Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
boa_06 30 2014
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JUNE 30, 2014 2:00 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the May 19, 2014 meeting were approved. Members Present Members Absent: Brad Wingfield, Vice Chairman Rajesh Mehta Carolyn Lindsey Polk Robert Winchester Jeff Yates, Chairman City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA JUNE 30, 2014 2:00 P.M. I. OLD BUSINESS: A. Z-8927 3604/3612/3700 Kavanaugh Blvd. B. Z-8942 12 Mockingbird Lane C. Z-8944 5236 N. Grandview Road D. Z -4582-B 1422 Chester Street II. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Z -3954-B 4601 W. 65th Street 2. Z -5386-A 1021 Jessie Road 3. Z -8785-A 7 Ken Circle 4. Z-8953 20 Chalamont Court 5. Z-8954 1 Accadia Court 6. Z-8955 8 Miramar Court 7. Z-8956 4100-4512 Carter Lane and 16307 Taylor Loop Road JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-8927 Owner: Peartree, Inc. Applicant: Robert Tucker Address: 3604/3612/3700 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Northeast Corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. and North Lookout Road Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the parking provisions of Section 36- 502 and 36-507 to allow a reduced number of parking spaces for a restaurant use and for more than twenty-five (25) percent of the required parking to be located off-site. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Building, Office and Plant Nursery Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant, Office and Plant Nursery STAFF REPORT 0 Public Works Issues: • At the time of building permit, provide a drainage plan and information as to the adequacy of the downstream drainage system. If the site increases stormwater so that the downstream drainage system is not adequate, then stormwater detention will apply. • At the time of building permit, a retaining wall certification is required if the wall is greater than four feet in height. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: 1. Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. A land use buffer will be required when an adjacent property has a dissimilar use of a more restrictive nature. As a component of all land use buffer requirements, opaque screening, whether a fence or other device, a minimum of six (6) feet in height shall be required upon the property line side of the buffer. A minimum of seventy (70) percent of the land use buffer shall be undisturbed. Easements cannot count toward fulfilling this requirement. The plantings, existing and purposed, shall be provided within the landscape ordinance of the city, section 15-81. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) A portion of the property to the east is zoned R5 therefore, a minimum nine (9) foot wide buffer is required along the east property line. The property is located in the City's designated mature area. A 25% reduction of the buffer requirements is acceptable. 3. All new and existing plant materials shall be in good condition at completion of project. Replace any damaged or dead material. 4. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area that abuts adjoining property or the right-of-way of any street. One (1) tree and three (3) shrubs or vines shall be planted for every thirty (30) linear feet of perimeter planting strip. 5. The parking area shall be screened from the adjacent right-of-way. 6. One (1) tree shall be provided for each twelve (12) parking spaces in the interior of the parking area. Existing trees and vegetation can be used to satisfy these requirements. 7. An irrigation system shall be required for developments of one (1) acre or larger. 8. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this 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 3604 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by a one-story commercial building. The property is located at the northeast corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. and N. Lookout Road. The building is comprised of 3,160 square feet of floor area. The owner of this property also owns the property at 3612/3700 Kavanaugh (one tract) which is also zoned C-3 and is occupied by Hocott's Garden Center and a small office building (2,170 square feet). There is a small area of parking behind the building at 3604 Kavanaugh and some on -street parking. A small parking area containing five (5) parking spaces is located behind the Hocott's building, with seven (7) head -in parking spaces located in front of the small office building (partially in the right-of-way). Access drives from N. Lookout Road serve the building at 3604 Kavanaugh and the Hocott's property. The two (2) buildings (3608 and 3610 Kavanaugh Blvd.) between the building at 3604 Kavanaugh and the Hocott's property have separate ownership(s). The applicant is proposing to occupy the building at 3604 Kavanaugh Blvd. with a new restaurant use. As part of the project the parking area behind the building will be improved with new paving (3 spaces). A new parking area will be constructed on the Hocott's property, as noted on the attached site plan. The new parking area will contain 32 paved parking spaces, with an access drive from Kavanaugh Blvd. The existing head -in parking spaces in front of the small office building will be removed and replaced by three (3) parallel on -street spaces. The commercial building at 3604 Kavanaugh has a nonconforming status related to parking. The building has a history of commercial use which requires ten (10) JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) off-street parking spaces. Parking for three (3) vehicles exists behind the building, leaving a shortage of seven (7) spaces. Section 36-502(b)(3)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires 31 off-street parking spaces for a 3,160 square foot restaurant. With credit given for the existing nonconforming status, the proposed new restaurant will require 21 additional off-street parking spaces. Section 36- 507(a) allows up to 25 percent of the total parking requirement to be located off- site, with 300 feet of the use they serve. As noted above, a new 32 space parking lot will be constructed on the Hocott's Garden Center property. The Hocotts Garden Center and small office building require 15 off-street parking spaces. This leaves 17 spaces which can be devoted to the new restaurant use, for a total shortage of four (4) spaces. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow a reduced number of parking spaces and for more than 25 percent of parking requirement to be located off-site. Staff is supportive of the requested parking variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. Parking variances have been granted in the past for restaurants (occupying existing commercial buildings) along Kavanaugh Blvd. from N. University Avenue (Heights) to Walnut Street (Hillcrest). The applicant's proposal leaves a shortfall of only four (4) parking spaces. This does not include the fact that on -street parking does exist along Kavanaugh Blvd. Also, when the restaurant is open during evening hours, the small office building and the Hocott's Garden Center will be closed, leaving more parking available for the restaurant. It is also important to note that the Hillcrest Design Overlay District boundaries are located across N. Lookout Road to the south and across Kavanaugh Blvd. to the west. The Hillcrest DOD requires one-half of the typical parking requirement. If this site were located within the Hillcrest DOD, there would be no variance for an overall shortage of parking spaces. Staff believes the applicant's request to occupy the building at 3604 Kavanaugh Blvd as a restaurant, and the proposed parking plan for the overall property ownership is reasonable and should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of the staff report. 2. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report. 3. Signage must be provided directing restaurant patrons to the new parking area. 4. The parking variances are contingent upon the two (2) properties (3604 and 3612/3700 Kavanaugh Blvd.) maintaining the same ownership. If the ownership is ever split, the parking issue must be brought back before the Board of Adjustment for review. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (March 31, 2014) Robert Tucker and David Hamilton were present, representing the application. There were six (6) objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Robert Tucker addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained the parking plan for the project. He noted that the Hillcrest DOD was located immediately to the south and west and required one-half the typical required parking. He explained that the new parking area would benefit the area. Regina Smith, owner of So restaurant, addressed the Board in opposition. She discussed on -street parking in the immediate area. She noted that her restaurant had valet parking. She presented a petition of opposition to the Board. Chris Stonecipher, employee of So restaurant, also spoke in opposition. He noted safety concerns with restaurant patrons crossing the street at this location. Kyle Pounders, employee of So restaurant, also spoke in opposition. He concurred with two (2) previous speakers. Bo Hawk, owner of the property across Kavanaugh to the west, also spoke in opposition. He explained that So restaurant uses his parking lot after hours. He stated that patrons of the proposed new restaurant would park in his lot. Spencer English, employee of So restaurant, also spoke in opposition. He noted traffic issues in the area. Mary Anderson, employees of So restaurant, also spoke in opposition. She also noted traffic and parking concerns. Mr. Tucker explained that the seven (7) lead-in parking spaces in front of the small office building would be replaced with parallel spaces which will conform to City code. He noted that So restaurant had no off-street parking spaces during the day and one- half the required parking after hours. Rajesh Mehta asked Mr. Tucker if valet parking could be utilized for the new restaurant. Mr. Tucker noted that it would be up to the new restaurant owner. The distance between the new restaurant building and the new parking area was discussed. There was a brief discussion between the Board and staff regarding the parking requirements and off-site parking allowances. The issue was discussed further. Chairman Yates noted that he could not support the application. Rajesh Mehta noted that he could not support the application without valet parking. Mr. Tucker asked to defer the application to the April 28 agenda, so that the restaurant owner could be present to address the valet parking issue and neighbor concerns. