Loading...
boa_03 09 2015LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES MARCH 9, 2015 2:00 P.M. Rall 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 26, 2415 meeting were approved. III. Members Present: Jeff Yates, Chairman Brad Wingfield, Vice Chairman Rajesh Mehta Carolyn Lindsey Polk Robert Winchester Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA MARCH 9, 2015 2:00 P.M. OLD BUSINESS: No Old Business NEIN BUSINESS: 1. Z-9010 2 Kelli Court 2. Z-9011 60 Woodglen Road 3. Z-9012 41 Edgehill Road 4. Z-9013 321 N. Plaza Circle 5, Z-9014 402 E. 3rd Street MARCH 9, 2015 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z-9010 Owner: Amerinational Community Service Inc. Applicant: Alvaro Romero Address: 2 Kelli Court Description: Lot 49, Kelli Manor Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-515 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. 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 fsl Public Works Issues: No Comments Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 2 Kelli Court is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of Kelli Court and DePriest Road. There is a two -car wide driveway from Kelli Court at the southwest corner of the property. Twenty -Five (25) foot platted building lines exist along both street frontages. The applicant recently began construction of a six (6) foot high wood fence along the rear (east) property line, extending into the east street side yard area and across the 25 foot platted building line, The city's zoning enforcement staff issued a notice to cease the fence construction, and lower the height of the fence or seek. a variance. The applicant proposes to construct the fence within the street side yard and front yard areas, crossing the platted building line, as noted on the attached site plan. The majority of the fence will be located between the 25 foot platted building line and the DePriest Road and Kelli Court rights-of-way. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum height of four (4) feet for fences located between building setback lines and street rights-of- MARCH 9, 2015 ITEM NO.: 1 (CCN°T.) way, Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot high wood fence to be located between the 25 foot platted building line and the DePriest Road and Kelli Court rights-of-way. Staff does not support the requested fence height variance, as filed. Although staff has no issue with the section of fencing located between the platted building line and the DePriest Road right-of-way, staff cannot support the section of fencing which is located between the platted building line and the front property line (Kelli Court). Staff believes the fence should turn southward near the northwest corner of the property and run along the platted building line, tying into the residence. If the applicant were willing to amend the application accordingly, staff could support the fence height variance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the fence height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (March 9, 2015) The applicant was present, There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval, There was no further discussion, The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was approved. Alvaro Romero 2 Kelli Court Mabelvale AR. 72103 501-513-4071 January 19,2014 To whom it may concern, �d 0 I'm the owner of 2 Kelli Court located in Mabelvale Arkansas. I'm requesting authorization to put up a 6 ft. privacy fence in my property. The most important reason is because i need security for my kids for when they go outside and play. I want them to have less chances of running out in the street. Also from any danger stranger can cause them. Another reason is because i have a corner lot, as you can see on the survey. I have a side yard and people cut through my yard to get to the other side faster. I don't feel comfortable and secure in my own property. I'm scared one day someone will try to harm my family Behind my house there is a day care, and their employees come and stand on my back yard and smoke. Its a everyday thing, and when they are done they just throw their cigarette bud on my yard. I have to constantly go around and pick up the cigarette buds from my yard. I dont have no privacy and respect in my own property. Hopefully you can understand why i would like to get the permission from you to be able to build the 6 ft. privacy fence, which has being approved by the Traffic Engineering Department. Thank you. MARCH 9, 2015 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z-9011 Owner: Mimi San Pedro and Mary Ann Coleman Applicant: Gary Pursell Address: 60 Woodglen Road Description: Lot 166, Woodglen Park Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow a pool with reduced separation from the principal structure. