Chairman Ruck's motion to defer was seconded. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred to the February 25, 2002 agenda. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 25, 2002) Marian McMullan and Becky Cooper were present, representing the application. Louis Burgess of 1024 Claywood Drive was present to oppose the application. Staff presented the item, noting that Marian McMullan and Louis Burgess had each submitted a package of information to the Board. Staff reminded the Board that the issue at hand was whether or not Becky Cooper's clothing business conformed to the home occupation standards found in Section 36-253 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Ruck stated that each side would be limited to a 20 minute presentation. He called on Louis Burgess to present his side of the issue. Louis Burgess spoke in opposition to the operation of the business at 1112 Claywood Drive. He stated that he has lived in Leawood for 25 years and described the neighborhood in the area of Claywood Drive. He described the activities which have taken place at 1112 Claywood Drive since August, 2001. He described the amount of traffic which he witnessed during Mrs. Cooper's clothing sales. Mr. Burgess also discussed the City's enforcement of the business activities at the site. He noted that Mrs. Cooper's use of the property at 1112 Claywood Drive adversely effected property values in the area. Marian McMullen spoke in favor of the application. She noted that she was Mrs. Cooper's attorney. She contended that the City of Little Rock was not correct in the characterization of the activity at 1112 Claywood Drive. She noted that Mrs. Cooper was a "clothing consultant" for the "Carlisle Collection" and described this national company and how it operates. She noted that Mrs. Cooper sends out invitations for the clothing sale events and that Mrs. Cooper kept no inventory or stock on the site. In 4 February 2002 Item No.: B response to questions posed by the City, Ms. McMullan responded as follows: 1. The clothing sales events are by invitation only. 2. The clothing ordered is shipped to Mrs. Cooper. 3. Mrs. Cooper delivers the orders to the customers' homes. 4. She did not feel that the traffic generated by Mrs. Cooper's business was in excess of what is normal for a single family residence and explained. Ms. McMullan explained that Mrs. Cooper's business was not a retail sales business. She noted that there are competitors to the "Carlisle Collection" and that this type of activity takes place in single family residences around the country. She questioned whether or not the City was fair in their assessment of the activity which has taken place at 1112 Claywood Drive. She stated that Mr. Burgess' statements were contradicted by the other neighbors. She noted that cars parked on the street were not a violation of City ordinance. She stated that Mr. Burgess' account and number of vehicles parked on the street during the events were grossly exaggerated, and that many of his statements were not true. She presented written statements from W. N. Butcher and Ann Benton. She noted that the majority of the neighbors on Claywood Drive have no problem with Mrs. Cooper's business activity. Ms. McMullan concluded by stating that she felt Mrs. Cooper's activities were not in violation of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if there were any signs for the business. Ms. McMullan stated that there were not. Gary Langlais stated that there was very little traffic on Claywood Drive based on his personal observation, and that any amount of additional traffic could be considered a problem. Chairman Ruck asked Mr. Burgess what the maximum number of vehicles at any one time that he observed attending a clothing sale at 1112 Claywood Drive. Mr. Burgess stated that he has seen as many as eight (8) vehicles at one time. He further noted that he witnessed 18 vehicles on a single day, and that he had the license number or make of each vehicle. 5 February( 2002 Item No.: B Andy Francis asked Mr. Burgess what level of activity at 1112 Claywood Drive would be acceptable to him. Mr. Burgess stated that activity no more than allowed yard sales (2 yard sales per year, 2 days each sale) would be acceptable. Ms. McMullan stated that Mrs. Cooper had made arrangements to park the cars of her customers in the neighbors' driveways and not on the street. Mr. Langlais asked who the four (4) other persons were noted on the brochure advertising Mrs. Cooper's clothing sale. Ms. McMullan stated that these were Mrs. Cooper's sales associates. Mr. Langlais noted that employees reporting to a residence was not in compliance with the home occupation standards. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, provided the Board with the definition of a home occupation. He noted that the definition required that the individual living in the residence conduct the business. Chairman Ruck asked how many articles of clothing are displayed at each event. Mrs. Cooper noted that she typically had about 400 pieces of clothing and described how the clothing was displayed. Chairman Ruck asked how many rooms of the house were used for the events. Mrs. Cooper noted that the living room and dining room were used for the clothing displays. Chairman Ruck asked how large the house was. Mrs. Cooper noted that it was approximately 2,600 square feet with the garage. Chairman Ruck asked if Mrs. Cooper's sales associates were at the residence for the entirety of each sale. Mrs. Cooper noted that they were not necessarily there for the entire event, because each sales associate made their own appointments. Andy Francis asked if there were any other advertisements other than the invitations. Mrs. Cooper stated that there were no other ads. Mr. Francis asked how many invitations were mailed out. Mrs. Cooper stated that 400 invitations were mailed out for each event, and that 59 customers attended the first sale. Scott Richburg asked how the 400 mail -outs are determined. Mrs. Cooper stated that she maintains a client list. C1 February -5, 2002 Item No.: B Chairman Ruck asked how long each appointment lasts. Mrs. Cooper noted that each appointment took approximately 30 to 60 minutes. The issue was briefly discussed. Mr. Richburg asked if Mrs. Cooper and the four other sales associates had appointments at the same time. Mrs. Cooper stated that this was a possibility at the beginning of a show. She briefly discussed the issue, noting that her use of the property did not create a problem for the neighborhood. Vice -Chairman Gray stated that the affidavits signed by the neighbors indicated that there was not an increase in traffic during the sales events. Ms. McMullan noted that the neighbors were not concerned with the traffic generated by Mrs. Cooper's business and explained. Vice -Chairman Gray asked Ms. McMullan about her displeasure with the way the City had handled the enforcement case. Ms. McMullan stated that the City should have called Mrs. Cooper and gotten her side of the story and conducted more of an investigation into the matter. She further explained her opinion of this issue. Vice -Chairman Gray asked Kenny Scott to give the City's side of the enforcement case. Kenny Scott, of the Planning Staff, noted that a complaint was received pertaining to the retail sales of clothing at 1112 Claywood Drive. He read Ken Jones' enforcement report on this case. He explained the procedure for issuance of home occupation permits and how Mrs. Cooper's use did not conform to the home occupation standards. He noted that no customer or employee traffic was allowed with a home occupation. He noted that active enforcement cases did not fall under the Freedom of Information Act, as per the City Attorney's office. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if the enforcement notice was issued to Mrs. Cooper because of increased traffic. Mr. Scott noted that this was the case, and also that Mrs. Cooper admitted to the increased traffic. The traffic issue was briefly discussed. Chairman Ruck asked if Mrs. Cooper made appointments on weekends. Mrs. Cooper noted that weekends have the lowest customer traffic. Chairman Ruck asked about drop-in 7 r February �_.�, 2002 Item No.: B customers. Mrs. Cooper noted that she had no drop-in customers. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if the clothing samples were sold. Mrs. Cooper stated that the samples were not sold, because they had to be passed on to the next sales representative. This issue was briefly discussed. Gary Langlais asked if the four (4) other sales associates had their own clientele. Mrs. Cooper stated that they did. Mr. Langlais stated that this essentially represented five (5) separate businesses being operated at the location. This issue was briefly discussed. Chairman Ruck asked what the appropriate motion would be. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, stated that the motion would be that the business as operated by Becky Cooper fits within the home occupation standards. This issue was briefly discussed. There was a motion to approve the business operated by Becky Cooper at 1112 Claywood Drive as being in compliance with the home occupation standards of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The motion was briefly discussed. Vice -Chairman Gray stated that he was voting against the business operation with a heavy heart. He stated that he supports small businesses in the City. He further explained his view of the issue. Chairman Ruck called for a vote on the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes and 5 nays. The appeal of staff's administrative interpretation was denied. E3 << /,, P, THE MCMULLAN LAW FIRM — 7/39' ATTORNEYS AT LAW 815 W. MARKHAM ZIP CODE 72201 P.O. BOX 2839 ZIP CODE 72203-2839 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS TELEPHONE: (501) 376.9119 FAX: (501) 376-8437 MARI.AN M. MCMULLAN, P.A. C. WESLEY I ASSEIGNE email: marianmajor@aristotle.net email: wlasseigne@aristotle.net January 4, 2002 Members of the Board of Adjustment City Hall Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Becky Cooper 1112 Claywood, Little Rock To the Honorable Members of the Board of Adjustment: Purpbse We present this letter memorandum in requesting the Board of Adjustment's interpretation regarding activities taking place at 1112 Claywood Drive. Specifically, Ms. Cooper has received notice from the City of Little Rock, Code Enforcement Division, that activities taking place at her residence are in violation of Little Rock, Ark, Rev. Code § 36-254(b)(1). The allegation is that Ms. Cooper is operating a retail women's apparel shop from property zoned residential. The notice of violation resulted from a complaint by one of Ms. Cooper's neighbors, Louis Burgess who resides at 1024 Claywood Drive. In support of these allegations, the City has a copy of a sales pamphlet advertising a Carlisle Clothing Line " Fall 2001", a copy of an invitation for browsing by appointment, and a letter from Louis Burgess. Statement of the Facts Both Mr. Burgess and the City of Little Rock have mischaracterized Ms. Cooper's home occupation. Ms. Becky Cooper is a clothing consultant for the Carlisle Clothing Collection, not operating a retail apparel shop. As a clothing consultant, Ms. Cooper anticipates having four seasonal trunk showings per year. Thus far, Ms. Cooper has had two. The trunk showing is not open to the general January 4, 2002 Page 2 public. Invitations and the season's clothing brochure are sent out by Ms. Cooper which invites guests to the season's show. Each trunk showing is scheduled for ten days. Ms. Cooper or one of the other Carlisle Consultants calls for a consulting appointment to be conducted at Ms. Cooper's residence. Generally, no more than one guest is present at one time. The appointment includes a viewing of samples from the Carlisle Collection, none of which are for sale to the guest. Some guests simply order from Ms. Cooper by phone without viewing the Carlisle Collection samples. For example, on Friday, July 27, 2001, there were two appointments'- one at 9:30 a.m. and one at 10:30 a.m. On Thursday, August 2, 2001, there were four appointments - two at 11:00 a.m., one at 2:00 p.m., and one at 3:00 p.m. Of the ten day showing, there are several days in which there are no appointments. Ms. Cooper uses her living room for the trunk showing. The activities could be compared to the sale of Avon, Mary Kay Cosmetics, or Tupperware products except the number of people attending at one time is not similar and there are no products or stock available at Ms. Cooper's residence to be purchased. There is less cars at Ms. Cooper's house than would be expected for a special event (i.e., bridge club, social luncheon, party, etc.). Discussion of Little Rock Zoning Ordinances Little Rock, Ark, Rev. Code § 36-253(b)(6)(a) specifies permitted uses of a residence for a home occupation. The ordinance states that a home occupation will be permitted provided there is : (1) no change to the outside appearance or visible display from the street; (2) no excess traffic or parking generated; (3) no hazardous situations result; (4) no outside storage or display of any product; (5) no accessory buildings; (6) no signs; (7) no more than 500 square feet or 49% of the floor area in the residence is used ; (8) no stock will exceed 10% of the floor area; (9) no construction or addition to the residence or duplicate kitchens; (10) no consumption on the premises of food produced on the premises; and (11) no medical treatment or therapeutic massage are provided. The use of Ms. Cooper's residence in clothing consulting satisfies all of the requirements stated above. Further, Little Rock Ordinance 36-253 (b) (6) (b) (10) permits certain identified home occupations including personal products marketed without stock on the premises. Therefore, Ms. Cooper's use of her premises is permitted. Evidence Attached hereto as Exhibits 1-5 are Affidavits from neighbors of Ms. Cooper January 4, 2002 Page 3 generally stating there has been no increase in traffic or parking problems associated with Ms. Cooper's home occupation. In fact, Ms. Brizzolara, who lives directly across the street from Mr. Burgess, states that Mr. Burgess' carport sales throughout the year cause more traffic and cars than any other event on Claywood Street. All of the persons who are submitting affidavits live on the opposite side of the street from Ms. Cooper and Mr. Burgess. They all have indicated they have personal knowledge of the traffic situation on Claywood Street because most of them are home during the day. The fact that all of them live on the opposite side of the street makes their ability to observe traffic and parked cars easier than neighbors on the same side of the street as Ms. Cooper. A drawing depictirig the location of the homes on Claywood street is attached as Exhibit 6. Conclusion Accordingly, Ms. Cooper has provided the Board of Adjustment with overwhelming evidence that the activities she is conducting in her residence do not violate the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinances. Ms. Cooper respectfully requests the Board grant a favorable interpretation of Ms. Cooper's use of her residence so that the alleged violations will be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, The McMullan Law Firm P. O. Box 2839 Little Rock, AR 72203-2839 (501) 376-9119 (501) 376-8437 (fax) B Y Mari McMullan 6.4123 Attorney for Becky Cooper AFFIDAVIT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Janet Brizzolara, after being duly sworn, does depose and state that I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit: 1. I reside at 1023 Claywood, Little Rock, Arkansas. 