Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_08 28 2006. N .�.: 5..�'f+..:�..�fA_4.Vt��td:•f'�.A.w�.'-`➢'�i•7R.alr.r. . LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2006 (41111a►yj Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the July 31, 2006 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Andrew Francis, Chairman Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman Fletcher Hanson David Wilbourn Open Position Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA AUGUST 28, 2006 2:00 P.M. I. OLD BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: A. Z-8076 8223 Baseline Road B. Z-8060 6404 Geyer Springs Road C. Z-8073 17 Beauregard Drive II. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: 1. Z-8083 5208 Country Club Blvd. 2. Z-8084 25 Alton Lane 3. Z-8085 1201 N. Taylor Street 4. Z-8086 2721 Kavanaugh Blvd. 5. Z-8087 905 LaHarpe Blvd. 6. Z -8063-A NW Corner 1-440 and Lindsey Road (o O O N � F • 3NId — a3lZtlai Co 11nV81H1 ' \j VJ `" aoeo Nvwa3s U _ In o ,2 w � NIVW AtlMOVOaB HJaV NpfNO r` 4 `-`. a 53HO a3H3a0 0NIN lW � E3 a o �MOa000h1 $ 3NId 3 1 3NId �1S ypbb O i a 0 O m N017IWV 11005 0 s SpNi�ydS — Na d aftli ti `� AllWAINfl v J F AlISa3AINn w Q- soNiads 83A3D S3H0nH G+ IddISS SIW J s � a s O lOOIHO Y 810Aa3S3d M088VB NHOf 3 iw Z 3NNI3H Oa0i3lN0VH5 0 SIOaVS �'� WVHatld A3NOOa ¢ 5 — �� o NV 09 — yo — — S11WIl A110 y,7bpp w 3OOld AWN Spb1S o ca5 ORe\� n 6v�a G�y51P� cn ti 4?P n NVAIIIHS v I M31S / 'yJd'6 �l 4- 0 O S11WIl Allo2`S� m z � eepinJ CIO 31VON83J (�0 W AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Owner: Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-8076 R.S. Keathley, JR. Regina Haralson, Kaplan, Brewer, Maxey and Haralson, P.A. 8223 Baseline Road South side of Baseline Road, between Production and Distribution Drives. R-2 Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested to determine that a nonconforming use/status of the property (mobile home park) is valid. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 8223 Baseline Road is currently vacant. For a number of years the site was used as a mobile home park. Evidence of its previous use still exists in the form of concrete/asphalt pads, utility stub -outs, etc. There are two (2) asphalt drives on the property. There is a main access drive from Baseline Road down the center of the property. This drive connects to a drive along the west property line which accesses Victoria Street to the west. There is one (1) unoccupied mobile home at the northeast corner of the property. AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) This R-2 zoned property had a nonconforming R-7 status for many years during its use as a mobile home park. However, on July 20, 2004 the property ceased being used as a mobile home park. Water to the property was cut-off on July 19, 2004. The City's Zoning Ordinance does not permit the operation of a mobile home park as a by right use in R-2 zoning. The mobile home park which previously existed on this property was in existence before the property became part of the City, and was allowed to continue as a nonconforming use. Such a use can continue as long as the use is not ceased for a period of one (1) year, according to the following Section 36-153( c) of the City's Zoning Ordinance: "( c) Abandonment or discontinuance. When a nonconforming use has been discontinued or abandoned, and the appearance of which [such use] does not depict the identity of an ongoing use, and further if said situation exists for a period of one (1) year, such use shall not thereafter be reestablished or resumed. Any subsequent use or occupancy of such land or structure shall comply with the regulations of the zoning district in which such land or structure is located." Shortly before July 20, 2005 the mobile home which exists near the northeast corner of the property was placed on the site. There was no evidence that the mobile home was inhabited by July 20, 2005. Therefore, the City determined that the nonconforming status of the property has been lost. According to a letter dated February 8, 2006 from City Attorney Tom Carpenter to Phillip Kaplan, the property owner's attorney: "The City considers this property abandoned as a mobile home park and will not permit any owner to engage in such a use. The ordinance clearly notes that abandonment or discontinued use includes situations in which "the appearance... does not depict the identity of an ongoing use." Little Rock, Ark., Rev. Code §36-153( c) (1988). Arkansas law does not require the City to prove an intent to abandon a use, merely that there has been a discontinuance of such use." The property owner is appealing the City's determination that the nonconforming status of the property has been lost. The property owner is asking the Board to determine that he has not abandoned the nonconforming mobile home park use of the property and that he be allowed to continue said use. A separate packet of information, including letters from the City Attorney's office, has been provided by the applicant and will be given to the Board members for review. A member of the City Attorney's office will be present at the public hearing to provide additional information. 2 AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the August 28, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: AUGUST 28, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the September 25, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. W KAPLAN, BREWER, MAXEY & HARALSON, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW PHILIP E. KAPLAN JoANN C. MAXEY REGINA HARALSON OF COUNSEL: SILAS H. BREWER June 7, 2006 City of Little Rock Board of Adjustment 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: 8223 Baseline Road Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: 415 MAIN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 372-6400 FAX (501) 376-3612 SENDER'S E-MAILpkaplan@kbmiaw.net 2-�/� (3��-J HAND DELIVERY Mr. Raymond Keathley owned and operated a mobile home park on the property at issue from the early 1990s until he sold it in 2000. Under Mr..Keathley's ownership, the park was clean and maintained; it contained nice homes and housed decent tenants. Attached and marked as Exhibit A are pictures showing the condition of the park under Mr. Keathley's ownership. Steve and Lisa Thompson entered into a real estate contract to purchase the property from Mr. Keathley on October 17, 2000 and took possession at that time. Mi. Keathley financed the purchase; the Thompsons made monthly payments. The Thompsons, however, did not maintain the park, and it eventually deteriorated to the point that the City became involved. Mr. Keathley was not aware at the time and is not currently aware of Communication between the City and the Thompsons.- Mr. Keathley first became aware of the issues when Ms. Barbara Hyatt contacted him as lien holder and notified him of problems. Mr. Keathley agreed to talk with Mr. Thompson, which he did, and was assured that Mr. Thompson would move the worst of the homes out of the park and repair and restore the ones remaining. Mr. Keathley offered to assist further and advised Ms. Hyatt to contact him if needed. When he had no further contact from Ms. Hyatt, Mr. Keathley assumed the problems were resolved. Unbeknownst to Mr. Keathley, water to the facility was cut off on July 19, 2004, and the City shut the park down on July 20, 2004. By this time, the park was in deplorable condition, as tenants abandoned the homes, vandals stripped all the metal from the mobile homes, and four loads of tires were dumped in the park. Attached and marked as Exhibit B are pictures showing the mess. Thompson became delinquent on his payments to Mr. Keathley and deeded the property back to Mr. Keathley on September 24, 2004. Although he believed some homes were salvageable, Mr. Keathley cleared everything from the property, expending between $40,000 and $50,000 to do so. Attached as Exhibit C are pictures of the park after the cleanup. - . Parties contacted Mr. Keathley about purchasing the property from him, but reported that they were told by the City that the property could no longer be used for a mobile home park. Mr. Keathley, through this office, inquired about the zoning status of the property. The City Attorney responded and advised that the property could continue its use as