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residence Under Construction Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. The R-2 zoned property at 60 Woodglen Road is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence which is currently under construction. The property is located on the north side of Woodglen Road, south of Overlook Drive/Rockwood Road. The property contains a relatively steep slope upward from front to back (south to north). The first floor of the residence will be at least 10 feet above the grade of the roadway. There will be a two -car wide driveway from Woodglen Road which will extend along the east side of the house to a garage at the northeast corner of the residence. As part of the lot development, the applicant proposes to construct an in -ground pool in the rear yard area, as noted on the attached site plan. The pool will be 14 feet by 26 feet in size, and be located six (6) feet back from the north wall of the residence. The east end of the pool will be adjacent to a covered porch area, with no separation between the edge of the pool and the porch. Section 36-156(a)(2)b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory structures be separated from principal structures by at least six (6) feet. The pool is considered an accessory structure, with the covered porch being part of the principal structure. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this MARCH 9, 2015 ITEM NO.: 2 CON"T. ordinance requirement to allow the pool with a reduced separation from the principal structure. Staff is supportive of the requested separation variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The proposed location of the pool is dictated due to the excessive slope of the property. As noted earlier, the property lopes upward from front to back. The applicant desires to have the pool located closer to the house, being further away from retaining walls which will be constructed in the rear yard area. Staff believes the proposed pool with reduced separation from the principal structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the separation variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (March 9, 2015) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was approved. T4 --e, --42 Variance cover Letter.txt -�—' — 4) cD /J I am requesting a variance to the C' setback for an accessory structure. I am building a new house which will include an in ground pool. Due to unforeseen rock formations and a large tree we wanted to save, our retaining wall had to be closer to the house than originally planned. The house will have a covered porch on the back that will protrude 12' from the house. For design aesthetics and usability, we would like to place the pool at the edge of the roof covering instead of b' further away. This will provide more usable space between the pool and the retaining wall. This design will actually look the best and will not require redesigning the shape of the pool. Thank you for your consideration. Gary Pursell Pursell Construction,Inc. 501-350-9867 Page 1 MARCH 9, 2015 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-901.2 Owner: James Ashley Campbell and Cynthia A. Hubach Applicant: Ellen Yeary Address: 41 Edgehill Road Description: Lot 57, Edgehill Addition Replat Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an accessory structure which exceeds the maximum 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 0 M. C Public Works Issues: No Comments Building Codes Comments: The required fire separation distance (building to property line) prescribed by the building code terminates at five (5) feet. Buildings are allowed to be closer than five (5) feet if they have properly constructed fire walls which provide the requisite one (1) hour fire resistance rating. When building are five (5) feet or more from the property line, the requirement no longer applies to the wall itself, only the projections such as eaves or overhangs. Openings such as doors and windows are limited when the exterior wall is three (3) feet from the property line, and are prohibited when the exterior wail is less than three (3) feet from the line. There is no restriction on openings when the exterior wall is more than three (3) feet from the property line. Contact the City of Little Rock Building Codes at 371-4832 for additional details. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 41 Edgehill Road is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. A two -car wide driveway from Edgehill Road is MARCH 9, 2015 ITEM NO,: 3 CON'T, located at the northwest corner of the lot. The driveway runs along the west side of the house into the rear yard area, An existing storage building is located in the rear yard area, at the southwest corner of the property. An in -ground pool is also located in the rear yard area at the southeast corner of the lot. The applicant proposes to remove the storage building at the southwest corner of the lot and construct a new one-story (with dormers) garage structure, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed garage will be 24 feet by 46 feet in area. The proposed garage will be located three (3) feet back from the west side property line and three (3) to seven (7) feet back from the rear (south) property line. The proposed garage will be located approximately 25 feet from the house and nine (9) feet from the pool. A 12 foot wide covered walkway will be located between the proposed garage and the house. The portions of the proposed garage and existing pool located within the required rear yard area (rear 25 feet of the lot) cover approximately 47 percent of the required rear yard area, Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows accessory structures to occupy up to 30 percent of the required rear yard area (rear 25 feet) of a residential lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow portions of the pool and garage to occupy approximately 47 percent of the rear 25 feet of the lot. Staff is supportive of the requested coverage variance, Staff views the request as reasonable. The proposed garage structure will not be out of character with other accessory structures and rear yard coverages in this general area. Other large accessory structures are located throughout this neighborhood, The proposed accessory structure complies with side and rear yard setback requirements. Staff believes the proposed accessory building with increased rear yard coverage will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. D, Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested coverage variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Building codes requirements as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report. 