2. I have lived at this residence for thirteen years. 3. I am at home during most times of the day and night as I do not work outside the home. 4. I observed no additional traffic or cars parked on the street since Ms. Cooper has started her home clothing consulting business in August of 2001. S. There has not been an increase in people traffic going in and out of Ms. Cooper's residence. 6. My residence is directly across the street from Louis Burgess who has several carport sales throughout the year and whose carport sales cause more traffic and cars than any other event on Claywood Street. Further, Affiant sayeth naught. net Brizzolara EXHIBIT E Subscribed an sworn to before me, the undersigned notary public, on this day of .20 0 Z "Sm�k Notary Public My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI K ine Matchett after being duly sworn, does depose and state that I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit: 1. I reside at 1119 Claywood, Little Rock, Arkansas. 2. I have lived at this residence for 2.5 years. 3. Since August, I have been working part time and am at home when not at work. 4. I am aware of Ms. Cooper's business which she operates from her home and generally have not observed traffic or cars parked on the street or any other thing which would be a safety hazard to the neighborhood. 5. There has not been an increase in people traffic going in and out of Ms. Cooper's residence. Further, Affiant sayeth naught. m -Kc-iL1 Ur= Matchett K-41 r- y EXHIBIT E Subscribed and sworn to before me, the undersigned notary public, on this day of , 20 My Commission Expires: Notary Public a f'OO ?ALublic, ArkUSSmission f Arkansas Exp -""#/zoo9 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Nat Butcher, after being duly sworn, does depose and state that I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit: 1. I reside at 1105 Claywood, Little Rock, Arkansas. 2. I have lived at this residence for 31 years. 3. I am retired and at home most times during the day and night. 4. Claywood Street generally enjoys fewer cars parked on the street than other streets in the City of Little Rock. 5. I am aware of Ms. Cooper's new business which she operates from her home and generally have not observed any additional traffic or cars parked on the street that would create a safety issue. 6. I have observed when Ms. Cooper first started her business that a few more cars were parked on the street before and I also observed a few people going into Ms. Cooper's house but did not consider either of these to be hazardous or a safety issue to the people in the neighborhood. 7. I do not consider Ms. Cooper's business a nuisance to our neighborhood. Further, Affiant sayeth naught. Nat Butcher EXHIBIT E ubscribesworn to before me, the undersigned notary public, on this day of 4� � , 20OZ, . Notary Public My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Barbara Butcher, after being duly sworn, does depose and state that I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit: 1. I reside at 1105 Claywood, Little Rock, Arkansas. 2. I have lived at this residence for 31 years. 3. I am at home most times during the day and night. 4. I am aware of Ms. Cooper's new business which she operates from her home and generally have not observed traffic or cars parked on the street which would be a hazard. 5. I do not consider Ms. Cooper's business a nuisance to our neighborhood. Further, Affiant sayeth naught. Barbara Butcher EXHIBIT e Subscribed and sworn to before me, the undersigned notary public, on this day of , 2002—. Notary Public My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Betty Brock, after being duly sworn, does depose and state that I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit: 1. I reside at 1111 Claywood, Little Rock, Arkansas, which is directly across the street from Becky Cooper. 2. I have lived at this residence since approximately 1997. While I am at work during the weekday, I regularly come home at lunch. 3. I am aware of the regular traffic flow on Claywood, as well as cars parked on the street. 4. There has not been a substantial increase in traffic which I believe would be a safety issue since Ms. Cooper has begun her work as a clothing consultant in August of 2001. 5. There has not been an increase in people traffic going in and out of Ms. Cooper's residence., 6. There has not been any physical changes made to the residence. Further, Affiant sayeth naught. EXHIBIT m S Subscribed and sworn to before me, day of , My Commission Expires: the undersigned notary public, on this 200a . ku-t-'L� W/A�� Notary Public EXHIBIT E Cd U aJ Q) C 0 0 Cd oU �U {, N co .N N � N Talo Foo Cd 00 00 Cd 0 ce C� in 4J 4J o CdQ,o o 0 °o O � O O � Val �bO 41 4J CN O Cd 00 �U CU �o .Q o �o EXHIBIT E A N T = N fU CA CD 0 W ui CD CD CDOCD a Ul Q O cn m r o r- ,. N cr CD W a Ul CL) a o m n m a� co cn l CSD C) a) o W 0 CD CD CD CD N 7S' Zr N y O CD CL < (np :3 Cl) v O CD n ooCL -1 _ N cD Q Z c O O a CD r ^ Er C CD a N o 0 C � rn CD O n m o C W0 CD C" c� eN-� co 71 o i N --4 M O � cn ;::� w cn r CD C m C. 0 CD a CD(D-o Zr `D ' N rt :3 Cl) v - � �Q n N �_ _ N cD Q r cn O O O -nO 0 r ^ O Q. C N 0 r� o 0 C � rn C O n m C W0 eN-� O CD O i N O � r Jan. 15, 2002 �2:^-7»� To: Little Rock ,L Board of Adjustment From: Louis Burgess Subject: Becky Cooper 1024 Claywood Dr. Hearing before the Little Rock, Ar. 72227 Board of Adjustments Tel. 224-0723 Monday, Jan. 28,2002 2:00 PM The above Becky Cooper Hearing that is scheduled before your committee on Monday, Jan. 28, 2:OOPM was a result of my complaint of Aug. 20, 2001 to to the Little Rock Zoning Dept. (Mr. Darrell Holiday). A copy of this complaint is attached for your review. A detailed chronological listing of my activities leading up to the scheduling of this hearing is also attached. As you review this listing, I'm sure you will agree that I have done about everything I could do to bring this issue to a conclusion. I'm convinced that without my patience and persistence this would never have reached the hearing stage. I can assure you I am not "the neighborhood troublemaker"' but I am strongly opposed to the continued Retail Commercial Women's Apparell Sale by Becky Cooper from her residence at 1112 Claywood Dr., approximately, 40 paces from my front door. I will attempt to list things that influenced my opposition to this venture: 1. Leawood Subdivision is a quiet neighborhood in West Little Rock built in about 1965. A large number of it's residents are Senior Citizens that have lived in their homes for many years. I fall into that category -I am 67 years of age and have lived at 1024 Claywood Dr. for over 23 years. 2. Becky Cooper operated a Children's Apparel Design Shop in her residence for many years. She closed in her garage and used it for her workshop to produce children's ware for an out-of-state firm. A neighbor filed a com- plaint against Becky Cooper for the use of her residence as a Commercial facility. The primary street traffic created by this business was primarily an UPS truck that frequently was arriving and leaving her home. I had no objection to her design workshop, and I actually did some wiring at her home that complimented her home and workshop. I don't know what happened to this complaint, but from my experience with my complaint, I can see without persistence it could have "died in committee". 