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) There was a motion to defer the application to the April 28, 2014 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays 0 absent and 1 abstention (Smith). The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (April 28, 2014) The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested deferral of the application to the May 19, 2014 agenda, as the property owner could not be present at this meeting. Staff supported the deferral request. Bo Hawk addressed the Board and objected to the deferral request. The issue of deferral was discussed. Jerry Sears also addressed the Board, objecting to the deferral request. Jan Bowman also spoke in opposition to the deferral request. There was motion to defer the application to the May 19, 2014 agenda. The motion was passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Smith). The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (May 19, 2014) Chris Travis, Robert Tucker and others were present, representing the application. There were several persons present in opposition and several persons present in support. Staff presented the application, noting that the application had been revised by the applicant. Staff noted that the number of parking spaces in the new proposed lot had been increased from 27 to 31. Staff noted that with the increase in spaces, the variance for total number of spaces had been eliminated. Staff noted that the overall number of spaces, as revised, conformed to ordinance standards. Staff noted that the only remaining variance was to have more than 25 percent of the required parking being located off site. Chris Travis addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that there were a number of other businesses in the area with deficient parking. He explained that approval of the parking variance would solve the parking issues for three (3) of the buildings (3604, 3612 and 3700 Kavanaugh) in the area. He briefly discussed the number of parking spaces currently on the site. Rajesh Mehta asked if the restaurant would have valet parking. Mr. Travis explained that valet parking would not be necessary because they are providing the required parking. Jim Mauney, of Hocatt's Garden Center, spoke in support. He explained that the new parking area would benefit his business as well as the proposed restaurant. Mark Abernathy addressed the Board. He referred to a previous court case, and noted that the property had a hardship based on the case. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) Jacy Daugherty addressed the Board in support of the applicant. He noted that he was a tenant of 3700 Kavanaugh Blvd. He noted that the new parking lot would benefit his business and create safer parking in the area. Timothy O'Brien spoke in opposition. He stated that he provided valet parking for So restaurant. He stated that the proposed new parking lot would not solve the parking problem in the area. David Vandergriff, attorney for So restaurant, also spoke in opposition. He noted that his opposition was not about competition. He noted issues regarding safety and parking. He discussed police incident reports for the area. Regina Smith, owner of So restaurant expressed concern about the traffic pattern and parking in the area. John Flake, representing Mount St. Mary's school, explained that the school was opposed to the parking variance. James Walter, of Grace Lutheran Church, expressed concern with the amount of parking and safety in the area. Bo Hawk also spoke in opposition. He discussed the previous deferral and amendment to the application. Erin Cassinelli also spoke in opposition. She submitted a letter and signatures of persons in opposition. Gina Dougherty also spoke in opposition. She expressed concerns with safety and traffic in the area. She discussed the traffic pattern in the area and noted a concern with noise. Chris Travis explained that the property had hardship because the property was completely developed with little parking. Rajesh Mehta explained that he had visited the property at various times during the day. He noted that he could not vote to deny the application based on the addition of the new parking lot. There was a brief discussion regarding the So restaurant hours. There was a motion to approve the application, as amended and recommended by staff. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Smith). The application was deferred to the June 30, 2014 agenda, based on the fact that there were not three (3) votes for or against. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (June 30, 2014) Chris Travis, Robert Tucker and others were present, representing the application. There were several persons present in opposition and several persons present in support. Staff briefly presented the application with a recommendation of approval, noting the revised plan as presented at the May 19, 2014 Board meeting. Chris Travis addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that only variance requested was to allow more than 25 percent of the required parking to be located off-site. He explained how close the two (2) properties were to being contiguous. He noted that the proposed restaurant use was adding off-street parking along Kavanaugh Blvd., where most other businesses along this street have not been required to do so. He stated that staff supported the variance and explained. He noted that the Hillcrest Residents Association and the Hillcrest Merchants Association had no issues with the variance request. He briefly discussed the parking requirement and referred to the Hillcrest Design Overlay District standards. He explained that the proposed use of 3604 Kavanaugh Blvd. was a restaurant that serves alcohol. He noted that any "Happy Hour" would not begin before 5:00 p.m. He noted that any use of the property would not comply with the parking requirements. Scott Smith also spoke in support of the application. He referred to the concept of "New Urbanism" and explained that the proposed use of the existing building was in keeping with this concept. He noted that the property was just outside the Hillcrest DOD which required one-half the typical parking requirement. Jerry Sears spoke in opposition. He explained that EJ's restaurant had a delivery service and urged the Board to vote against the variance. Bo Hawk also spoke in opposition. He expressed concern with traffic in the area. Patrick Barker also spoke in opposition. He expressed concern with the existing parking problem in the area. Karen Flake, President of Mt. St. Mary Academy, also spoke in opposition. She expressed concern with traffic congestion at the intersection of Kavanaugh Blvd. and N. Lookout Street. She also expressed concern with on -street parking in the area near the school. Edward Oglesby also spoke in opposition. He expressed concern with additional traffic and parking around the Mt. St. Mary's school. He noted that increased traffic the restaurant would create would cause problems. Melanie Fox also spoke in opposition. She explained that the traffic created by the restaurant would create a problem. David Stalnaker also spoke in opposition. He explained that traffic and on -street parking was an existing problem for the area. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) Erin Cassinelli also spoke in opposition. She speculated that persons would not use the proposed new parking area and explained. Chris Travis explained that the proposed new parking area will help the parking situation in the entire area. Bob Winchester asked about the delivery service for the restaurant. Mr. Travis stated that there would be a delivery service and that it would probably use the parking behind the building. Vice -Chairman Wingfield stated that he did not support the application. He stated that he could not support adding more traffic to the area. Rajesh Mehta noted that he did support the parking variance. He referred to other restaurants along Kavanaugh Blvd. which had been granted parking variances in the past. Bob Winchester also noted that he supported the application. He explained that the issue before the Board was parking, not traffic Carolyn Lindsey Polk noted that she would be abstaining, based on the fact that she was not on the Board during the first two (2) public hearings on this application. Staff added a fifth condition to their recommendation as follows: 5. The restaurant use at 3604 Kavanaugh Blvd. will have no "Happy Hour" use beginning before 5:00 p.m. A motion was made to approve the application as recommended by staff. The vote was 2 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Lindsey Polk). Based on the fact that the application did not receive three (3) votes either for or against on its second appearance before the Board, the application was automatically denied. CRESTVIEW PROPERTIES Robert Tucker -j Crestview Properties, Inc. 3700 Kavanaugh Blvd, Suite A�-•— Little Rock, AR 72205 February 25, 2014 Department of Planning and Development Chairman and Members Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72204 To the City of tittle Rock Board of Adjustment, The application submitted with this cover letter seeks