a mobile home park if it renewed operation prior to July 20, 2005. Attached as Exhibit D is a copy of the letter for your convenience. Mr. Keathley placed anew sign at the entrance. He obtained water and sewer service on June 23, 2005, purchased a new mobile home for the property on July 8, 2005, had it transported and set up at the park on July 11, 2005, and began advertising it and spaces for rent on July 13, 2005. Attached as Exhibit E are receipts from Central Arkansas Water, Arkansas Liquidators, and Henley Mobile Home Service, and a copy of Mr. Keathley's record with copy of advertising as evidence of these efforts. Attached as Exhibit F are pictures of the mobile home. In September 2005, the City determined that the property's use as a mobile home park had been abandoned and advised him to remove the "abandoned" mobile home unit from the premises. Mr. Keathley, through this office, responded and advised that operations had resumed timely. The City Attorney responded and opined that since no one had rented the mobile home, the City would consider the property abandoned as a mobile home park. Attached as Exhibit G are copies of those letters for your convenience. Mr. Keathley disputes,this finding. Mr. Keathley understands, however, that the property must meet the code requirements, andhe is committed to ensuring that it does. Moreover, he is committed to improving the entire area, as the elements surrounding the mobile home park are less than ideal. Attached as Exhibit H are pictures showing property that joins the park on the east, the west, across Baseline, and as you enter the park from Baseline. As you can see, the surrounding conditions are less than. desirable. A similar situation existed in Conway at Mr.- Keathley's Brookside Village Mobile Home Park until Mr. Keathley donated a mobile home for a Conway Police Department substation. As a result, undesirables moved away, speeders slowed down, and the police department has a visible. presence, which has resulted in developing relationships with nearby families and businesses. Attached as Exhibit I is a newspaper article printed recently lauding its success. Mr. Keathley had no problems with the property during his previous ownership. He then went to great expense to clean the property when it was abandoned by the Thompsons. He purchased a new home, installed it, obtained utility services, and advertised it and spaces for rent. He offers to provide the Little Rock Police Department with a mobile home and. space if it would like to open a substation there, as he did at the Brookside Village Mobile Home Park in Conway. This can be a positive space for the neighborhood, the surrounding area, and the City. Mr. Keathley would like to see the park with nice homes, nice families, maintained, with a police presence, and a. welcome addition to the area. He 2 asks that the Board of Adjustment find that he has not abandoned the property and give him an opportunity to realize that vision. Sincerely, Philip E. Kaplan PEK.nm cc: Client 3 AUGUST 28, 2006 File No.: Z-8060 Owner: Charles W. Calver Applicant: Mark Winstead Address: 6404 Geyer Springs Road Description: Lot 1, Yates Subdivision Zoned: 1-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 320 to allow a building addition with a reduced side setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Industrial Building Proposed Use of Property: Light Industrial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues.- 1. ssues: 1. A future public street project shows acquiring additional right-of-way on the west side of Geyer Springs Road for an overpass. The proposed addition appears to be west of the proposed new right-of-way. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The landscape ordinance requires an eighty percent (80%) upgrade in the landscape and buffer ordinance. Credit can be given for large trees shown to be preserved. This upgrade must include the removal of concrete along Geyer Spring Road and the southern property line. An automatic irrigation system is required for all new landscaped areas. Parking is not shown on the plan; however, additional interior landscaping may be required. AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of three foot (3'-0") landscaped area to be located between the parking and the building. C. Staff Analysis: The 1-2 zoned property at 6404 Geyer Springs Road is occupied by a one- story metal building near the northeast corner of the property. There are two (2) access drives from Geyer Springs Road which serve as access to the property. There is concrete parking on the south side of the building and asphalt parking (in poor condition) on the east side of the building. There is an roof sign on top of the existing building. The rear (west) portion of the property is fenced and occupied by a wrecker service. The applicant is proposing to construct additional building space on the west end of the existing building, as noted on the attached site plan. The additional building area will be one-story in height and 4, 000 square feet in area. The proposed building will be located 8.62 to 8.71 feet back from the north side property line. Section 36-320(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of 15 feet for this 1-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the new building construction with a reduced side (north) setback. Staff is supportive of the requested side setback variance, under certain conditions. The State Highway Department, in conjunction with Metroplan, has plans to construct an overpass for Geyer Springs Road over the existing railroad tracks just north of this site. There are three (3) options for the overpass construction. Two (2) of the options include acquiring right-of-way which goes into the existing building on the site. Therefore, staff can only support the additional building area if it is constructed as a separate building, so the new building would not be included in future right-of-way acquisition. Staff believes the requested side setback variance will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report. 2. The additional building area must be constructed as a separate building, including separate foundation, roof, east wall and utilities. 3. The existing roof sign, including support structures, must be removed from the existing building. 2 AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the July 31, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the August 28, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be withdrawn. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn, by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. 3 Lasiter Construction, Inc. • 505 West Dixon Rd. • Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 • 501.374.1557 FAX 374.8314 • WATS 1.800.264.1557 May 24, 2006 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 501.371.4826 RE: Requesting a variance on the set back line at 6404 Geyer Springs Little Rock, AR Dear Sir: On behalf of Arkansas Sling, the owner of the property at 6404 Geyer Springs Road, Lasiter Construction, Inc. is requesting a zoning variance to the set back line on the north side of the property. Arkansas Sling, is desiring to build a warehouse that will be an add on to an existing building already located on the property. The existing building is approximately 9' off the property line. The proposed building addition is drawn with the foundation matching the north line. This is not in code with the current 15' set back requirement. The warehouse will be used for commercial use. Should you require additional information please call me at 501.539.0805 Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Respectfully submitted, Lasiter Construction, Inc. Mark Winstead Vice President General Construction • Asphalt Paving • Concrete Construction • Seal Coating • Crack Sealing AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: C File No.: Z-8073 Owner: Jimmy and Shirley Talley Applicant: Jimmy Talley Address: 17 Beauregard Drive Description: Lot 20, Hermitage Home Sites 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 addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 17 Beauregard Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Beauregard Drive which serves as access. There is a metal carport structure which was recently constructed over a portion of the driveway. This single family lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line. The new carport structure is attached to the house and is approximately 18'-7" by 20 feet in size. The carport structure is unenclosed and painted to match the residence. The carport is located approximately 7.5 feet from the front (west) property line, extending across the front platted building line by 17.5 feet. AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the carport addition with a reduced front setback and to cross the front platted building line. Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. Upon surveying the neighborhood staff did find one (1) similar carport structure at 5 Beauregard Drive. However, staff noticed no other similar encroachments in this neighborhood. Therefore, staff feels that the requested carport addition with encroachment into the front setback is out of character with the neighborhood. Staff believes the carport structure has an adverse visual impact on the adjacent properties along Beaurgard Drive which have a uniform setback from the street. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the carport 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 requested variances associated with the carport addition. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the August 28, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2006) Jimmy Talley was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Jimmy Talley addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented photos of other properties to the Board. He read his cover letter to the Board. 2 AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) Chairman Francis noted concern that this type of carport structure tends to have an adverse visual impact on a neighborhood. Vice -Chairman Burruss discussed the width of the lot. He noted the width would allow a driveway on the north side of the house with the carport at the rear of the structure. The issue was briefly discussed. Mr. Talley explained that he could not move the carport structure to the rear of the house due to utility line locations. There was additional discussion related to other options for the location of the carport. In response to a question from the Board, Staff noted that the front property line was approximately 11 feet back from the street curb. Staff explained that the existing side setback on the north side of the house is 20 feet, and if the carport was moved to that side it would have a zero (0) setback. Mr. Talley noted that none of the neighbors opposed the carport structure. There was additional discussion of the setback issue. Chairman Francis noted that the application could be deferred if Mr. Talley needed time to explore other options. Mr. Talley noted that he would like to defer the application to the October 30, 2006 Agenda. A motion was made to defer the application to the October 30, 2006 Agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. The application was deferred. 3 ( 17 Beaaregud Dr Little Rock, AR 72206 1 114 May 31, 2006 Z— Po 7 To Whom It May Concern: We, Jimmy R. Talley and Shirley A. Talley, do request a variance from the requirements of the zoning ordinance. This is needed for the following reasons: We needed more space in our home, and our carport area was enclosed for additional space. The carport area served as protective shelter for 32 years from inclement weather, for not only our vehicles, but also members of our family, going and coming. We needed another covering for the same purpose in years to come. The carport that has been extended from the house was installed properly by the contractor. Two other houses in the community have the same type carport, which in fact was installed several years ago. Our contractor was responsible for all permits and meeting all codes set by the city of Little Rock. We have spent $30,000.00 on our home. We have always tried to keep our home as beautiful as possible from the outside. The carport has richly beautified our home as well as served us for the same reason it was installed. We ask you to please grant our request. Thanks In Advance, jt Jimmy and AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z-8083 Owner: Anthony Dilday and Robert Richardson Applicant: Anthony Dilday Address: 5208 Country Club Blvd. Description: Lot 10, Block 11, Newton's Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a building addition with a reduced rear 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 ssues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5208 Country Club Blvd. is occupied by a two-story brick and stucco single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Country Club Blvd. which serves as access. The driveway runs along the west property line, leading to a lower level carport at the rear of the residence. The residence was originally a one-story structure. The applicant recently constructed the two-story addition on the rear of the structure. The rear portion of the addition is an open carport with living space above. The applicant was issued a building permit for a building addition on the rear structure, with a detached carport structure. However, the carport portion was constructed as part of the principal structure, with a continuous slab and roofline. The overall rear addition is located 17.7 feet from the rear (north) AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: 1 (Con't.) property line. When staff became aware of this issue, the applicant was issued a notice to comply with the building permit or request a variance. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced rear setback of 17.7 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Although staff has concerns with the fact that the applicant constructed the rear addition in conflict with the approved building permit, staff is viewing the requested rear setback variance as reasonable. Staff feels that the requested 17.7 foot rear setback is not out of character with the neighborhood. As far as the overall building mass is concerned, the fact that the lower level carport is unenclosed lessens the visual impact of the structure on the adjacent properties. If the carport portion of the addition were moved back and separated from the principal structure by the required six (6) feet, the overall building mass on the lot would not change. Staff believes the building addition with reduced rear setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to the following conditions: The carport structure must remain unenclosed on the north, east and west sides. 2. No additional building area, including accessory buildings, will be allowed on the lot. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (August 28, 2006) 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 open position. 2 Little Rock Board Of Adjustment July 20, 2006 Dear Board Members of the Little Rock Board of Adjustment: Submitted for your approval is an application for a zoning variance for 5208 Country Club Blvd. Little Rock, Arkansas. With regret, We have completed a structure that deviates from local zoning requirements and humbly request that a rear setback variance be allowed. Our mistake arose from the assumption that we could add improved square footage over an approved carport structure connected by a covered walk way. Dr. Richardson and I are very proud of the remodel/addition at 5208 Country Club and have received many compliments on the home. We feel that the improvements we made to the residence has enhanced the property values for the surrounding homes and is an asset to the neighborhood. As Height's residents we are extremely concerned about the type of homes currently being built in our neighborhood. It is our commitment to this board that we wish to only construct homes which are aesthetically and architecturally congruent with the traditional Heights residence. Please give our request your utmost attention. Dr. Richardson and I urge you to approve our enclosed application as we wish to continue remodeling and building beautiful home in the Heights. Sincerely, D and R Real estate L.L.C. AnthoPT.day cc: Dr. Robert E. Richardson 5200 Country Club Blvd. Little Rock, AR. 72207 August 15, 2006 1� P Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock AR. 72201 Dear Board Members. This letter is in regard to the Public Hearing before you