3. When I found out of her intentions of Home Retail Sales from her home, I was immediately skeptical about it's effect on our neighborhood. Claywood Dr. is only about 600' long with 12 residential families facing this street. The street dead -ends into Linda Lane to the north and Leawood Blvd. to the south. The majority of these lots are only 90' wide and 130' deep. Each of these 90' lots have driveways -approximately 24' wide and then expanding to approximately 30' at the entrance onto the street. Only about two cars can park in front of the house of each lot. A rough plot of our neighbor- (2) hood (12 residences) is attached. 4. After seeing her catalogue of Aug. 2001, I contacted her advisor (Nat Butcher) and asked if each of the 5 women listed on the catalogue could rotate their house for these sales. This would only require the use of Becky Cooper's house for one sale (about 2 weeks) annually. After talking with Cooper, Butcher told me that my proposal was not acceptable. All sales would be at her house. 5. In Oct., 2001, the Little Rock Zoning Dept. held a meeting of Leawood Addition residents at St Marks Episcopal Church. Each resident was given an opportunity to list concerns of activities that would adversely effect our neighborhood. My wife and I were at one round -table discussion where we discussed the affect of regular Commercial Sales in our neighborhood and, to the individual, every one expressed their concern that this activity would degrade our neighborhood. We discussed Retail Sales in general, and Becky Cooper's sale in particular. Becky Cooper did not attend this neighborhood meeting. 6. Each Becky Cooper's Home Sales last about 2 weeks which includes set-up and take-down days. Although her intentions, as told to me, were to have 4 sales each year, she has had 3 sales in less than 6 months (August, October and November). This tells me we could reasonably expect Residential Retail Sales out of her home 2 or 3 months of each year (6-2 week sales). 7. Of the three (3) sales that Becky Cooper has had to date,I was at home the full two weeks of the August, 2001, Sale. The following remarks are directly related to this sale. a. The 1st Saturday of this sale my two (2) grandchildren ages 10 and 11, were visiting me and we have a scooter and a bicycle that the two enjoy riding and coasting down the hill to the north of our house. At 11:00AM on this date, they got their scooter and bicycle out and as I went out to watch, there were 8 cars and SUVs parked on both sides of the street in front of and on both sides of the Cooper house. There was "one-way" traffic only in that area. I called the grandchildren in and told them it wasn't safe for them to use their scooter and bicycle as long as the carISUV traffic continued. b. At 2:15PM, on the Wednesday following the 1st Saturday, I had an occasion to return from a shopping trip on Cantrell Road and as I returned home from the North, I approached the north end of Claywood. As I neared the Cooper's residence there were seven (7) vehicles parked on both sides of the street. As I approached, a lady came out of Becky Cooper's residence with two (2) large bags in her hands. I stopped to let her cross to her dark green SUV. She opened the back door and depositedt-ih:er-.pabkages,got into the driver's seat and pulled out going north on Claywood Dr. I backed up giving her the right-of-way on this one way traffic area. After this experience, I never go north on my street when there is a Becky Cooper Sale. c. Gentlemen, this activity will probably be described by Becky Cooper and her Attorney as only an enlarged Carport/Garage Sale. This simply is not true. (3) * The 10 page catalogue is a very professionally prepared piece of literature that advertises new goods at Retail Sale, and invites the use of Visa and Master Card. * From my observation, there were many, many items for sale. The living room and dining room walls were lined with women's clothing. The magnitude of the sales is punctuated by the fact that 5 women are involved. d. The 1st full day of this first sale created 25 vehicles (by actual count) that were related to this sale. The 3rd day there were 12 vehicles (by actual count). With my actual counts, I would estimate conservatively that there were 100 total vehicles related to this sale on Claywood Dr. during this total sale. e. After the completion of this 1st sale in August, 2001, I saw Becky Cooper and 2 or 3 of her workers load the unsold items in a SUV to' return to ---Memphis There were 3 boxes about 4'x3'x6" that required two people to load, and 18 double arm loads of loose ladies garments (Hardly Carport/Garage Sale Items). On Sept. 13, 2001, Becky Cooper was issued a Little Rock Zoning Dept. directive to stop these illegal sales. On Nov. 20, 2001, Becky Cooper was issued a Certified Letter from the City Attorney's office advising her that further Residential Sales from her home would result in the issuance--Of..a citation by the City. I had not heard from the Little Rock Zoning Section for over 6 weeks until I returned from an out of town trip Friday evening, Jan. 11. My wife had been contacted by Kenneth Jones advising me that the hearing before the Little Rock Board of Adjustments would be held Monday, Jan. 28, 2002. This was what I had worked for for 6 months but the news was devastating. This is the only week of the complete year that I cannot attend. For many years, 3 couples (our dearest friends) spend 1 week on a ski trip to Winter Park, Colorado. We leave Jan 24 and return Feb. 4. I thought of cancelling our trip and losing about $2000 in condo rent and deposits. After discussing this with my wife, I found this was not an option. I have put my best effort into my opposition against this venture in my neighborhood. Many hours of work and a lot of neighborhood "hard feelings" - Down the drain??? There is no one else that can present my position as effectively as I can; because I have purposely tried to keep my neighbors, who support my position out of this neighborhood squabble. I elected to take my chances with your Board of Adjustments. I would present my case personally against the Coopers, her attorney, etc. and accept the Board's decision -win, loose, or draw. AND NOW FOR MY PLEA- ( (4) Would you please consider to change the hearing date that is now scheduled for Jan. 28, to your regular meeting in Feb., 2002? Please! Please! Give this request your serious consideration. I don't believe you would want this kind of regular activity within 40 steps of your door and I don't either! Thank you for your time and consideration. Louis Burgess 1024 Claywood Dr. Little Rock, Ar. 72227 224-0723 (telephone) cc Monte Moore 13Q 3 fl 0 V J w 1 I is �.1n/Oo a SLD1/. i ink �� 1Q 13Q 3 fl 0 V J w 1 I is �.1n/Oo a SLD1/. • 17111111-,M,.4� j. 30, 2001 Little Rock Zoning Dept. Mr. Darrell Holladay 723 W. Markham Little Rock, Ar. 72301 Dear Mr. Holladay: In accordance with our telephone conversation of yesterday, I am submitting the following for your handling: I am Louis Burgess, 1024 Claywood Dr. Leawood Subdivision, Little Rock, Ar. 72227. Becky Cooper lives in the second house north of me, 1112 Claywood Dr. In the past Mrs. Cooper designed children's cloths for an out city company. She converted her garage into her workshop and the only vehicle traffic generated by this bisiness was the frequent UPS truck to her residence. This was no bother to me, and I in fact advised her on some electrical changes nec- essary to convert her double garage to her workshop. Over a year ago this venture ended, and she took a job in a Day Care Center. Just recently, she quit her Day Care Center job, and elected to open another business in her home at 1112 Claywood Dr. As you will note from the enclosed brochure and sales phamplet, she began a retail women's apparell shop in her home with 4 other women. She began to prepare for this Fall Sale the last week of July with &,Iles geginning about July 30. Vehicle traffic relative to this sale resulted in from 12 to 25 units is is only one long street (600Ft.), with seven