to request a variance for the City of Little Rock Code Sec. 36-502b (3) c and 36-507a as it pertains to the number and location of off street parking spaces required to serve the tenants of the properties located at 3604 Kavanaugh Blvd and 3700 Kavanaugh Blvd. As shown in the attached parking plan design, the owner of these properties proposes to create a parking lot consisting of 27 off street parking spaces located at 3700 Kavanaugh Blvd plus three parking spaces at 3604 Kavanaugh for a total of 30. These parking spaces would serve the tenants of the 2,170 gross square foot office building located at 3700 Kavanaugh Blvd and the tenant operating as a restaurant occupying the 3,160 gross square foot building at 3604 Kavanaugh Blvd. Per City of Little Rock ordinance, the number of parking spaces required to serve both of these commercial buildings would be 36. The site for the parking lot presents constraints that limit how many parking spaces we can achieve. Crowded buildings, large trees, a steep terraced slope at the north, and the need to retain certain space for Hocott's Garden Center's operations limit the size of the proposed parking lot. We do, however, intend to remove two dilapidated buildings to accomplish the largest size possible. The parking plan also proposes an additional 3 parallel parking spaces located directly in front of the building at 3700 Kavanaugh Blvd. Currently, there are 8 perpendicular parking es that pose a safety hazard to anyone exiting these spaces since they have to back out ly into Kavanaugh Blvd. There is a blind curve to the north and frequent blind spots to the so due to cars parked in adjacent spaces thereby making it difficult to navigate when entering and exiting these spaces. Safer on street parking conditions will be created by replacing these with 3 parallel parking spaces. If these spaces were to be considered as part of the overall total of parking spaces, then the number of spaces would be 33 out of the required 36. The second variance request involves the City of Little Rock ordinance that states that any off- site parking may not exceed 25% of the total number of parking spaces required. Again, due to constraints pertaining to the size and location of the 3604 Kavanaugh Blvd property, the maximum number of parking spaces that can be created is three whereas the city requirements stipulate that 31 will be needed for the restaurant tenant at this location, and thus the need to locate the majority on the property at 3700 Kavanaugh Blvd. Additional parking on the block includes ten on street parking spaces located on Kavanaugh which are largely unused during the day and can be utilized by the restaurant customers during lunch hours. In addition, the property at 3604 Kavanaugh is bordered by the Hillcrest Design Overlay District by Kavanaugh to the west and North Lookout to the south where the parking requirements are reduced by 50% and on street parking is counted towards the total parking requirement at 1 space per 10 linear feet of street frontage. While the proposed parking plan seeks to meet the city's parking requirements by providing the maximum number of parking spaces on these properties, it should be noted that the parking requirements for neighboring properties 20 feet to the south and 20 feet to the west are determined by reduced standards. Without the additional parking spaces, it will be very difficult to make the property at 3604 Kavanaugh economically viable since a tenant leasing the building will expect to have additional parking for its customers. The addition of the parking is much needed for this block of Kavanaugh and it will have a long term benefit to the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Robert Tucker President Crestview Properties, Inc. GILL RADON O EN A Y T O R N E Y S April 24, 2014 Mr. Jeff Yates, Chairperson Little Rock Board of Adjustment Planning and Development Department 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re File Z-8927 Dear Jeff _Tj e-0- 4 OF GILL RATAN OWEN, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAw 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 3801 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 TELEPHONE 501.376.3800 FACSIMILE 501.372.3359 .4ill-law.com CHRISTOPHER L. TRAVIS I ATTORNEY tray' ill-law.com My firm represents Peartree, Inc., which is the applicant in the above - referenced zoning file. We respectfully request that consideration of the application be deferred until the next meeting, as the applicant's owner will be unable to attend in person. You should have received from Robert Tucker four fall -size, copies and one 11 x 17 size copy of a revised site: plan showing the proposed parking lot to be located behind 3700 Kavanaugh for the benefit of a now restaurant to be located at 3604 Kavanaugh. APPLICATION REVISION As you know, 3604 Kavanaugh has a pre-existing nonconforming use that requires 21 parking spaces. It has three spaces on-site , so it needs 18 more. The applicant originally sought a variance to remove the need for 4 spaces. However, the app-licant has since revised its parking plan so that all required 18 spaces will be provided in a new parking lot to be built behind 3700 Kavanaugh, which the applicant also owns. Therefore, the applicant withdraws its4-space variance request. The applicant, however, maintains its application for a variance related to the requirement that no more than 25% of its parking be located off-site by using the 18 spaces in the new lot behind 3700 Kavanaugh. Please note that there will be an additional 10 unused parking spaces on the weekends and 15 unused parking spaces during the evenings due to the availability of spaces unoccupied by Hocott's and the office tenants of 3700 Kavanaugh after business hours. This brings the total number of parking spaces to 31 on the weekends and 36 after 5 PM on weekdays plus the 3 located behind 3604 Kavanaugh and the credit for 7 on -street parking spaces. This plan supplies adequate parking with only 9 spaces over the 25% off-site maximum. CHANGES TO APPLICANT'S PLAN TO ADDRESS CONCERNS The applicant understands that parking is precious in its neighborhood. The applicant also understands the traffic concerns at the complex intersection of Kavanaugh, Evergreen, North Lookout, and Hillcrest Avenue. New Parking. The applicants proposal results in a net increase in the overall parking capacity in the neighborhood by 27 spaces. The entrance to the new parking lot will be approximately 180 feet from the complex intersection yet well within the 300' from the property it serves as required by the City's code. In addition, the applicant commits that the spaces closest to the entrance of the proposed parking lot will be dedicated to restaurant customers with 3700 Kavanaugh and Hocott's Nursery using the northernmost spaces . The applicant will install signage in the new parking lot to effectuate this. Restaurant customers may walk from the new parking lot either along Kavanaugh or on the alleyway in back. Signage. The applicant will also install signs inside and outside the building at 3604 Kavanugh to direct customers to park in the new parking lot down the street. We will invite the owner of 3625 Kavanaugh across the street to approve of the size, design, location, and language of a sign directing EJ's customers not to park there or risk being towed. Restaurant Employees. EJ's has committed to an employee and/or manager to monitor the parking lot at 3625 Kavanaugh and direct any customer that parks there to move their car to the new lot across the street. Finally, the restaurant will instruct its employees to either (a) park in one of the three on-site parking spots, (b) park in the new parking lot, or (c) parking public rights-of-way other than the parallel parking on Kavanaugh (i.e., employees must park far down Hillcrest Road or L Street). RESPONSES TO NEIGHBORS' OBJECTIONS While the applicant is sympathetic to and understands the neighbors' concerns, the applicant submits that the neighbors' concerns must be weighed with the applicant's right to use its property. The neighbors' concerns would be the same if the proposed use was a bookstore, a hobby store, or any other commercial use. The applicant believes it is helping the overall parking problem in this area. Neighbors' concerns about safety and increased parking along Hillcrest Road may be ameliorated by installing "No Parking" signs and a stop light at the complex intersection, a decision which the applicant will gladly support. Neighbors with parking lots may choose to enforce its signage and have a few cars towed away to demonstrate. Other neighbors may merely be trying to stifle competition. Consider that if EJ's were to lease 3000 square feet across the street, within the Hillcrest Design Overlay District, the parking requirement would be only half of what it is. The amount of increased traffic would be the same, highlighting the somewhat arbitrary effects of the Hillcrest DOD boundary. Please note that the location of the proposed off-site parking lot is an advantage because it is 200' from the complex intersection and will decrease congestion there. By leading cars down the street, traffic at the intersection will be lighter. Mr. Hawk believes that EJ's customers will park on his property rather than at the proposed parking lot because the new parking lot will be too far from EJ's door. In reality, the distance of the farthest parking space located in front of 3700 Kavanaugh and used by So's customers is 260 feet while the distance of the closest parking space on the proposed parking lot designated for EJ's is also 260 feet. The distance of the farthest parking space to be utilized by EJ's in the proposed lot is 360 feet whereas the distance of the farthest observed So customer's car parked on L Street is 360 feet. Clearly, individuals do and will walk these distances; Hillcrest is a pedestrian -friendly place. Please note that the retail store owners