on August 28, 2006 concerning the property at 5208 Country Club Blvd. I know that Mr. Dilday applied for a permit to build a two-story addition with a detached carport and you approved the plan. Instead of building the plan you approved Mr. Dilday built a two-story house with an attached carport with the second story covering the entire top of the attached carport. He has also created a tremendous drainage problem to the surrounding neighbors. My main concern now is that the variance will pass with no consequences to Mr. Dilday. I believe that every builder in the city will be reviewing the results of this hearing. If there are no consequences in this case it will give other builders permission to do the same thing. I also fear that Mr. Dilday will sale the house and pass on the drainage problem to the new owners. Please send a strong message to Mr. Dilday and other builders in the city that if you disregard the rules there will be serious consequences to be paid. Thank you, Georgann Ozment RECEIVED AUG 17 2006 BY: �� AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z-8084 Owner: Rush Evans Engineering and Construction Applicant: Craig Evans Address: 25 Alton Lane Description: Lot 34, Block 23 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 new house with reduced setbacks and which crosses a platted building line. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis.- The nalysis: The R-2 zoned property at 25 Alton Lane is currently undeveloped and tree - covered. The property slopes downward from front to back (west to east). The elevation of the rear property line is approximately 10 feet below the front property line. There is a 25 foot front platted building line along Alton Lane. There is a also a creek which runs along the rear property line. The applicant proposes to construct a split level single family residence on the property, as noted on the attached site plan. There will be a two -car wide driveway from Alton Lane at the northwest corner of the property. The proposed residence will be located behind the 25 foot front platted building line, with the exception of the southwest corner of the structure (porch/gazebo AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: 2 (Con't.) feature), which crosses the building line by approximately five (5) feet. The southeast corner of the proposed residence will be located seven (7) feet from the south (side) property line and 22.5 feet from the east (rear) property line. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a minimum side setback of eight (8) feet and Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12(c ) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow construction of the new residence with reduced front, side and rear setbacks and to cross the front platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances associated with the proposed residence. Staff feels the request is justified based on the unusual lot configuration (slope). The rear property line angles in to compensate for the creek which runs along the rear of the property. Therefore, the south side property line is approximately 44 feet shorter than the north property line. Additionally, the south side property line angles in and is not parallel to the north line. The front platted building line also adds to the problem based on the fact that it angles inward at the southwest corner of the property to account for the curvature in the right-of-way near the end of this cul-de-sac street. If all property lines were able to be more perpendicular to the property corners, the setback problems would not exist. Staff believes the proposed residence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the new 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. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variances associated with the proposed residence, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The gazebo portion of the front porch structure (southwest corner of structure) must remain unenclosed on all sides. 1► AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: 2 (Con't. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2006) The applicant was not present. There were two (2) objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Dennis Blevins addressed the Board in opposition. He noted that this was one of the smallest lots in the subdivision. He explained that the applicant should consider a smaller building size. The issue of building setbacks was discussed. Chairman Francis explained that the requested setback variances were very minor. Vice -Chairman Burruss discussed the creek/open space area behind this lot. This issue was discussed briefly. There was additional discussion of the proposed setbacks and the portions of the proposed house which were within the setback areas. Staff noted that approximately 8 square feet of the rear corner of the house did not meet the required setbacks. Ken Rasner also addressed the Board in opposition. He noted that the creek/greenspace area behind the lot had been violated and explained. There was a motion to approve the application, as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. The application was approved. 3 Rush E-VANS Engineering and Construction 1 1 5 1 6 Happq Valley Drive Little Kocic, AK 7221 2 501-225-6345 fax 501--664-7874 ruskevans@comcast.net July 26, 2006 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE Department of Planning and Develoment City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: LOT 34, BLOCK 23 Villages of Wellington #25 ALTON LANE Gentlemen, We have a building lot in the Villages of Wellington that we wish to build a home. The south side lot line is not long enough to utilize our house plan. In order to use the plan we have selected, we would need to encroach on the building line by five feet. In addition, we will need to encroach on the rear setback and on the side set back requirement. The developer has given tentative permission provided the city will agree. In order to obtain the city's permission, we must notify all property owners within 200 feet so that if someone has an objection, they may voice their objection to the city. We request your permission to deviate from the city ordinance as per the attached plot plan. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Bill F. Rush President AUGUST 28, 2006 NO.: 3 File No.: Z-8085 Owner: Aaron and Robin Gamewell Applicant: Aaron Gamewell Address: 1201 N. Tyler Street Description: Lot 7, Block 1, Hollenberg Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an accessory building and swimming pool with reduced setbacks and increased rear yard coverage. 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: 1. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (John Barr, 371-4646) for the new wall addition and parking area located in the right-of-way. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 1201 N. Tyler Street is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence. The property is located at the northeast corner of N. Tyler Street and Evergreen Street. There is an alley along the rear (east) property line. The applicant recently made an addition to the rear (east) of the single family residence. Additionally, the applicant is in the process of constructing a two-story accessory garage structure within the rear yard along the alley. The accessory structure is located in the same spot where an older accessory building was removed. The first floor of the structure will be used as a garage, with a game room on the second floor. AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: 3 (Con't. The applicant received building permits for both construction projects. The permit for construction of the accessory building was issued by the City in error. The new accessory building requires variances for reduced street side setback and increased rear yard coverage. The fact that there was an older accessory building occupying the same foot print, does not allow the new construction by right. Hence the error in issuance of the building permit. The accessory building is located six (6) feet from the side (north) and rear (east) property lines. A setback of approximately nine (9) feet exists along the street side (south) property line. The structure occupies approximately 53 percent of the required rear yard (rear 25 feet of the lot). The applicant is also proposing to construct an inground pool as noted on the attached site plan. The pool will maintain the same nine (9) foot setback along the street side (south) property line. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum street side setback of 15 feet and a maximum rear yard coverage of 30 percent for accessory buildings in single family zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the accessory garage building and pool with reduced street side setbacks and the accessory garage building with an increased coverage. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. The new accessory garage structure was constructed to replace an older structure which was removed from the property. There are a number of large accessory structures in this area along the alley rights-of-way. There is also a brick office building located on the property immediately to the east which is only a few feet back from the alley. Therefore, staff feels the proposed accessory structure will be compatible with the neighborhood. Staff believes the proposed accessory buildings will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and coverage variances associated with the proposed accessory structures, subject to the following conditions: 1. The accessory building must not be used as an accessory dwelling. There can be no kitchen facility in the structure. 2. The accessory building must not be used in conjunction with any business activity. E AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: 3 (Con't. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2006) Aaron Gamewell was present, representing the application. There were two (2) persons present in opposition. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Aaron Gamewell addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that he did receive a building permit for the construction. He explained that there were other similar garage structures in the neighborhood. Jan Bowman addressed the Board in opposition. She presented a map of the area to the Board and explained. She stated that the proposed garage is out of proportion with other garage structures in the area. She noted that the applicant parks in the alley and partially blocks it. She recommended that the accessory structure not be used as a dwelling, and have no separate utility meters and no bathroom. She noted that Mr. Gamewell was requesting a variance after the building had been built. Staff explained that an approved variance would run with the land and be binding on subsequent landowners. Staff noted that the City has enforcement powers to assure that the structure is not used as a dwelling and that the alley not be blocked by parked vehicles. Jerry Sears also spoke in opposition. He noted that he had a garage apartment on his property that was approved by the City. He stated that the condition that the structure not be used as a dwelling be put in the property's abstract. This issue was briefly discussed. Debra Weldon, City Attorney, explained that the Board's action runs with the land and is binding on subsequent landowners without having anything put in an abstract. Staff suggested that the following additional condition be placed on the application: 1. There will be no separate utility meters on the accessory structure. All utilities must be run through the principal structure. This issue was briefly discussed. Mr. Gamewell agreed to the additional condition. There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff with the additional condition as noted above. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. The application was approved. 3 Board of Adjustment 723 W. W. Markham Little Rock, Ar. 72201 A 501-371-4790 Dear Members, As the owner of the property at 1201 N. Tyler I have been told that as of July 7, 2006 I must apply for a variance to zoning requirements for the 2 story building I have built at the rear of my property. On September 20, 2005 I was issued approval from Zoning and issued a permit for the Accessory building. On Wednesday July 5 Britt Palmer, Inspector called me to notify me that the city was not aware that the building was going to be 2 stories. Thursday, July 6, I visited the downtown office to present to Jan Giggar and Britt Palmer the zoning approval and permit application that clearly stated the proposed building was to be 2 stories. Upon further examination by both men I was told to proceed and that everything was fine. The same afternoon my wife called to tell me that Dave Stow had stopped by our residence to say that the building was in violation of zoning ordinances. She told him the issue had been resolved and he said he would check paper work at his office and call me on Friday morning. On Friday morning, July 71 called Dave Stow and upon further research by Stow I was told that a Stop work order would be issued on the same afternoon. I visited the office once again and met with Monty Moore and Dana Carney. Both men told me that I must follow the Board of Adjustment Application for variance process. Thus, the reason for this letter. I followed every procedure set forth by the city and was issued the proper permit. This building is built in the footprint of the previous building and I have added a second story to be used as a game room for my children and family. The previous building had all utilities present including gas, water, electric and sewer. The variance I have been told to request is to allow this building to be approved due to the fact that it exceeds the cities ordinance of the "30% rule". The building will have an external staircase on the south end of the building to allow access to the upstairs that will extend into the setback line by approximately 6 feet. There have been a multitude of variances issued in the heights and hillcrest areas in recent years. On the same block that I live there is a two story Accessory dwelling and multiple garages in the rear of the properties. The improvements I've made will certainly help the values of the surrounding properties and will in no way harm the environment, nor my ne' hbors. T you for consider a i , ar0 Y amewell AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-8086 Owner: Brady Station, Inc. Applicant: Linda Bennett Address: 2721 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lot 13 and part of Lot 12, Block 21, Pulaski Heights Addition Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the outdoor dining provisions of Section 36-298 to allow outdoor restaurant seating in the public right-of-way (sidewalk). Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Commercial (Restaurant) Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Commercial (Restaurant with outdoor seating) Sidewalks are located in the public right-of-way for public use. Sidewalks on collector streets (Kavanaugh) are required by ordinance to be 5 ft in width for commercial use. Since the existing sidewalk is 7 ft wide, only 4 ft of sidewalk will be provided by proposed addition which is insufficient and does not meet code. Staff does not support the variance request. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Site plan must comply with the cities minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. A franchise may be required with any work to occur within the Public Right-of- way. Site plan is unclear whether or not any of the proposal is within this area. A franchise agreement must be obtained for any work that is to occur in the public right-of-way, Contact John Barr at 371-4646. AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: 4 (Con't.) Street trees would make a nice addition to this area, if no trees are currently along this section of Kavanaugh Boulevard. C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 2721 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by a one story brick commercial building. The property is located at the southeast corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. and Beechwood Street. There is an alley along the east property line, with on -street parking in front of the building along Kavanaugh Blvd. A restaurant (Vieux Carre) occupies a portion of the commercial building. The restaurant management is requesting to utilize a three (3) foot wide strip of the seven (7) foot wide sidewalk (right-of-way) in front of the building (3 feet X 36 feet) for outdoor restaurant seating. The outdoor seating area would accommodate six (6) tables, with two (2) seats at each table. The area would be roped off, with a small planter at each end of the seating area. Section 36-298(8) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows outdoor restaurant seating in the commercial zoning districts, subject to certain conditions. Staff believes the area of proposed outdoor dining complies with these conditions, except for the following: "a. The area of outdoor dining shall not be located in the public right-of-way nor shall it obstruct pedestrian movement, fire lanes, access to any business or areas designated for access by the physically impaired." Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 36-298(8)a. to allow the outdoor restaurant seating area to be located in the public right-of-way. Staff does not support the requested variance. Staff does not view the request as reasonable. Sidewalks are in the public right-of-way for public use. At this location on Kavanaugh the existing sidewalk is 7 feet wide. The application proposes to use 3 feet for private use leaving 4 feet for public use. CLR code requires a 5 foot wide sidewalk for commercial properties on collector standard streets such as Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh in the Hillcrest business area has high vehicle and pedestrian volumes. Vehicles park against the curb in this area. Due to the power poles, tree wells, bench seats, and car doors opening; the sidewalk is already obstructed. The proposed outdoor seating will obstruct the pedestrian traffic area even more. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow outdoor restaurant seating in the public right-of-way. 0 AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: 4 (Con't. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2006) Linda Bennett was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Linda Bennett addressed the Board in support of the application. She gave an explanation of the proposed outdoor seating area. She explained the existing width of the sidewalk and how she proposed the outdoor use area to work. She noted that she wished the Board to entertain the variance as requested, with the option of eliminating the roped off area and planters. The issue of the front door location to the seating area was discussed. Chairman Francis explained that the area of outdoor dining would be very tight in relation to the sidewalk width. Vice -Chairman Burruss explained that he liked the concept of outdoor dining at this location. He suggested that the outdoor dining area be looked at with regard to grouping the tables away from where obstacles like tree wells and utility poles existed. In response to a question from the Board, Ms. Bennett noted that the tables would be out during business hours. Chris Wilbourn explained that the seating area was a good idea, but its location on the sidewalk was a safety concern. Fletcher Hanson concurred with Mr. Wilbourn. He noted that the sidewalk area was a very tight area to work within. The issue of grouping the tables was briefly discussed. There was a motion to approve the application as submitted. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 3 nays 1 abstention (Burruss) and 1 open position. The application was denied. 3 VIEUX CARRE A Southern Bistro in Historic Hillcrest Dept. of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Sir or Madam: Our restaurant is relatively new in the Hillcrest area of Little Rock, but the building we are located in has been here since 1915. In the 91 years of its existence, this brick structure at the corner of Kavanaugh and Beechwood has been home to numerous businesses and even served briefly as Town Hall for Pulaski Heights. The exterior has changed drastically over the years, including the loss of a second story to fire some 30 -plus years ago. The interior has been modified by virtually every tenant, most recently a complete remodel early this year for our restaurant. This history is mentioned by way of introducing our request for another change at this location. We would like to place six small tables on the sidewalk in front of the restaurant for outdoor dining in fine weather. This addition would give us a bit more seating space, and also help us further the image of Hillcrest as a vibrant, attractive and safe place to visit or call home. The sidewalk in front of our restaurant is a generous 7 %2 to 8 feet in width. The tables we propose are round, 20 inches in diameter, and would have two chairs placed perpendicular to the street. That would leave at 1P.ARt fivP fPPt of QM0-,X7Q1 - f.,r pedestrian use. As active members in the Hillcrest Merchants Association, we have found that our retail neighbors have no objection to this addition to the street, although we understand we'd need to make formal notification before such a change could be considered. Thank you for your consideration of this request. We sincerely feel that street -side dining would fit right in with the eclectic, urban nature of Hillcrest and would enhance the dining experience for our customers in nice weather. incerely, Ti Bennett Co -Owner 2721 Ka Yana ugh Bo ule vard, PO Box 251305, Little Rock, AR 72225 501-663-1196 AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-8087 Owner: Jeffrey and Betty Graham Applicant: Jeffrey Graham Address: 905 LaHarpe Blvd. Description: Lot D -R, Signature Subdivision Zoned: UU Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Sections 36-342.1 and 36-557 to allow ground signs in the UU Zoning District and a wall sign without public street frontage. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Office Proposed Use of Property: Office STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. The signage on LaHarpe is proposed to be located within the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department right-of-way. Contact AHTD, District 6, engineer for permission. B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 905 LaHarper Blvd. is occupied by a one-story brick office building. There is an access drive at the northwest corner of the property from LaHarpe Blvd. There is paved parking on the south and east sides of the building. There is also vehicular access from W. Markham Street through the properties to the south. There is an existing ground -mounted sign at the northeast corner of the building. The ground sign is 5 feet by 6 feet in area and approximately 9 feet in height. AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: 5 (Con't.) The applicant is proposing to move the existing ground sign to the northwest corner of the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The sign is proposed to be located on the front property line. The applicant is also proposing two (2) directional signs. One of the directional signs is proposed to be located on the east side of the entry drive within the LaHarpe Blvd. right-of- way, with the second directional sign being located near the southwest corner of the building. Each directional sign will be 16 inches by 36 inches in area and approximately two (2) feet in height. The directional signs will direct traffic to the parking areas on the south and east sides of the building. Additionally, a wall sign is proposed on the east side of the building. This sign will be 16 inches by 36 inches in size and will direct persons to the front door of the business. Section 36-342.1( c)(11) of the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits ground - mounted signs in the UU zoning district. Wall signs are allowed in the district. However, Section 36-557 requires wall signs to face streets. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the principal and directional ground signs in the UU zoning district and the wall sign without street frontage. Staff does not support the variances, as requested. Although staff does not oppose moving the existing ground sign to the northwest corner of the property, staff feels the sign should be set back at least five (5) feet from the north property line. Staff also does not support the directional sign being located in the public right-of-way. Staff will support the one (1) directional sign located at the southwest corner of the building. Additionally, staff does support the requested wall sign on the east side of the building. In summary, if the applicant eliminated the directional sign located in the right-of-way and moved the principal ground sign five (5) feet back from the north property line, staff could support the application. Staff feels the proposed ground sign will aid in identifying the property entrance to east bound vehicular traffic on LaHarpe Blvd. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had revised the application to remove the proposed directional sign from the right-of-way and move the proposed ground sign at least five (5) feet back from the north property line. Staff recommended approval of the revised application, subject to the following conditions: N AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: 5 (Con't.) 1. The ground sign must be located at least five (5) feet back from the north property line. 2. Sign permits must be obtained for all signs. 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 open position. 3 JEFFREY M. GRAHAM, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAw 905 LAHARPE BLVD. LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE 501-614-6020 August 17, 2006 VIA FACSIMILE #: 399-3435 Little Rock Board of Adjustment In Care of Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Sir/Madam: FAX 501-663-7189 (3 APs My wife and I recently purchased a building located at 905 LaHarpe Blvd. for the purpose of moving my law practice from it's present address at 4002 West Markham. Attached hereto are eight sequentially numbered photographs showing the general layout of the building and grounds. There is currently a ground mounted sign at the east end of the building for the previous business owners, Signature Life Insurance Company (photos 2 and 3). The building was built in 1970. I have no idea whether the sign has existed since then. Unfortunately the sign is not easily visible to traffic heading east down LaHarpe (photos 4 and 5). The building is positioned in a somewhat unusual way in that it is between Chester and State streets with another building occupied by McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. located directly behind it (photo 6 - McClelland building is to left of photo). The McClelland building is between our building and Markham street. It is very difficult for traffic to see the current ground mounted sign as traffic comes eastbound down LaHarpe. By the time drivers see the sign they have either already passed the turn in to our building or are right on top of it. The turn in I refer to is a right turn off of LaHarpe immediately west of our building. This drive goes southbound past our building and past the Bank of the Ozarks and on up to Markham street. From this drive (shown on the right side of photo #1 and shown in photos 4 and 5) there is a turn off of the drive left into our parking lot and a turn off of it to the right into the Bank of the Ozarks parking lot. All of this is very confusing to drivers turniiig off of LaHarpe. In fact, over the past couple of months we have been renovating the interior and the various workers (painters, electricians, carpet installers, etc.) almost to a man have had great difficulty finding the building. We believe that we have come up with a sign proposal that will not deviate greatly from what is already in place but will better provide the information necessary to get east bound drivers out of the very fast moving LaHarpe traffic with a minimum of confusion and increased safety. Proposal #1 attached hereto is what we are asking your permission to do. "Proposal #1" consists of a diagram prepared by the Sider and Henry Sign Company and three pages of color photographs on which signs of the type we would like to erect have been digitally inserted. We would like to move the current ground mounted sign from east of the building and place it west of the building where it is more visible and less likely to result in confusion to people trying to turn out of the east bound LaHarpe lane of travel and find our law office. The proposed new ground mounted sign is shown on the diagram as an orange box. The sign will not block the view of anyone coming down LaHarpe traveling eastward as it will be kept in line with the west end of the building. We propose to erect a sign no larger than the one currently in use at the east end of the building. The current east end ground mounted sign will be removed if this proposal is approved. A sign of the type we would like to erect has been digitally inserted into the photograph labeled "Looking East" and is labeled "A" within an orange circle. It is our understanding that this will require a variance from the ordinance prohibiting ground mounted signs. The current Signature Life sign is 5' 10' in. wide and was over 6' tall. The bottom of the sign is 4' from the ground. The top of the sign was a spire which we cut off. This left a sign 5' tall. We have enclosed the sign with a wooden frame over which is stretched a temporary vinyl sign. This temporary sign is T tall by 5' 10 in. wide. On the attached "Proposal I" the proposed new sign is labeled "4' by 4"'. I have questioned my ad person who drew this diagram up for me as to why it said 4' by 4' when in fact the temporary sign is 5' tall by 5' 10 in. wide. He explained that the part of the Signature Life sign that had the writing on it is actually 4' by 4'. Because we had to enclose the scroll work around it our finished sign ended up being 5' tall by 5' 10 in. wide. As this sign is no larger than the previous sign, we are asking permission for the sign to be these dimensions (5' by 5' 10 in.). Photos 9 & 10 show the temporary sign. Please disregard the 4' by 4' labeling on the diagram. I apologize for that figure as it is clearly confusing. I am not sure whether this is of any relevance but the sign we are proposing to erect is significantly smaller than the large ground mounted Gary Green Law Firm sign immediately west of Chester (photos 47 & 8). It is my understanding that Gary's sign may have been put up before the ordinance regarding ground mounted signs came into being. However, I am bringing this out to illustrate that a ground mounted sign is certainly not out of character for the area. We believe this is especially true since we already have a ground mounted sign and we are simply wanting to move it from one end of the building to the other. We would also like to mount the two small directional signs labeled "C" and "D" so that people turning in off of LaHarpe will know where to turn into our specific parking lot. Otherwise we are afraid they are likely to continue on up to Markham. These directional signs would be 36 inches long by 16 inches high. The bottom of the signs would be 20 inches from the ground making the top of the signs no more than 3 feet above the ground. If the height of the signs is an issue we would have no objection to lowering the signs. Proposal I contemplates that after we have removed the current Signature Life sign from the parking lot at the east end of the building, we would mount on the east end of the building a 36 inch long by 16 inch high directional sign such as is shown in the photograph labeled "Looking West" and labeled with the yellow circled `B". It is our understanding that a variance for this sign is required due to the fact that this sign would front our parking lot. Izard street dead ends into our parking lot but it is our understanding that since we own to the middle of Izard street where it dead ends and since the city of Little Rock owns to the middle of Izard street it is not a Little Rock city street at that point and therefore a variance is required to permit us to mount the sign on the wall. Our building can be approached in four different ways from three different directions. Consequently without adequate signage we are afraid.it is going to be very confusing for people trying to find our office and to distinguish our office from the surrounding buildings. This will also, we believe, result in confusion for the people visiting the surrounding businesses. Our building can be approached from the west by east bound traffic coming down LaHarpe as has been previously described. It also can be approached from the east by drivers turning off of State street and traveling across the Little Rock Board of Education parking lot. It can be approached by drivers traveling north down Izard and it can be approached by