homes on each side of the street. This is a quiet neighborhood that is enjoyed by it's residents. It is my understanding that sales of this nature will be ongoing on a regular basis (4 or 5 times each year). I have been told that the next one is scheduled for Oct. 2001. From the enclosed brochure, you will note that 4 other women are involved. I thought that perhaps each one would hold one of the sales in their home annually, and our street could handle the inconvenience once each year. I've been told that this is not the case, that in fact our neighborhood will see all future sales -about 50 days annually (sales, set-ups, and take down). Mr. Holladay, this is no little venture. After this sale, I saw the women load the unsold items for return to Memphis (2 large boxes that took two women to carry, and 18 double arm loads on hangers). This neighborhood is zoned "R-2 Residential" and I feel that this is a direct violation of the City's Zoning Code. I would ask that you investigate this before the next planned sale. If you feel that my complaint is unfounded or frivolous, please let know and I will "grin and bear"'. -the increased traffic on my street. Louis Burgess 224-0723 CARLISLE We're p eased! _o announce the arrival of the Carlisle Fall 2001 Collection. the ultimate. in style for any occasion. Thursday, August 2 - Saturday, August 12 1112 Claywood r=ae May Libby Thoveatf Becky Cooper Nancy Mitcham Gayle Rcbertson 2251400 2250134 2211761 664-0432 383-1075 sizes 618 Browsing by appointment • Visa and MasterCard Accepted ...11 orcceeds rr -� : "e >ale of a specially designed scarf donated to the Susan G. Komen Foundation O,e-OG.1c"?Z- Zi,S'T/IVio� r C'014:941- ------- --------- e1741-0-1-6 4/,e5-/vTl57 --- -- --- --- 27 '-���, . z--lylGf/------ �eG��._.._(....��Cj' ..r7h�./1 �r _�f-_/��%CY.J. Gc�hC��L'CU .T�j� �l�cilhjr�� 1112 27 om RRr �rs �:, � �r �''es���,� c� c� /// 2 G����n•oocf �i-J�c •%' IcS 6912 /� �r Al- �.s nil. �hoy 7��j c `7w c'r �v/�%�� f��r�'�✓ �+ goij� � C�o c7t�y �i»�y ZDcP W*9S ' lfi � �dy 7 �� pYC�' Z�o /l G"hl2 SG Za _ -. 'rcc cr,•<<✓ d cam✓ o �c�i�a �� e�,� Cc�zla /o �� c7 rs� f y �ec�✓ o✓� ry d z�%j rr �Jv, T%>%s vas Se-- ce14 /cn/ 7.1 � t�'dys �.�CPL� �t t✓Jr1a. Cmc , f� .�G•c�/1Cn` Tyr /��i� P�il �/BJ7 is �� c�dy/J r /%�1.+» h� � r7 � Zo �C,a?1' • zc� . � /�l-i C�"/7 do 1� �r �c�/�C�-✓ ��r� t� 57 i � t/�� t d c4y�z • 9 9 M/7. /� war roar 6% �1r� wer Zlc cy c's . �ar� s�oc..�>h9 � �rfi�w sa/r zL�r Lv��,� d����.��'• e S��cY i7C �vliJ� tr.� �3cZy cz1/rrs /c� �, -zl-4 >'C�GP Z,4c mart roc r� Lz— _- .cd z`g/� . 61,1c -/7_t-,-..i'dm� , _----------- �`a✓alarei _ �� �ch-e'r__ �a_v` G`���r_4_.�� _r_�.../r'�--�fc'�'.t��s_'�--o-�.�J�c c, - -- - ern--- - - - -- - . ar rs------------ --- -- ---- - --- ---- -- ---- ---....-- --- - -- --- - _.._.__.. - - -- - _ _ _ . _ 2'�— Ja/r was % �-��-rr.� • �. ��.��r.. ��� � a /��r,- wa�.ld A;22 ...tea%s c�c�y/ �lr,-r � �+fo�c•,% �j�.s �a� �oy��.� r�f���/rr OC 7- S a /ra /eP,' OC .�Q l►� Ccs%� � /�CohhG�� / 1 / — • -- •�' �/� d� h r'S c�cJ. r.ly, vl.� � �7 �' ul-,�.5. /70 � J � .. _ 1. ��t i� �.s �a � r-��r .�i.� �a CaI%m � • /�� s� err y re _ • �yr/� �Cd._ my C� ��• Z�o Cah 2�;_ Cz J _l _ _ .:�-�_ lc�.��e L•�.r ca, �' � f�ar/� rc� �f7� � ���ny Sca��' ,ria s �.U7' Z /G ZXerS� ble�r r� A4. c/ Zoo .sem >. 2ji'v zLi cc- /7r�a /C�i? .. %fie sa>'� � e u�a�. %,� C,�II � c ��, v�' ��-�rr� �_ •�r,�•- -cz �u= ��c p"` Le y <-,o.IvX/ le77CYC 43.. (6) Aloy. 7 1,112 I:r Z/ --- Z -4.-;p -2L- ,Z'-s'w - q C.Z A7 n2e,� C-/ -za op- // IYO4, V,1:�� 1-7 1-.' rl-'111-41 �» C" /e co- �a C/ �e r� .s e,i /� 1-71e &,f c� � 2 2 Z` Zz) 15e'4,4�� le�Y c772-rr- 41le 7Z' 2Jl.� :: �%,� .� ��� Wee� � �o��a � �� h �-� %% �� ✓Pym �y 30 / � !7 ZLa /��'c�� ��-r • �G� l�l.�s Jia L1'Jr� Ile- pec 1�✓�s eek o ye Z,4 71- Lcc�r _L,S J'l'7'a>��rrJGUsl 17Y Oc LD�'G /f� C �2� Dt� 17 r c1' � i�r ���► � ��chn r �/? dc�h cs `lam �r _ Co.J/cedh d zoo/a Xc-r2"ic /5cc/y�rr /X' L> i . I ��c GtJaS Tic yS �. - Calr�/,9Z, 7 cam 6- �sa� ,C f��� y�G Pj✓ccs _�o�,-z- c�ri ✓ Y�rcS rr� � �Jve- � � �j c �� ii, OYCY �0 1✓ rC/� -zp 2 ce y ��i February` -j, 2002 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z-6482 Owner: Toll Corporation; Richard Toll Address: Northwest corner of Kanis and Rodney Parham Roads Type of Issue: Time extension of previously approved variances from the area regulations of Section 36-320. The variances were initially approved on April 27, 1998. Extensions were granted through April 27, 2002. STAFF REPORT: On April 27, 1998, the applicant received Board of Adjustment approval of a front yard setback variance to allow for construction of a new 14,000 square foot office building on this I-2 zoned property. The building has not yet been constructed. On April 24, 2000, the Board granted a 4 -month extension of that previous approval. The applicant had been negotiating a lease and was concerned that it would not have been possible to consummate the lease agreement, design the building, draw the plans and obtain the required permits by April 27, 2000. Article IV, Section 2 of the Board of Adjustment Bylaws states: If an application is approved by the Board, all permits necessary for the initiation of work shall be obtained within two (2) years from the date of approval, unless an extension of time is granted by the Board. Otherwise, the Board approval of the application shall be considered void. During the course of obtaining the building permit, the applicant became embroiled with Public Works over a floodway issue that stopped the process. On August 28, 2000 the Board of Adjustment granted a second time extension through April 27, 2002. February 2002 Item No.: 1 Since then, the applicant has been working with Public Works and FTN Association, a private hydraulic engineering firm, to resolve the floodway issue. FTN Associates is in the process of completing a floodway study which will be presented to FEMA as part of an application to amend the existing floodway maps. It is the applicant's belief that the end result will be reduction of the minimum finished floor elevation for this property, which was raised some three (3) feet (according to Public Works) after the Rock Creek Channelization Project. Public Works has confirmed to staff that work is progressing on this issue and that the final approval from FEMA could take an additional year, possibly slightly longer. Therefore, the applicant has requested an additional time extension for the previously approved variances. The applicant is requesting an extension of at least one (1) year, and preferably 18 to 24 months to resolve the floodway issue and obtain a building permit. Staff is supportive of a 16 -month time extension from the April 27, 2002 expiration date. This will give the applicant until August 27, 2003 (18 months from the February 2002 Board of Adjustment meeting) to resolve the floodway issue and obtain a building permit for the new structure. Other circumstances in the area have not changed that would be affected by the setback variance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of an extension through August 27, 2003, subject to compliance with all conditions noted in the April 27, 1998 Board minute record of File No. Z-6482. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 25, 2002) 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. VA MEMORANDUM ( 'p --- ��) TO: MONTE MOORE, PLANING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF LR DATE: 1/10/02 FROM: RICHARD TOLL SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF ZONING CASE #Z-6428 ON 7/11/001 REQUESTED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VIA MR. DANA CARNEY TO EXTEND THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED IN MY MEMO TO MR. CARNEY. (SEE ATTACHED COPY) SUBSEQUENTLY THE CITY OFFERED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN APPROXIMATELY SEPTEMBER OF 2001 WHICH AFTER DELIBERATION AND CONSULTATION WITH OTHER INVOLVED PARTIES, I DECIDED TO ACCEPT DURING THE LAST WEEK OF OCTOBER 2001. THE BUILDING PERMIT IN QUESTION WAS ALREADY SIGNED OFF BY ALL DEPARTMENTS EXCEPT PUBLIC WORKS. WHEN I ATTEMPTED TO GIVE THEM A LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE TO THE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL IN EXCHANGE FOR A SIGN OFF ON THE BUILDING PERMIT, THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY HAD RECENTLY BEEN NOTIFIED BY FEMA THAT THE FLOODWAY ELEVATIONS AND 100 YEAR BOUNDARY HAD BEEN CHANGED WITH THE END RESULT BEING THAT MY BUILDING SITE WAS NOW IN THE FLOODWAY, AND THIS PRECLUDED THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. AFTER DISCUSSING THE MATTER WITH SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN THE ROCK CREEK CHANNELIZATION PROJECT THAT ESTABLISHED THE CRITERIA THAT HAD BEEN FOLLOWED FOR THE PREVIOUS 10 YEARS, THERE WAS DOUBT THAT THE NEW STUDY WAS IN FACT CORRECT. CONSEQUENTLY I ENGAGED FTN ASSOCIATES, HYDRAULIC ENGINEERS, TO LOOK INTO THE MATTER. THEIR INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT THE STUDY WAS INDEED FLAWED BECAUSE THE WRONG TOPOGRAPHY INFORMATION WAS USED. THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF MR. BOB TURNER AND AFTER SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS IT WAS AGREED THAT THE ADDITIONAL STUDY REQUIRED FOR AN APPLICATION TO FEMA TO MAKE THE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS WOULD BE DONE BY FTN AND THAT PART OF MY MONEY HELD IN ESCROW BY THE CITY WOULD BE USED TO PAY FOR THE WORK. ( SEE ATTACHED LETTER TO MR. STEVE HARALSON) I AM TOLD THAT THE WHOLE PROCESS MIGHT TAKE 6 MONTHS TO A YEAR TO COMPLETE. FOR THIS REASON I AM REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF AT LEAST A YEAR, PREFERABLY 18 OR 24 MONTHS GIVEN THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE TIME REQUIRED TO WORK ALL OF THIS OUT. I WILL GREATLY APPRECIATE IT IF THE BOARD WILL GRANT THIS EXTENSION. THANK YOU, RICHARD F. TOLL TO: MR. DANA CARNY, DATE: 7/11 /00 MEMORANDUM BOARD SECRETARY, LR CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FROM: RICHARD F. TOLL SUBJECT: ZONING CASE # Z-042$ vvN 2/2/x0 f SENT YOU A i�1EM0 REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD EXTEND THE EXPIRATION OF THE SUBJECT ZONING CASE UNTIL AUGUST 27, 2000, WHICH THEY DID. DURING THE COURSE OF OBTAINING THE BUILDING PERMIT AND BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND I HAVE BECOME IN A DISPUTE OVER A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER THAT HAS STOPPED THE PROCESS, AND I AM ASKING THE CITY BOARD VIA MR. DAVID SCHARER ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER TO SETTLE FOR US. THE MATTER 1S NOW IN THE HANDS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY MR. SCHARER THAT IT WILL TAKE SEVERAL WEEKS FOR THE STAFF AVD CITY ATTORNEY TO ACT ON THE MATTER. THERE IS A STRONG POSSIBILITY THAT WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE THE COURTS SETTLE IT FOR US. THE TIME REQUIRED FOR ALL OF THIS IS VERY INDEFINITE AND COULD EXTEND FOR QUITE A LONG PERIOD OF TIME_ IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I WISH TO REQUEST THAT THE BOARD ALLOW AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME LIMIT ON THE SUBJECT ZONING CASE UNTIL THE MATTER IS SETTLED WITH THE CITY OR IN THE COURTS. IF IT IS NECESSARY FOR ME TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, WILL YOU PLEASE PLACE IT ON THE AGENDA AND NOTIFY ME OF WHEN THE HEARING WILL BE. WILL APPRECIATE HEARING FROM YOU VIA A LETTER OR FAX AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE. THANK YOU, / .4,t ,, j V �,y,�,N RICHARD F. TOLL CO FD>I Corporation P.O. Box 21640 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72221-1640 • (501) 221-3224 JANUARY 9, 2001 MR. STEVE HARALSON, CIVIL ENGINEEERING MANAGER CITY OF LITTLE ROCK 701 MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 RE: STUDY FOR FLOODWAY MAP CORRECTION 12TH. AND RODNEY PARHAM RD. PER OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION, ATTACHED IS A PROPOSAL FROM FTN ASSOCIATES LTD. TO MAKE THE STUDY IN QUESTION. THIS WORK WILL ENABLE THE CITY TO SUBMIT THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION TO MAKE A SUBMISSION TO FEMA FOR THE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS TO THE PRESENT PREVAILING FLOODWAY MAP. I REQUEST THAT YOU USE A PART OF THE APPROXIMATELY $ 45,000 THAT I DEPOSITED WITH THE CITY PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE SETTLEMENT OF MY OBJECTION TO THE AMOUNT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIREMENT BY THE CITY, BASED ON THE DOLAN VS. TIGARD U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING. IT IS MY FURTHER UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THIS STUDY RESULTS IN FEMA'S CHANGES IN THE FLOODWAY MAP THAT REMOVES MY PROJECT FROM THE FLOODWAY, THAT I WILL BE ISSUED THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THIS PROPERTY THAT IS BEING HELD UP BY PUBLIC WORKS PENDING THE RESOLVING OF THE DISPUTE AND FLOODWAY MATTER. MR. DAVID SCHARER MADE A PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE WHICH I WAS READY TO AGREE TO, THEN THE FLOODWAY ISSUE WAS DISCOVERED WHICH PREVENTED CONSUMMATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. I HAVE ALREADY PAID FTN $ 7,880 FOR THE WORK DONE ON THE PROJECT TO THIS POINT. (SEE ATTACHED CHECK COPIES). IF THE STUDY PROVES THAT THE CHANGES MADE TO THE FLOODWAY BOUNDARY WERE MADE IN ERROR, I FEEL THAT IT IS ONLY FAIR THAT THE COST OF CORRECTION SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED ON ME AND THAT I SHOULD BE REIMBURSED FOR THE MONEY I HAVE SPENT. THIS CAN ALSO COME FROM THE $ 45,000 FUND. PLEASE ACT ON THIS ASAP AND GIVE FTN THE GO AHEAD SO THAT THE MATTER CAN BE RESOLVED AS EXPEDIENTLY AS POSSIBLE, AND I HOPEFULLY CAN BE ALLOWED TO USE MY PROPERTY. SINCERELY,_ , l DICK TOLL February J, 2002 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 issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7147 Block 2 Limited Partnership 107 East Markham Street Part of Block 2, Original City of Little Rock W Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 553 and the development criteria of Section 36-342.1 to permit a projecting sign which extends into the public right-of-way and exceeds the maximum sign area allowed. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Mixed Office, Commercial and Residential Mixed Office, Commercial and Residential The UU zoned property at 107 E. Markham Street contains an existing building, which is currently being redeveloped for a mixture of office, commercial and residential uses. The tenant (Funny Bone Comedy Club) who is to be located on the ground floor of the building, at the corner of West Markham Street and the alley within Block 2, is requesting variances to allow February J, 2002 Item No.: 2 a projecting sign which extends over the property line and into the public right-of-way and to exceed the maximum sign area allowed for a projecting sign. The building at this location sits on the property line. The proposed sign will have a maximum of 24 square feet in area, with a minimum clearance of 10 feet above the sidewalk. The sign will be located at the northeast corner of the building and be perpendicular to the building and East Markham Street. The sign will contain the wording "Funny Bone" and the business logo. According to Section 36-342.1(c)(9)a. (W District Development Criteria), "objects shall not project from the building facade over the public right-of-way except for awnings and balconies." In addition, Section 36- 342.1(c)(11) permits signage in the W district as allowed