2. The covered walkway between the house and accessory garage structure must remain unenclosed on its east and west sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (March 9, 2015) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval, There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes„ 0 nays, 0 absent and 1 recusal (Lindsey Polk). The application was approved. Yeary Lindsey Architects. -4 3 January 20, 2015 Dana Carney Office of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Flock, AR 72201 Re; Hubach/Campbell Residence 41 Edgehill Road Little Rock, AR 72.207 Dear Dana, Please find attached our submittal to the Little Rock Board of Adjustments requesting a zoning variance with regard to the property at 41 Edgehill Road. The owners have demolished an existing 2 car carport and plan to demolish the existing storage shed that remains. Our plan is to construct a new 2'/a car garage (double wide garage door with golf cart sized door to access bikes, etc.) and enclosed area for pool room and stair to attic storage space. We also plan to connect this new structure with a covered but open breezeway to the existing house. Because the existing swimming pool is considered a structure, we are asking for a variance to allow for an increase in the allowed developed area within the rear yard 25' setback. The new garage will be 3' off the south and west property lines and will be 24' deep by 46' wide. The portion of this structure that will be within the rear yard setback will occupy 32% of the rear yard. The portion of the existing pool that occupies the rear yard is 15% so our total developed area will be 47% rather than the allowed 30%. Our rationale for setting the new garage so far back into the corner of the site is to allow for turn around space while backing out of the new garage. This turn around space will happen partially under the covered breezeway and is necessary because of the tight side driveway on the west side of the house. If you have any questions or concerns or need further information please feel free to contact me. As always, we appreciate your serious consideration of our request. Sincerely, O(IM Ellen Yeary, 3416 Old. Cantrell Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 501-372-5940 Fax: 501-663-0043 MARCH 9, 2015 ITEM NO,: 4 File No.: Z-9013 Owner: Amber M. Burley Applicant: Brian Self Address: 321 N. Plaza Circle Description: Lot 62, Plaza Heights Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. 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: B. Staff Anal The R-2 zoned property at 321 N. Plaza Circle is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. A one -car wide driveway from N. Plaza Circle serves as access. The driveway extends along the south side of the house to a carport in the rear yard area. The property backs up to N. McKinley Street. The applicant recently enclosed a portion of the rear yard area with a new six (6) foot high wood fence. The new fence runs along the rear (east) property line and a portion of the north and south side property lines. The new fence ties into existing fencing along the north and south side property lines. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between building setback lines and street rights-of-way. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot high wood fence to be located between the 25 foot rear building setback and the N. McKinley Street right-of-way. MARCH 9, 2015 ITEM NO.: 4 CONT. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The proposed six (6) foot high wood fence will not be out of character with other residential fences in this neighborhood. This residential lot backs up to a relatively busy roadway. Large office and commercial developments are located immediately across N. McKinley Street to the east, including Park Plaza Mall. Staff feels that the six (6) foot high wood fence will better shield the property from noise and light emitted from the non-residential properties to the east. Staff believes the proposed six (6) foot high fence height will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to a permit being obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (March 9, 2015) Brian and Amber Self were present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present in opposition. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Brian Self addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that there was 35 feet of six (6) foot high wood fencing along the east property line prior to the new fence construction. He noted that the previous fence was damaged by a vehicle. He explained that he spoke with the neighbor to the north about the new fence construction, and that the neighbor had no comment. He also explained that the neighbor to the north had no comment during the fence construction. He noted that the neighbor to the north had shrubs along their east property line that impacted their view pulling out of their driveway onto N. McKinley Street. He also explained that he installed the fence for security reasons. He noted that other properties along N. McKinley Street had six (6) foot high fences along the street side property line. He presented photos to the Board and explained the photos. William Lide, 405 N. Plaza Drive, (neighbor north of 321 N. Plaza Circle) addressed the Board in opposition. He previously presented a letter and photo to the Board. He explained that his primary concern was line of sight from his driveway onto N. McKinley Street, looking south along the roadway. He explained that the view southward was impacted by the new fence construction. He further explained the sight/distance issue associated with his driveway. He commented on photos submitted by the applicant. Rajesh Mehta asked Mr. Lide if a four (4) foot high fence would allow better sight/distance. Mr. Lide stated that it probably would provide better sight/distance. Carolyn Lindsey Polk asked if the northeast corner of the fence were pulled back, would it provide better sight/distance. Mr. Lide explained that it would help. Robert Tucker asked Mr. Lide if he took the photo submitted. He stated that he did and explained. MARCH 9, 2015 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) Mr. Self noted that Mr. Lide did not comment on the new fence during construction or prior to construction. Amber Self explained that the new fence had no impact on Mr. Lide making a right turn exiting his driveway. There was a motion to approve the application, as recommended by staff. The mote was 5 ayes, Q nays and 0 absent. The application was approved. Cover letter to Department of Planning & Development, requesting a 2- tv Variance for allowing a property fence to be hunt for the privacy of a home owner Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 January 16, 2415 Dear Department of Planning & Development, This proposal letter is to request a Variance for a residence at 321 North Plaza Circle in Little Rock, The Variance requested is relatively minor. We request that a Variance be granted to allow a 6' fence height to replace the previous 4' height fence. Property Fence We request a Variance allowing a wooden fence to be built on the North McKinley street side of the residential property, following the property line at a height of 6 feet to replace the existing 4 foot chain link fence. The home owner's important need for this 6'Wood Privacy fence is for the reasons listed below. 1) Safety- Horne Security is important concern. We have been robbed by persons simply jumping the 4' fence and breaking through a window or stealing from the carportarea. We have also had dogs jump the 4' fence to reach our dog. Therefore, we had to pay to have our dog spade. A 6' fence would make it more difficult to jump over and may prevent future robberies and or harm to my children and animals. The requested Variance would provide a more secure barrier. 2) Noise- The proposed fence's 6' height is requested in order to provide a sound barrier. This concern is due to the proximity of Catholic High School, Plaza West Building, and Park Plaza Mall which is only a few hundred feet away. McKinley Street is busy street due to the commercial buildings and a city bus route long it. The requested Variance would reduce the noise level in the home. 3) Public Trak- As stated previously, due to the proxunty of Catholic High School, Plaza West Building, and Park Plaza Mall we often have the public walking the along the backside of our home. The requested Variance would provide a visual and physical security barrier for our young children and animals that play in the yard and house. 4) Trash- It has long been established when there is a lot of public traffic, trash gets left behind. In addition to the public, we have the commercial dumpsters nearby and city collection trucks pass so trash just seems to find its way into our yard and property. By allowing this Variance in height, we believe it will be harder for pedestrians to throw trash over the fence line and or toss it out the car window into our yard. 5) Visual Glare- The glare from headlights leaving Plaza West Parking Deck shines right into our bedroom window and along the back of the property. Our property slopes downward therefore, the street is at a higher elevation. By increasing the height of the fence the headlights will no longer be a factor. 6) Enhance Property Value- In this area, raw material and labor cost of a chain link fence is nearly half the price than its lumber counterpart. A 6'wood privacy fence cost more increasing the value. When it comes to aesthetics or privacy advantages, wood wins hands- down. So a 6' wooden fence will enhance the value of our property and the value of the surrounding neighbors. 7) Existing Fence- Our property currently had 35' of existing 6' wood privacy fence and gate along the McKinley side that transitioned into 4' chain link fence when we bought the house. The requested Variance would protide a more aesthetic view without having a transition in material. A new 6' wood fence will attach to 6' wood fence at both sides. 