and the owner of the apartment building across the street have expressed their support and welcome the addition of EJ's and the proposed parking lot. They believe increased pedestrian traffic will help their businesses due to and thus increase their exposure to new customers. Most importantly, this is the only property along Kavanaugh where the owners have the ability to create a new parking lot with 31 spaces in an area of the city where parking is a major issue and much needed regardless of the applicant's proposed use and extensive measures to alleviate the objections raised. It is our belief that the benefits outweigh the negatives: the parking situation is improved, an existing business with an operating history in Hillcrest and an experienced owner is added to the neighborhood, the retailers across the street benefit from the extra exposure, and the street is safer because the tenants of 3700 Kavanaugh and So's customers no longer have to back out into Kavanaugh on a blind curve. Finally please consider that the applicant's property at 3604 Kavanaugh is small, irregularly shaped, bounded by existing streets, and burdened with a sharp topographical drop off from west to east, which will not allow on-site parking beyond the 3 existing spaces. These are "circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration." Granting the variance "will be in keeping with the spirit and intent provisions of the ordinance." As such this request falls squarely within the variance provisions of the City's code and related state statutes. To deny the owner of a small, steep, irregularly shaped lot a parking variance would be inconsistent with the Board's prior variance decisions, arbitrary, and capricious. It would represent granting some landowners greater protection of the law than others. The applicant believes it has presented a reasonable application for a variance and that the new parking lot will greatly help the neighborhood's parking problems. The applicant requests that its variance be granted when it is considered by the Commission. Thank you. S' r ly, Q ristopher L. Travis JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z-8942 Owner/Applicant: Kevin and Meredith Gann Address: 12 Mockingbird Lane Description: Lot 533, Kingwood Place Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow a detached carport addition with reduced front setback and separation. 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 Q Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 12 Mockingbird Lane is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located on the north side of Mockingbird Lane, between Keightly Drive and Indian Trail. There is a two -car wide driveway from Mockingbird Lane at the southwest corner of the lot. A garage is located at the southwest corner of the house. The applicant recently began construction of an 18 foot by 18 foot detached carport over a portion of the existing driveway, as noted on the attached site plan. The carport structure has been framed, and is located approximately one (1) foot from the facia of the house. The detached carport structure is located 10 to 12 feet back from the west side property line and 12 feet to 14 feet back from the front (south) property line. The carport is unenclosed on all sides. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory (detached) structures be located at least 60 feet back from front property lines in residential zones. Section 36-156(a)(2)b. requires that accessory structures be separated from principal structures by at least six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the detached carport with a reduced front setback and separation. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff does not view the variances as reasonable. The proposed encroachment into the required front setback is out of character with the neighborhood. There are no similar encroachments along either side of Mockingbird Lane. Staff was also unable to identify any similar front encroachments within the overall neighborhood. Staff believes the proposed carport structure is out of place and that it has an adverse visual impact on the adjacent properties as well as the other properties along Mockingbird Lane. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested setback and separation variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (May 19, 2014) Kevin Gann was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Kevin Gann addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that the existing garage at the southwest corner of the home was not fully functional for parking as it was not very deep. He noted that there were other homes in the area which had covered parking. He explained the need for covered parking for his family and presented photos to the Board. There was a brief discussion regarding the existing garage and what could be built and added to the existing garage. Mr. Gann indicated that he could shorten the carport to 14 feet and attach it to the house. This issue was discussed further. Procedural issues were briefly discussed. The issue of deferring the application was discussed. Vice -Chairman Wingfield noted that he could not support the front setback variance as proposed. The issue of revising the application was discussed. Mr. Gann requested that the application be deferred to the June 30, 2014 Agenda. A motion was made to defer the application to June 30, 2014. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. Staff Update: On June 9, 2014, the applicant submitted a letter to staff requesting that this application be deferred to the July 28, 2014 agenda. Staff supports the deferral request. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (June 30, 2014) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting deferral of the application to the July 28, 2014 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the July 28, 2014 Agenda. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. 21 To Whom it may concern, I am requesting a variance because, I am proposing to construct an 18' by 18' wood construct pergola style two car carport. The carport will encroach 14' into the front setback, per Little Rock code of ordinance section 36-254(d)(1). It will be a one story self supporting structure with a metal roof. The original carport was built in for living and storage space by previous owners. I would like to add covered parking/front patio. I believe this addition will add more livability and another level of security to the home. This is also the southern exposure on the home. I do not forsee that this addition would cause the see to incur more responsibility, nor hinder the city's access to utilities already in place. Thank You for considering my request, Kevin Gann JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: C File No.: Z-8944 Owner: Adell A. Fogleman Revocable Trust Applicant: Carolyn Lindsey Address: 5236 N. Grandview Road Description: Lot 31 and parts of Lots 30 and 32, Grandview Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Sections 36-254 and 36-156, and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a carport addition with reduced setbacks and building line encroachment, and a detached carport with reduced side 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: If the Board approves this application, the approval will not include the proposed new parking pad in the right-of-way, along the front property line. The new parking pad must be approved through a franchise application. Contact Bennie Nicolo at 371-4818 for details. B. 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 buildings 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 wall 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. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) C. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5236 N. Grandview Road is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. A 20 foot wide alley right-of-way runs along the rear (north) property line. A two -car wide driveway from the alley at the northeast corner of the property serves as access. A frame accessory building is located at the south end of the driveway, within the rear yard area. A swimming pool is also located in the rear yard. The lot contains a 30 foot front platted building line. The applicant proposes to construct two (2) carport additions (one-story) to the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The first is a carport addition at the southeast corner of the house. The carport addition will be approximately 14 feet wide and 23 feet deep. The proposed addition will cross the front platted building line by 14 to 16 feet, resulting in a front setback of 14 feet at the addition's southeast corner and 16 feet at the southwest corner. The side (east) setback will range from 1.5 feet to 5.5 feet. The carport addition will be unenclosed on its south, east and west sides. This proposed carport addition will include a new driveway from N. Grandview Road at the southeast corner of the lot. The applicant is also proposing a new parking pad within the right-of-way along the front (south) property line. The second carport addition will be to the north side of the existing detached frame structure in the rear yard area. This carport addition will be 20 feet by 22 feet in area and cover a portion of the existing driveway. The addition will be located one (1) foot to five (5) feet back from the east side property line and approximately 28.5 feet back from the rear (north) property line. This detached carport addition will be unenclosed on its north and east sides. There will be a wall along the west side adjacent to the swimming pool area. Sections 36-254(d)(1) and (2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance require minimum front and side setbacks of 25 feet and eight (8) feet for the attached carport addition. Section 31-12 (c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Section 36-156(a)(2)f. requires a minimum side setback of three (3) feet for accessory structures in R-2 zones. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements to allow the proposed attached carport addition with reduced front and side setbacks and building line encroachment, and the proposed detached carport addition with a reduced side setback. Staff does not support the variances, as requested. Staff has no issues with the proposed detached carport addition and supports its side setback variance. However, staff does not support the proposed front setback and building line variances associated with the proposed attached carport addition at the southeast corner of the residence. Staff feels that the proposed front encroachment will be out of character with the other homes along the north side of N. Grandview Road, between N. Taylor Street and Blue Ridge Circle. There are no similar carport/addition-type encroachments within this area. Although it may not be an ideal situation for the property owner, an option for covered parking does exist in the JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) rear yard area. The other homes along this stretch of N. Grandview Road (north side) take access from the rear alley. Staff believes the proposed attached carport addition with front encroachment will have a negative visual impact on the adjacent properties and others along N. Grandview Road. 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 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. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances associated with the proposed carport additions. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (May 19, 2014) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting deferral of the application to the June 30, 2014 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the June 30, 2014 Agenda. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. Staff Update: On June 3, 2014 the applicant submitted a revised site plan for the proposed carport addition at the front, southeast corner of the residence. The new plan reduces the size (depth) of the proposed carport addition. The front setback has been increased from 14/16 feet to 20/22.5 feet. The side setback remains the same, ranging from 1.5 feet to four (4) feet. The proposed carport addition will cross the front platted building line by 7.5 to 10 feet. The proposed carport addition to the rear of the detached frame structure (rear yard) remains unchanged. A copy of the applicant's revised site plan is a separate attachment to the Board's agenda packet. The staff recommendation on the revised site plan will be presented to the Board at its agenda meeting. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (June 30, 2014) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the revised application with a recommendation of approval, with the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: C (CON 2. The front carport addition must remain unenclosed on its south, east and west sides. 3. The rear carport addition must remain unenclosed on its north and east sides. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval as revised and recommended by staff. The vote was 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Lindsey Polk). The application was approved. Yeary Lindsey Architects April 21, 2014 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Neighborhoods and Planning 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Zoning Variance Application for 5236 N. Grandview Rd. Dear Monte, This project for Ms. Dell Fogleman consists of a new front entry porch, a new parking pad at N. Grandview for guests, a new attached single -car carport at the N. Grandview level and a new unattached two -car carport at the Scenic, lower rear level. Ms. Fogleman is pursuing these projects to ensure her safety and that of her guests that park on N. Grandview. The only off street parking she currently has is at the rear, requiring her to enter on the lower level and climb stairs to get to the main (N. Grandview) level. Due to the degeneration of her knees, she wants a solution that will allow her to age in place. We are requesting a zoning variance to allow an encroachment of 14' at the SW corner and 16' at the SE corner into the 30' Building Line at the front of the lot for the purpose of constructing the single -car carport adjacent to the Kitchen. This will also require a reduction of the required 8' east side yard setback to 5.5' at the SE corner of the carport and to 1.5' at the NE corner. The pie shape nature of this lot prevents us from pushing the carport further to the north and accounts for the variation in encroachment, which allows the narrowest portion of the setback to exist only for a small length of the carport. The two -car carport accessed from Scenic at the rear of the lot is attached to an accessory building and will require a reduced side yard setback also due to the pie -shaped lot. It will require the setback of 3' to be reduced to 1' at the NE corner as well. The front porch will be built within the confines of the setbacks, with only a single step with a 6" riser encroaching into the 30' Building Line. The parking pad is designed to allow guests to parallel park just off of the street. While the Grandview carport and front porch will be supported by 16" square painted brick columns, the Scenic carport will be constructed of square PermaCast columns on masonry pedestals. We will provide gutters and downspouts along the north and south side of the Grandview carport, taking the water underground toward N. Grandview, and along the east and west side of the Scenic carport. The two houses to the west of this house have extensive landscape features (pergolas) within the front setback. The house at 5223 N. Grandview, across the street, received a variance to build a Garage within the front setback. It might also be noted that the house to the east has an attached carport on the western portion of their lot and that the curving nature of this street keeps this new carport from being a prominent feature. We feel the addition of the carport to the front of the house is in keeping with the existing density of the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Carolyn A. Li ey, AIA 3416 Old Cantrell Road Little Rock, Aarkansas 72201 501-372-5940 FX: 501-663-0043 JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: D File No.: Z -4582-B Owner/Applicant: Montoya, LLC/ Heman Montoya Address: 1422 Chester Street Description: Lot 7, Block 270, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-301 and the buffer provisions of Section 36-522 to allow construction of a new commercial building with reduced setback and buffers. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Lot Proposed Use of Property: Liquor Store STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. At the time of building permit; repair, replace or extend existing damaged or missing curb and gutter, sidewalk, ramps or concrete driveway aprons within the public right-of-way adjacent to the site. 2. At the time of building permit; repave the alley adjacent to the site. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: 1. Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. A land use buffer will be required when an adjacent property has a dissimilar use of a more restrictive nature. As a component of all land use buffer requirements, opaque screening, whether a fence or other device, a minimum of six (6) feet in height shall be required upon the property line side of the buffer. A minimum of seventy (70) percent of the land use buffer shall be undisturbed. Easements cannot count toward fulfilling this requirement. The plantings, existing and purposed, shall be provided within the landscape ordinance of the city, section 15-81. The property to the north is zoned R-4 therefore, a minimum 6.75 foot wide buffer (mature area) is required along the north property line. 3. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area that abuts adjoining property or the right-of-way of any street. One (1) tree JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.) and three (3) shrubs or vines shall be planted for every thirty (30) linear feet of perimeter planting strip. 4. Developments of less than one (1) acre shall have a water source within seventy-five (75) feet of the plants to be irrigated. 5. Dumpsters shall be screened from abutting properties and streets. The screen shall exceed the height of the dumpster or trash containment areas by at least two (2) feet not to exceed eight (8) feet total height. C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 1422 Chester Street is currently undeveloped. A commercial building which previously existed on the site was recently removed. The property is located at the northwest corner of Chester and W. 15th Streets. A paved alley is located along the rear (west) property line. The property is comprised of one (1) 50 foot by 140 foot platted lot. The applicant proposes to construct a new one-story commercial building with drives and parking, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed building will be located 25 feet back from the front (east) property line, 8 feet from the south street side property line, 70 feet from the rear (west) property line and 16 feet back from the north side property line. A small canopy over the drive-thru window will be located on the north side of the building. Two (2) new driveways are proposed; one (1) from Chester Street at the northeast corner of the site, and one from the alley at the northwest corner of the site. Five (5) parking spaces are proposed along the west side of the building. A drive-thru lane is proposed along the north side of the building which will exit to the existing alley. The proposed driveway from Chester Street will be an entrance only drive. The driveway from Chester Street and drive-thru lane and parking area will be located approximately 2.5 feet back from the north side property line. Section 36-301(e)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum street side setback (south) of 25 feet. Section 36-522(b)(3)a. requires a minimum land use buffer width of 6.75 feet along the north property line, based on the fact that the property immediately to the north is zoned R-4. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements to allow the proposed building with reduced street side setback and a reduced land use buffer. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff believes the applicant is trying to accomplish too much in the way of development of this rather small C-3 zoned property. As noted earlier, the property is comprised of only one (1) 50 foot by 140 foot platted lot. The building which previously existed on the site was an old corner grocery store type building located at the southeast corner of the lot. The site previously contained no off-street parking and no drive-thru facility. Although staff is not opposed to re -development of this C-3 zoned lot, staff feels that the proposed development with a drive-thru window is too suburban in nature. Staff believes the site should be developed with more of an urban/neighborhood JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.) commercial design, with the building possibly having a larger footprint (or a second story), pulled slightly closer to the Chester Street frontage, and only one (1) access drive from the alley right-of-way to a small parking area on the west side of the building. Additionally, a more urban design would have the pedestrian access to the building nearer the southeast corner of the structure and not on the rear (west side) of the building. Staff believes the proposed site design is not appropriate for this location. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested building setback and buffer variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (April 28, 2014) Eric Montoya and Eunice Montoya were present, representing the application. There were three (3) persons present in opposition. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Eric Montoya addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained the project. He noted that the State ABC had approved re -construction of the liquor store building with a building footprint closer to what previously existed on the site. Heath Welch, of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, addressed the Board in opposition. He explained that the previous liquor store caused problems in the neighborhood. Brother Wayne Burt also spoke in opposition. He opposed the liquor store use. He stated that he agreed with staff that a more urban development would be better. Dr. Minnie Hatchett also spoke in opposition neighborhood which she had been involved site when the building was torn down. . She explained the clean-up project for the in. She explained that trash was left on the Eunice Montoya spoke in support of the application. She explained that the City tore down the old building. She noted that the State ABC had "grandfathered -in" the property and approved plans for re -construction. Robert Winchester asked about the property to the north. Staff noted that the property immediately north was zoned R-4. Scott Smith explained that the proposed use of the property was not an issue for the Board. He discussed the building setback requirements for the lot. He noted that the proposed building placement on the site was a good location. He explained that he was not supportive of the drive-thru window. Rajesh Mehta explained that any re -development of the lot would require variances. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.) Chairman Yates briefly discussed the issue of reconstruction of nonconforming structures. He asked the owners if they received a notice that the building was going to be demolished. Mr. Montoya noted that they did. He asked if he objected to the notice. Mr. Montoya noted that he did not object because the building was in bad shape. The issue of the proposed drive-thru window was discussed. The UU zoning district regulations were discussed with relation to this property. There was additional discussion of the proposed building development. The issue of deferring the application for the applicant to consider re -designing the site plan was discussed. Mr. Montoya requested deferral of the application. Staff suggested deferral to the June 30, 2014 agenda to allow time to review a revised site plan. There was a motion to defer the application to the June 30, 2014 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (June 30, 2014) Eric Montoya, Eunice Montoya and Troy Laha were present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present with concerns. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Staff noted that there had been no changes to the application since the April 28, 2014 public hearing. Eric Montoya spoke in support of the application. He explained that he purchased the building not knowing the City would condemn the building and have it torn down. He noted that the ABC liquor license for the property had already been approved based on a grandfathering clause. Troy Laha also spoke in support of the application. He explained the location of the old commercial building on the site as opposed to the proposed new building. He asked the Board for a positive vote. Eunice Montoya also addressed the Board in support. She also explained the situation with the purchase of the old original building. Carolyn Lindsey Polk asked if the original building had a drive-thru window. Ms. Montoya stated that it did not. Bob Winchester asked if the building and land were both purchased. Mr. Montoya stated that both were purchased. The issue was briefly discussed. Mr. Winchester asked if the previous business was financially successful in the old building without a drive-thru. Mr. Montoya stated that it was and explained. The issue was briefly discussed. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.) Wayne Burt addressed the Board with concerns. He stated that he agreed with staffs assessment of the application and that the building did not need a drive-thru window. He noted that ABC was reviewing the grandfather clause issue. Bob Winchester explained that he did not support the current proposal of the new building with a drive-thru window. Vice -Chairman Wingfield concurred with Mr. Winchester. Rajesh Mehta also concurred. There was brief additional discussion of the application. Ms. Montoya noted that the plan could be revised to eliminate the drive-thru window. The issue of deferral of the application to allow time for revisions to the site plan was discussed. Staff suggested deferral to the August 25, 2014 agenda. The Montoyas requested deferral to the August 25, 2014 agenda. A motion was made to defer the application to the August 25, 2014 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. March, 7, 2014 Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 LETTER OF APPLICATION Property Located at 1422 Chester Street. TI -141- D ,?- 4592--5 We respectively request approval of our application to have a Liquor Store at above address. The property is zoned C-3. We are requesting a variance of the 25' Building line requirement along 15th Street to 7'. The original subdivision did not have a building line requirement. The previous structure was to the street right of way. Section 36-301. We are requesting a variance to allow a 2' Buffer strip along the North side. This property is joined by a parking lot along the North line. Section 36-522. Respectfully Submitted. Montoya, LLC 421 Sherry Ann Court Alexander, AR 72002 t CENTRAL ARKANSAS SPHINX FOUNDATION MISSION STATEMENT April 28, 2014 To provide educational scholarships, improve Dear Board of Adjustment Members: community development, education, and literacy; As a member of the Dunbar community and owner of the historic Bush-Dubisson and create meaningful house, our organization has been notified of a proposed plan to build a new liquor activities and educational store in our community. At this time we understand an appeal has been made for opportunities for inner buffering adjustments to be made to the plat. Therefore, we are writing in opposition city and at risk youth. of Mr. Montoya's plan for buffering. EXECUTIVE BOARD It is our understanding that Mr. Montoya would like buffering to increase the Dr. Rodney Williams planned site size. It will infringe upon the surrounding properties which are located President adjacent and within the visible eye line of block. This plan is not in the best interest of the community. Marcus Devine It is believed that the prior vendor may have been grandfathered into the statute Treasurer which prohibits such a store location within 1,000 feet of a church or school. In this scenario, a church, elementary school, college, and community center are within this Heath Welch boundary. In the past years, one of our members Dr. Walter M. Kimbrough, past Secretary President of Philander Smith College fought to close another store within the same vicinity which was selling alcohol to minors and held repetitive violations. Our organization, Central Arkansas Sphinx Foundation/Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, BOARD MEMBERS has worked to assist in the stabilization of the community over the years. We have Solomon Graves found that the liquor/convenience store located at the location prior to demolition encouraged detrimental traffic and unsightly impressions among the youth in the Reginald L. Jackson community. We have also found a decrease in crimes since the closurQ of the rigor _. vendor. Ken Martin We hope you will support our opposition on this matter during your deliberation. If James McFadden further discussion is needed please feel free to contact our organization at Derrick Rainey 501.766.7637. Tim Williams Sincerely, Rodney Williams President P.O. Box 2355 • Little Rock, AR 72202 Casfoundation06@gmail.com A 501(c)3 organization JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z -3954-B Owner: J.H.B. Baseline, LLC Applicant: Paxton Singleton, Global Surveying Consultants, Inc. Address: 4601 W. 65th Street Description: Southwest corner of W. 65th Street and Wakefield Drive Zoned: C-4 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the general district provisions of Section 36-298 to allow placement of a dumpster within a street side setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Retail Store STAFF REPORT 0 Public Works Issues: No Comments Landscape and Buffer Issues: Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area that abuts adjoining property or the right-of-way of any street. One (1) tree and three (3) shrubs or vines shall be planted for every thirty (30) linear feet of perimeter planting strip. 