in Section 36-553, signs permitted in institutional and office zones. Section 36-553 allows one (1) projecting sign per occupancy, not to exceed 12 square feet in area, with a minimum setback of five (5) feet from property lines. The sign is required to have a minimum clearance of nine (9) feet over sidewalks. In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 36-342.1(c)(9)a. to allow a sign which projects from the building into the right-of-way, and variances from Section 36-553 to allow the projecting sign to have a maximum area of 24 square feet, and no setback from property lines. The applicant has applied for a franchise permit for the sign. The franchise application has gone through the review process, with approval by the Board of Adjustment being the only outstanding issue. Once the Board approves the variances associated with the sign, the franchise can be granted. Staff believes that the requested variances are reasonable and supports the application. The proposed projecting sign should aid in the identification and location of the business, and would not be out of character with other signs in the general area. Staff feels that the projecting sign will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. KA February 2002 Item No.: 2 C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances for the proposed projecting sign subject to the following conditions: 1. A franchise must be obtained for the sign. 2. A sign permit must be obtained for the sign. 3. The sign will have a maximum area of 24 square feet. 4. The sign must maintain a minimum nine (9) foot clearance above the sidewalk. 5. Only one (1) projecting sign will be allowed for this occupancy. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 25, 2002) 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 I" STATES COMEDY 2.12.02 Little Rock- Board of Adjustments Funny Bone Comedy Club 107 East Markham Little Dock, AR 72201 Dear Board of Adjustments: I would like to thank you in advance for considering my variance. I would like you to give my business a variance on a sign not to exceed 24 square feet. The sign will be at least 10 feet above the sidewalk and be perpendicular to the corner of the building and East Markham Street. I am aware that a 12 square foot sign is all that the code allows. I am trema to size my sign so that it can be seen coming from the end of the River Market. I can see the success of the River Market and would like to bring that customer traffic back down toward Markham and Main Street. I believe that a highly visible and elegant sign can accomplish this. You can reach me at 501.376.0369 with any questions or concerns. Sincere V/, J Ch c 107 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ph# (501) 376-0369 Fax# (501) 376-1369 February J, 2002 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Z-7148 Mack Blann 12116 Pleasant Tree Drive Lot 13, Rainwood Second Addition R-2 Variances are requested from the easement provisions of Section 36-11 and the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an accessory building which extends into a utility easement, with a reduced rear yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. 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 12116 Pleasant Tree Drive is occupied by a newly constructed one-story, brick single family residence and a 10 foot by 12 foot accessory building, which is located near the northeast corner of the property. The house which previously occupied the site burned and was torn down. The accessory building which exists on the site currently was on the property with the previous residence and was located next to the northeast corner of the house, with little or no separation. Februaryt �, 2002 Item No.: 3 When construction began on the new residential structure, the accessory building was moved closer to the rear property line. The accessory building is located approximately two (2) feet from the rear (north) property line and extends three (3) feet into the five (5) foot wide utility easement which runs along the rear property line. The accessory structure is separated from the principal structure by six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from the easement provisions of Section 36-11 and the area provision of Section 36-156. Section 36-11(f) states that no building or structures be constructed on, over or into any easement. The applicant has provided staff with approvals from all of the public utility companies, allowing the proposed easement encroachment. Section 36-156(a)(2)f. requires that accessory buildings be located at least three (3) feet back from a rear property line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances, as they are very minor in nature. Given the fact that this corner lot has a 25 foot platted building line along each street frontage, the resulting rear yard is relatively small. It would be impossible to locate a 10 foot wide accessory building in this rear yard and comply with all of the ordinance requirements. There will be adequate separation of the accessory structure from the single family residence. Staff does not believe that the requested variances will have a negative impact on the adjacent properties on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested easement encroachment and rear yard setback variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 25, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. E February( 2002 Item No.: 3 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 APO -3 &A i& #,& ?-- 7/ �e Xo/-"', i (�Volu(f -elAj - z e All (�s i✓ e s q j a - le) &1.e'll ,,,j ,41--- C/ D Si 76- 6-,v c w %7 -60 i / / P t- elm c lo 4C' 47 5 A/ RF/AIW Affiliates Realty 11219 Financial Centre Parkway Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Office: (501) 225-1950 Toll Free: 1 -800 -731 -SOLD aroerom Each office independently owned and operated February(_, 2002 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested Justification: Present Use of Property Z-7149 Little Rock Career Development Center, Inc. 125 West 4th Street Southwest corner of West 4th Street and Main Street W Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-553 and the development criteria of Section 36-342.1 to permit an under -canopy sign which extends into the public right-of-way and exceeds the maximum sign area allowed. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Mixed Office/Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Mixed Office/Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 125 West 4th Street contains an existing office/commercial building. One of the building's tenants (Little Rock Career Development Center, Inc.), who is located on the ground floor of the building, is requesting variances to allow an under -canopy sign (Main Street frontage) which extends over the property line and into the public right-of-way and exceeds the maximum sign area allowed for an under- February j, 2002 Item No.: 4 canopy sign. The building at this location sits on the property line. The proposed sign will be 24 square feet in area (2 feet by 12 feet), with a clearance of at least 9 feet above the sidewalk. The sign will be attached under the existing canopy and be parallel to Main Street. The sign will contain the wording "Arkansas Workforce Centers of Little Rock" and the agency logo. According to Section 36-342.1(c)(9)a. (W District Development Criteria), "objects shall not project from the building fagade over the public right-of-way except for awnings and balconies." In addition, Section 36- 342.1(c)(11) permits signage in the W District as allowed in Section 36-553, signs permitted in institutional and office zones. Section 36-553 allows one (1) under -canopy sign per occupancy, not to exceed 12 square feet in area, with a