8) Aesthetics- It is our absolute intent to have a fence that specifically blends in with not only the existing landscape and vegetation, but is also in complete harmony with the neighboring fence types and appearances: • The fence shall be constructed of wood pickets in an identical manner as several neighboring properties' fences ■ The fence shall not incorporate any "standout" features such as concrete pillars • The fence is desired, intended, and shall be built specifically to be unobtrusive Support of Favorable Findings As stated, there are all but l house least two other houses on the same street with 6 foot wooden fences along the street line, and those property owners are enjoying the substantial right of security and privacy on a daily basis. The proposed Variance does no harm to either public or private interests, and is not injurious to any property or interest. In fact, granting the proposed Variance will serve only to create a more pleasing visual harmony. "The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges... " As stated, all other houses on the same street have 6' wood picket fences at the street line, except for 1 private lot and two commercial lots. The proposed fence is designed, laid out, and is constructed in a manner that achieves harmony with the neighborhood, fosters peaceful relations with neighbors, and blends in visually in a low key, unobtrusive manner with the surroundings. Additionally, the proposed fence this Variance is being requested for does not encroach or infringe on any neighboring residential properties, nor would it impose any hardship on any neighbors, nor would it serve to create a situation where any neighbor's quality of life, property value, or peaceful co -existence would be negatively affected. Quite the contrary, the proposed Variance would allow the petitioner to become a quieter neighbor, with quieter dog, enjoying greater personal security, and achieve a lower noise level in our home. Photographs and diagrams in support of the requested Variance are attached hereto. Respectfully submitted, Brian & Amber Self, Homeowner 321 North Plaza Circle Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 (501) 256-9022 bself76gmail.com MARCH 9, 2015 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-9014 Owner: 31d and Commerce, LLC Applicant: Adam Day, AMR Architects Address: 442 E. 3rd Street Description: North side of E. 31d Street, between River Market Avenue and Cumberland Street. Zoned: UU Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the use and area provisions of Section 36-342.1 to allow outdoor dining in the public right- of-way, outdoor dining seating which exceeds 50 percent of the number of seats within a restaurant and a building addition which encroaches into the public right-of-way. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Parking Deck with Retail Space Proposed Use of Property: Parking Deck with Retail Space and Restaurant with Outdoor Dining STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Two separate franchise permits must be obtained prior to construction of improvements within the City's right-of-way. One is for the building encroachment into the City right-of-way and the other is for the outdoor seating and weather screening encroachments into the City right-of-way. 2. For the two proposed encroachments into the City's right-of-way; the City's Board of Directors must review and approve the issuance of two separate franchise permits, Contact Debora Weldon, City Attorney, at 541-371-6812 to provide more information about the Board of Director's action. 3. The relocation of the bench and fire hydrant must be done according to the plans with the approval of the franchise permits. 4. The Board of Adjustment approval does not approve the issuance of franchise permits. The franchise permit has a separate application and approval process through the City's Public Works Department and all utilities. 5. Any improvements within the City's right-of-way not shown on the franchise permit application plans will not be allowed to be constructed. MARCH 9, 2015 ITEM NO.. 5 CON'T. B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 402 E. 31d Street is occupied by a two-level parking deck. Access to the parking deck is by way of a driveway entrance at the southwest corner of the deck. Three (3) small retail spaces are located at the southeast corner of the parking deck. The applicant proposes to convert two (2) of the existing retail spaces to a restaurant use. The project consists of constructing second and third level additions on top of the parking deck, at its southeast corner, over the existing retail space. The first floor area will be used as a kitchen and ordering area. The new second level will be a food prep area. The new third level will be for indoor restaurant seating, with up to 80 seats. The project also includes an elevator/stairway addition on the east side of the parking deck at its southeast corner. Both the third level addition and elevator/stairway addition (stair landing only) will extend/cantilever four (4) feet into the public right-of-way area. The cantilever will be located ten (10) feet above the sidewalk area. The project also includes an area of outdoor dining (74 seats), immediately west of the retail space, extending the remaining length of the parking deck along E. 3rd Street. The majority of the outdoor dining area will be located under the existing parking deck, with new interior walls being constructed. The area of