a private drive which runs from Markham street north directly to the back of our building. This private drive is owned by, we assume, Mr. Whitbeck and the owner of the engineering firm. Because of all of the different ways to approach our building, we think it is important that the directional sign that we would like to mount on the east end of the building be there to identify our building from the others and to let our clients know that they are approaching the side and rear of the building rather than the front. Since our building faces LaHarpe on the south side there is a very large area on the stone wall shown on photograph #1 which could be used to mount a sign identifying out law firm. Unfortunately a sign facing LaHarpe will not be visible to eastbound LaHarpe drivers until they are almost even with the front of the building. Consequently, such a sign would not, in our opinion, help with the safety issue of drivers trying to locate our building in time to safely turn off of LaHarpe. Therefore, if we are granted the requested variances we do not intend to place a sign on this wall. Should the Board not grant the requested variances we ask the Board to consider our "Proposal H" attached hereto. Under this proposal we would replace the existing ground mounted sign with a new sign of the same size (labeled "A") and would ask that we be permitted to erect the small directional signs labeled "B", "C" and "D". This proposal contains a request for an additional wall mounted sign not included in "Proposal I" to identify our building to drivers driving east bound on LaHarpe as shown in the photograph labeled "Looking East". It is our understanding that this wall mounted sign would also require a variance since it is also not facing a city street but rather faces the turn in from LaHarpe. We do not believe this sign would be as effective nor as aesthetically pleasing as the ground mounted sign which we are requesting in "Proposal I" but it would undoubtedly be better than having no sign at all to identify the building to east bound drivers prior to their reaching the turn in. However, the 5' by 5'10 in. ground mounted sign provided in "Proposal I" would clearly give drivers notice of the turn in earlier and thus allow drivers more time to brake and safely make the turn. Your consideration of our request for these variances is very much appreciated. Sinc, Jeffr . Graham JMG/ac Enclosures Ps: Enclosed with this letter are three copies of a certified survey by Robert C. Lowe, Jr. dated January 25, 2006. AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z -8063-A Owner: Joel Styles Applicant: Rajendra Patel Address: Northwest Corner of Interstate 440 and Lindsey Road Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the height provisions of Section 36-301 to allow a new building with increased height. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Hotel STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Site plan must comply with the cities minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. The dumpster location on the site needs to be relocated to a location behind the building. This site is required a minimum average of fifty -feet of landscaped area along Lindsey Road and in no case less than half. The site appears to meet this minimum requirement. The site is also required a minimum of fifty feet of land use buffer along the western perimeter of the site. Due to the layout of the property a total of two hundred and eighty-six (286) feet from the western property line is to remain undisturbed. Any additional area that is undevelopable and can remain AUGUST 28, 2006 M NO.: 6 (CON'T. undisturbed is encouraged by both the City of Little Rock and the City Beautiful Commission. Easements cannot count toward this requirement. A land use buffer of 10 feet is required along the northern and southern property lines. Seventy percent (70%) of this area should be undisturbed buffer area. The site plan appears to meet this minimum requirement. Keep in mind, no grading is to occur within this area. All interior islands must be a minimum seven and half (7'h) feet in width and one hundred and fifty (150) square feet in area. One (1) of the proposed islands falls below this minimum requirement. Additional interior landscaping may be required in conjunction with new proposed parking. An automatic irrigation system is required. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this tree covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at the northwest corner of Interstate 440 and Lindsey Road is currently undeveloped and mostly wooded. There is a Little Rock Wastewater Utility pump station near the northeast corner of the property. There is a creek along the north boundary of the property, with Interstate 440 along the south property line. Lindsey Road runs along the east property line. The applicant proposes to develop the property by constructing a three-story hotel building within the east half of the site. A driveway from Lindsey Road will serve as access to the property. There will be a driveway canopy at the east end of the building for check in/out. Paved parking will be located at the west end of the building with a small area of handicap parking on the building's north side. The applicant proposes an overall building height of 55 feet for the hotel building. The hotel is proposed as Phase I of the property development. Future phases of development will occur on the east and west sides of the hotel building and parking. Section 36-301(d) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum building height of 35 feet for C-3 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a 1A AUGUST 28, 2006 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) variance to allow the increased height to 55 feet. The proposed building conforms to all building setback requirements. Staff is supportive of the requested height variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The property is located at the intersection of an interstate with on/off ramps. There is a large industrial park area to the south along Lindsey Road, and the airport facilities to the north. Staff feels the increased height for the hotel building is appropriate for the area and will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. At the direction of Little Rock National Airport administration, the applicant has filed a permit with the Federal Aviation Administration requesting the 55 foot building height. As of this writing, the applicant is awaiting approval from the FAA. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested height variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must submit written approval from the Federal Aviation Administration regarding the building height, prior to the any permits being issued for development of the site (including initial grading, etc.). 2. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements, as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report. 3. The dumpster must be located in an area behind the building, and not between the building and the street. 4. All signage must conform to the City's Zoning Ordinance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2006) 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 open position. To: Board of Adjustment Applicant: Raj Patel Location: NW I-440 and Lindsey Road --go I am requesting a variance in height different from what the zoning ordinance calls for, due to the lands odd and unusual configuration. The land is a very narrow strip which at the largest width is 200 ft. The land is being development in different phases, the first phase is a hotel which is located in middle of land and width is a little more then 150ft. Therefore, limiting us structurally on what type of building we can up (please view surrey). We are appealing for 55 feet instead of 35 feet which the zoning ordinance requires. Thank You, r G„ Rajendra atel D m 4? . z D m C3 m z D W CD D ►. Z Is t f — < OS`_com-I 1I M m r m 0 z �a D z°7cn7zm 7 o Z Cl) o �o0cC) -I - O D z U D Co Z -� - D Z ={ommzo O I e s m 0= m m O c N 0 Z Is t f — < D m w� �co O O m D v C- c U) ig m z O `}i 1V m m O � v O 1I M z m 0 � z u O 7 o Z Cl) o Cf)Z -I - D m � m I e s D m w� �co O O m D v C- c U) ig m z O `}i 1V m m O � v August 28, 2006 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Chairman