minimum setback of five (5) feet from property lines. The sign is required to have a minimum clearance of nine (9) feet over sidewalks. In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 36-342.1(c)(9)a. to allow an under -canopy sign which projects into the public right- of-way, and variances from Section 36-553 to allow an under -canopy sign with a maximum area of 24 square feet and no setback from the property line. If the Board of Adjustment approves the requested variances, the applicant will be required to obtain a franchise permit for the sign. As of this writing, the applicant has not submitted an application for the franchise. Staff believes that the requested variances are reasonable and supports the application. The proposed under -canopy sign should aid in the identification and location of the business, and would not out of character with other signs in the general area. Staff feels that the under -canopy sign will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances to allow an under -canopy sign subject to the following conditions: 2 February 3, 2002 Item No.: 4 1. A franchise must be obtained for the sign. 2. A sign permit must be obtained. 3. The sign should not exceed 24 square feet in area. 4. The sign must maintain a minimum nine (9) foot clearance over the sidewalk. 5. Only one (1) under -canopy sign will be allowed for this occupancy. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 25, 2002) 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 Little Rock Career Development Center, Inc. Derek Moore Executive Director 125 West 4'h Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-7719 Fax (501) 682-7797 January 28th, 2002 City of Little Rock, Planning & Development (Zoning Dept.) 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 RE: Applications for Zoning Variance (signs) Dear Sirs/Madam: The Arkansas Workforce Center at Little Rock is collaborating organization that provides employment related services to job -seekers, as well as employers. Our current location is 125 West 4th Street, in downtown Little Rock. The Workforce Center is applying for a zoning variance for signage to be placed on the Main street side of the building. (Please notice the attached dimensions). In order to comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) regulations, the size of the sign is increased due to the intersection of 4th and Main streets being fairly busy during operating hours, thus the need for a larger sign. We appreciate your consideration of this application. Should you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 682-8001. Respectfully submitted, Derek Moore, MPA Executive Director At Little Rock February 130`, 2002 Mr. Monty Moore, ]Public `'Yorks City of Littte )Stock 500 Rest Markham Little knock, AR 72201 Re: Sign permit Dear Mr. Moore: Please let this letter serve as an addendum to the previously sent letter regarding signage for the Workforce Center located at 125 W. est 4`s, Street. The "hanging" sip. that we're proposing is,O square feet (2x12), an.d will provide more than 9ft of clearance from the bottom to the sidevial.k. Again, if you have any further questions regarding this chatter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 682-8001. Sincerely, Derek Moore, WT A Derek Moore, Executive DirecEor Eznpioyer serviccs,Youth Senices,Adult Services, Dislocated Worker Services,Weifarc: to Wart and one Stop Partncf$ 125W. Oat St-JUttle Rock,AR 72202,TDD 501-682-3331, Fax 501-682.7797, :v1ain 501-682-7719 February( j, 2002 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7150 Jana Miller Turner 5012 Hawthorne Road Lot 4 and the West 10 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, Newton's Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with a reduced side yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 5012 Hawthorne Road is occupied by a one-story, frame single family residence with a single car driveway from Hawthorne Road. The applicant proposes to construct a 25 foot - 2 inch by 31 foot - 8 inch addition at the northeast corner of the existing residential structure. The addition will be two-story construction, with a garage on the ground level and additional bedrooms in the second story. The proposed garage/bedroom addition will have a three (3) foot side yard setback from the east property line. Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard February 3, 2002 Item No.: 5 setback of six (6) feet (ten percent of the average width of the lot) . Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Given the fact that the proposed three (3) foot building setback will be for only 31 feet - 8 inches of the overall 140 foot lot depth, the proposed building addition should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. Also, staff feels that the separation between this structure and the residence immediately to the east will be sufficient. Staff does not believe that the reduced side yard setback will be out of character with the neighborhood. There are numerous single family structures in this general area with side yard building setbacks of less than three (3) feet. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback variance, subject to gutters being installed on the building addition to prevent water runoff onto the adjacent property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 25, 2002) 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 - T7/ 1 Ideas for Variance Letter More secure and alttractive situation to have enclosed garage/storage attached to residence. Additional bedrooms will be in a "dormer" type construction and will not overpower the lot and adjoining residences. Variance request is to reduce side yard set back from 6' (10% of lot width) to 3' for a distance of approximately 32' starting approximately 75' from the south property line and stopping approximately 38' from the rear property line. Ask for Dana Carney with City Planning. Phone: 371.6817, Fax 371.6863 February! ), 2002 ITEM NO.: 6 Type of Issue: Board of Adjustment Bylaws Amendment It was brought to staff's attention at the December Board meeting that the requirement for an applicant to post a sign on the subject property was not found in the Board of Adjustment Bylaws. Therefore, staff is proposing to amend the bylaws to include the sign requirement. Staff proposes to amend the Board of Adjustment Bylaws by adding the following new section to Article II: Section 6. All properties involved in variance applications shall be posted with a sign provided by staff. These signs shall be provided by the Staff to applicants at the cost specified by the Fee Ordinance, Little Rock, Arkansas Ordinance No. 18,622 (passed December 18, 2001). These signs shall be posted on the site at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting date. In accordance with Article XII, Section 1. of the Board of Adjustment Bylaws, staff presented the Board with the proposed bylaw amendment in writing at the January 28, 2002 public hearing. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: Staff presented the item to the Board. additional discussion of the issue. (FEBRUARY 25, 2002) There was no The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as presented by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. �N O U w w w F- 0 O z w F- U) D 0 Q LL O O m M I 1, C G Q. Q) C L (D G z Q m z LU co m w ¢ z 0 W } i— F— Q 0 z � C) U) Q Lli Q LU J } zvLL<: ¢ w z >- � = Y of T- Q U � t- LL CD -J of C� G W } 0 2E z Q � Q LLJ U W D _J U Q zQ U = U W0-- of Q U 5 �LLU��a' 1, C G Q. Q) C L (D G z Q m z LU co m w ¢ z 0 W } i— F— Q 0 z � C) U) Q Lli Q LU J } zvLL<: ¢ w z >- � = Y of T- Q U � t- LL CD -J of C� February 25, 2002 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Date: -5/2-5/00- ��1 /Z, - Chairman Se d etary