outdoor dining will extend approximately 2 feet -8 inches into the public right-of-way. A four (4) foot wide awning will extend from the parking deck over the outdoor dining area. The awning will be located ten (10) feet above the sidewalk area. Additionally, at the exterior line of the outdoor dining area (2 feet -8 inches into the right-of-way), small poles (framing) will be installed which will support a roll -up inclement weather screen. The inclement weather screen will be located just outside a three (3) foot high metal fence which will define the area of outdoor dining. Section 36-342.1(d)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance states that outdoor dining shall not be located in the public right-of-way. Section 36-342.1(d)(1)b. states that the number of seats in an area of outdoor dining shall not exceed 50 percent of the number of seats within the restaurant it serves. Section 36-342.1(f)(1) allows buildings to be constructed to front property lines, but states that structures may not be built in the right-of-way. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements to allow a portion of the area of outdoor dining to extend into the public right-of-way, the area of outdoor dining to have seating exceeding 50 percent of the number of seats inside the restaurant, and the new building construction to extend into the public right-of-way. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. Similar areas of outdoor dining can be found throughout the downtown area. Most of the other areas of outdoor dining that have been approved encroach into the right-of-way more than this request. Given the nature of the project in converting a portion of the parking deck for restaurant use, the number of outdoor seats related to indoor seats should not be an issue. Additionally, staff has no issue with the proposed building encroachment into the MARCH 9, 2015 ITEM NO.: 5 CON'T. right-of-way. As noted in the Public works comments (paragraph A. of this report), franchise permit approval will be required for the outdoor dining encroachment and building encroachment into the public right-of-way. The franchise permits will be reviewed by the Board of Directors. During this process, all public utility companies will also review the franchise requests. Board of Adjustment approval of the zoning variances does not guarantee that the franchise permits will be approved. Staff feels that this project will bring more pedestrian traffic to this area of Downtown Little Rock, and have a positive impact on the area. Staff believes that the proposed project with variances from the UU district requirements will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances from the UU district standards, subject to compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in Paragraph A. of the staff report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (March 9, 2015) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter on February 11, 2015 requesting this application be deferred to the March 30, 2015 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the March 30, 2015 agenda. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was deferred. Mr. Monty Moore Department of Planning & Development 723 W. Markham. Little Rock, Ar, 72201 RE. Board of Adjustment -The Shack Dear Monty, MOSES TUCKER REAL ESTATE. 4, =4 F -7 0/� January 21, 2015 Enclosed you will find an application for a sidewalk variance to accommodate a very exciting new restaurant concept for the River Market District, We have been working for several months with Tim Chappell , a very successful local restaurateur, and AMR Architects to bring "The Shack BBQ" hack to downtown Little Rock. The concept is to repurpose the south face of the parking garage that serves the Capital Commerce Center , The garage, which fronts on East 3'd between Rock & River Market Avenue was redesigned several years ago that enabled us to convert a dull, parking lot fagade into several retail storefronts. With "The Shack" we are attempting to create a sidewalk dining concept that will further enliven the neighborhood, and add a wonderful new dining establishment to the street & district. While virtually all the new restaurant space can be accommodated on or above the garage, we are seeking a franchise to encroach just over two (2) feet onto the sidewalk to create & encourage outdoor dining. The design includes fabric panels that can be open on nice days, year-round but can also create a dining enclosure in the winter or during inclement weather, The system is similar to the ones used by Local Lime at the Promenade & Big Orange at the Mid Towne Center. We appreciate your consideration of our request & will be glad to answer any questions you might have. Sincerely, C y Mo s CC: Tim Chappell Rett Tucker Chris Moses Commercial Brokerage • Managemew . Leasing . Development • Consulting 200 River Market Are., Suite Sal • Cattle Rock, Arkansas 72201 • Phone 501-376-5555 • Fax 501-376-6699 www.rno=Wcker.com Q W w W F- 0 0 H Z LLQ Q LL 0 ii 9 Co a d to �J VJ co Q- Z .. Tr T W 4 Z h Z 7 00 Z W Q � J 0 Ix 9 w w Z U � Q LL Q _ 0 LLJ m 0 m LL z CL LL LLI W >-W W Y LL C7 Z w Y LL Z w W Z W � U i- }- >- a d to �J VJ co Q- Z .. Tr T W 4 Z h Z 7 00 W Q � Ix 9 jeCO w Z © Q LL Q Q- W z l31 N W Y LL C7 Z w U _ F- a d to �J VJ co Q- Z .. Tr T W 4 Z MARCH 9, 2015 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m. -3 Date: 1 Chairm n