3. Screening requirements will need to be met for the vehicular use areas adjacent to street right-of-ways. Provide screening shrubs with an average linear spacing of not less at three (3) feet within the required landscape area. Provide trees with an average linear spacing of not less than thirty (30) feet. 4. A land use buffer will be required when an adjacent property has a dissimilar use of a more restrictive nature. As a component of all land use buffer requirements, opaque screening, whether a fence or other device, a minimum of six (6) feet in height shall be required upon the property line side of the buffer. A minimum of seventy (70) percent of the land use buffer shall be JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) undisturbed. Easements cannot count toward fulfilling this requirement. The plantings, existing and purposed, shall be provided within the landscape ordinance of the city, section 15-81. The property to the south is zoned R-2 therefore, a minimum eighteen (18) foot buffer (6% of the average lot width) is required on the south property line. 5. Eight percent (8%) of the vehicular use area must be designated for green space; this green space needs to be evenly distributed throughout the parking area(s). The minimum size of an interior landscape area shall be one hundred fifty (150) square feet for developments with one hundred fifty (150) or fewer parking spaces. Interior islands must be a minimum of seven and one half (71/2) feet in width. Trees shall be included in the interior landscape areas at the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces. 6. Landscape areas shall be provided between the vehicular use area used for public parking and the general vicinity of the building, excluding truck loading or service areas not open to public parking. These areas shall be equal to an equivalent planter strip three (3) feet wide along the vehicular use area. 7. An irrigation system shall be required for developments of one (1) acre or larger. For developments of less than one (1) acre there shall be a water source within seventy-five (75) feet of the plants to be irrigated. 8. Dumpsters shall be screened from abutting properties and streets. The screen shall exceed the height of the dumpster or trash containment areas by at least two (2) feet not to exceed eight (8) feet total height. 9. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this 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-4 zoned property at 4601 W. 65th Street is currently undeveloped. The property is located at the southwest corner of W. 65th Street and Wakefield Drive. The property is comprised of lots 1 and 2R, Marvin Bass Industrial Acres No. 2 Addition, and contains 1.025 acres. A service station/auto repair garage previously existed within the north half of the property. A portion of the property contains chain-link fencing. The applicant proposes to construct a new one-story commercial (retail) building near the southwest corner of the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The building will be 70 feet by 130 feet in area, containing 9,100 square feet. Paved parking will be located on the east and north sides of the proposed building. A total of 30 parking spaces is proposed. A single entry/exit driveway will be located along the Wakefield Drive (east) property line. The proposed site plan also shows a dumpster area located near the southeast corner of the property, nine (9) feet JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) back from the east (street side) property line and 23 feet back from the rear (south) property line. Section 36-298(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance states that dumpster and trash containment areas shall not be located within the front yard setback area or street side yard setback area. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the dumpster area to be located within the 45 foot east/street side property line. Staff is supportive of the requested dumpster location variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The proposed site plan appears to comply with all of the zoning ordinance requirements (building setbacks, parking, buffers, etc.), with the exception of the dumpster location. The applicant is proposing to locate the dumpster as far back from the street intersection as possible, while maintaining a 23 foot setback from the nearest residential property to the south. Staff believes that based on this proposed site plan the dumpster is located in an appropriate area, and should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested dumpster location variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report. 2. Additional landscape plantings must be installed along the east and south sides of the dumpster. 3. The dumpster area must be serviced between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. only. 4. The dumpster area must be screened as per Section 36-523(d) of the code, with a brick or block enclosure and wood gates. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (June 30, 2014) 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 and 1 absent. The application was approved. ina Consultants, Inc. -4 Professional Land Surveyors g 3 164 6511 Heilman Court • North Little Rock, AR 72118 Phone: 501.455.4984 • Fax: 501.455.8158 May 20, 2014 Monte Moore, Zoning Administrator City of Little Rock Planning Department 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Variance Application — 4601 West 650' Street, Little Rock, AR. Dear Mr. Moore: Please accept this letter to serve as our application for the above referenced submittal. We wish for this application to be reviewed and accepted by the Planning Department and placed on the June 30, 2014 Board of Adjustment Meeting Agenda. The site currently consists of two lots (Lot 1 and Lot 2R) located at 4601 West 65"' Street. The property is currently zoned PCD (with an C-4 underlying zoning) and is in the Marvin Bass Industrial Acres No. 2 Subdivision. We have been unable to locate an existing Bill of Assurance for the property. The site is approximately 150 -feet (+/-) by 300 -feet (+/-) and is shown on our site plan with the required 45 -foot front and side yard setback for a corner lot, as well as the 15 -foot rear and interior side yard setback for the C-4 zoning. We have also show the street buffers, additional landscaping, sidewalks and ADA Access Ramps along West 65th Street and Wakefield Drive as required by the city. In an effort to meet the zoning requirements, we had to design the dumpster area to be located within the 45 -foot street side setback. Due to the design constraints of the C-4 zoning, we are requesting a variance to allow for the dumpster to be within the side street setback. Approval of this variance application to will allow our client to develop this approximately 1.025 acre lot into a 9,000 sq. ft. general merchandise retail store and will allow for more economic growth for the city, as well as, serve the community. We have enclosed (6) copies of the proposed development site plan. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thanks, Sebrina Ricks, Office Manager Global Surveying Consultants, Inc. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -5386-A Owner: JWL Limited Partnership Applicant: Casi Runnells, Colliers International Address: 1021 Jessie Road Description: Southeast corner of Jessie Road and Riverfront Drive Zoned: 1-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-557 to allow wall signs without street frontage. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Office Warehouse Proposed Use of Property: Office Warehouse STAFF REPORT 0 Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The 1-3 zoned property at 1021 Jessie Road is occupied by a one-story office/warehouse building. The property is located along the south side of Jessie Road, a private street which runs between Riverfront Drive and Cottondale Lane. Paved parking is located between the building and Jessie Road. The building backs up to the Junior Deputy baseball park, with the south side of the office/warehouse building being visible from Cantrell Road. The building contains multiple tenants. The applicant is proposing to allow each individual tenant to place wall signage on the building's south fagade, to be visible from Cantrell Road. The applicant is requesting that each tenant's wall signage not exceed ten (10) percent of the building fagade area for which each tenant occupies. Section 36-557(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that all on -premise wall signs face required street frontage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow wall signage on the south side of the building. The Junior Deputy ball park is located between the south building fagade and Cantrell Road. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) Staff does not support the sign variance, as filed. Staff is not opposed to the individual tenants having signage on the south side of the building to identify their location. However, staff feels that ten (10) percent of the building fagade area is too much signage. This amount of signage represents principal commercial signage. Staff feels that the signage on the south side of the building should be secondary signage, with the principal business signage on the front of the building, facing Jessie Road. Staff could support a non -lighted wall sign for each tenant on the south building fagade not to exceed 32 square feet. Staff feels that a wall sign of this size would be adequate to identify each tenant's location in the building. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (June 30, 2014) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting deferral of the application to the July 28, 2014 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the July 28, 2014 Agenda. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred Cast Runnells 1 Allied Drive DIRECT +1501372-6161 Property Manager Little Rods, AR 72202-2065 FAX +1501372 0671 Property Management I Arkansas Casi.Runnells@Colliem.com April 29, 2014 Department of Planning and Development Attn: Mr. Monte Moore 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Moore, -2- Attached is an application for sign zoning variance at 1021 Jessie Road. In its current status, the sole tenant signage at this property is wall signage facing an easement and private drive. There is currently no permanent signage facing public street frontage. We are requesting a variance for the building in its entirety, to encompass all tenants and their allowable signage. The current signage has been grandfathered in and is an exception to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance due to the private street easement. The effect of this variance would allow permanent wall signage, not to exceed ten (10) percent in aggregate sign area for that occupancy's south elevation area, to be placed on the south side of the building, visible from the public street frontage of Cantrell Road. We submit that the request is justified by the small intervening strip of recreation land and request your recommendation for approval. Sincerely, Casi Runnells Attachments Colliers Arkansas, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries, is an independently owned and operated business and a member firth of Colliers International Property ConsuRants, an affiliation of independent companies with over 512 offices throughout more than 61 countries woridwide. i JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z -8785-A Owner/Applicant: Michael and Kelly McQueen Address: 7 Ken Circle Description: Lot 2 and part of Lots 1 and 3, Rock Hill Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition which crosses a platted building line and building additions with reduced side setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 7 Ken Circle is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. A two -car wide driveway from Ken Circle at the northwest corner of the property serves as access. The property slopes upward from the roadway. The property contains a front platted building line ranging from 27.9 feet to 50 feet back from the front (west) property line. There is an existing eight (8) foot high wood fence along a portion of the north side property line. On July 30, 2012, the Board of Adjustment approved building line variances for two (2) additions to the front of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan labeled "previous approval". A garage addition with a front setback ranging from 26 to 29 feet was approved at the front, northwest corner of the residence. A room addition with a front setback ranging from 38 to 44 feet was approved at the front, southwest corner of the residence. The additions were to be one-story in height. Since that time, the applicants have determined that the driveway is too steep to access the garage addition as previously designed. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to construct a one-story (side -loading) garage at the front southwest corner of the house, as noted on the attached site plan labeled "current proposal". The proposed garage addition will be located 30 to 36 feet back from the front property line, encroaching across the front platted building line by 4.4 to 8.7 feet. The garage addition will have a side setback ranging from 5.9 to 6.5 feet. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 3 CON'T. The applicants are also proposing a one-story room addition at the rear, southeast corner of the residence, also noted on the attached site plan. This addition will be approximately 1,000 square feet in area, with a side setback ranging from 5.9 to eight (8) feet. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of eight (8) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 31-12(c ) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the garage addition with a reduced side setback and front building line encroachment, and the room addition with a reduced side setback. Staff is supportive of the requested building line and side setback variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. The City's Zoning Ordinance typically requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots, unless a platted building line requires a greater setback, which is the case with the subject property. The proposed garage addition would comply with the ordinance required typical front setback. The curvature of the roadway along the front property line will aid in the property not having an adverse visual impact on the adjacent properties. The houses along Ken Circle have varying setbacks from their respective front property lines. The front setback for the proposed garage ranges from 30 to 36 feet. The Board previously approved a front setback ranging from 26 to 29 feet. The condition of this area has not changed since the 2012 approval. Therefore, staff continues to believe that the proposed additions with building line and side setback variances will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Adequate separation will exist between the proposed additions and the residence to the southeast. 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 garage 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 approval of the requested setback and building line variances, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (June 30, 2014) 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 and 1 absent. The application was approved. Kelly & Michael McQueen T4""4-3 7 Ken Circle, Little Rock, Arkansas _ (501) 580-3291 May 15, 2014 Little Rock Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Cover Letter to Application for Variance - 7 Ken Circle, Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 To Whom It May Concern: Attached please find the completed Application for Zoning Variance for 7 Ken Circle, Little Rock, Arkansas, requesting the Board of Adjustment grant variance(s) to allow the construction of a two car garage with associated driveway, master bedroom addition, and a retaining wall and fence ("proposed project"); all of which are associated with a remodel of the home located on the property, which is zone R2 and subject to platted restrictions. Also attached, as part of the application, are six (6) copies of a recent survey prepared and stamped by a professional surveyor showing the existing and proposed improvements. Additionally, the Board of Adjustment has approved applications for variances for this residence (and same owners) on two previous occasions, the projects for which were never constructed: (1) 9/27/2004 (Case No. Z-7714): The Board approved the application for variance (with the condition of a replat) from the platted front building line for a garage construction project very similar to the proposed project; and (2) 7/30/2012 (Case No. Z-8785): The Board approved the application for variance (with conditions) from the front building line and the maximum fence height restrictions. We request variances to the platted front building line and zoned fence height restriction (if required). The requested variances are necessary and warranted for the following reasons: Garage Addition (with associated concrete driveway): 1. The current property does not have a carport or garage; thus requiring vehicles to be parked, without cover, on the driveway or on 1 the street. Due to the relatively narrow lot configuration, it is not possible to locate a garage in the rear of the home. 2. A previous garage design (the subject of Case No. Z-8785 Variance) proved to be unworkable due to the steep slope and "top -off" of the drive. The current design (very similar to the project granted a variance in Case No. Z-7714) is intended to avoid the drive -slope issues as well as provide our children a large, level play area in the front of the house. The current garage addition design also allows for a laundry room and a much-needed heated & cooled storage area. 3. The platted front building line is excessively deep, exceeding 50 feet in the area of the proposed garage addition. City ordinance (Section 36-254(d)(1)) typically requires only a 25 foot front setback for single family residential structures. As shown on the survey and site plan, the proposed garage addition would be built greater than 25 feet from the front property boundary and street. 4. The associated new concrete driveway would merely replace the existing concrete driveway. 5. The distance between the street and the proposed garage addition would be consistent with or greater than that for other homes on the Ken Circle cul-de-sac as well as those in the Normandy neighborhood. Master Bedroom and Bath Addition: 1. As our family has grown, it became apparent that an additional bedroom and bath would be necessary for us to stay in the home. 2. Previously we'd understood that adding this addition in the rear was not possible due to likely damage to a particularly large and beautiful oak tree in the backyard. However, with the advice of an arborist, we have developed a plan that will allow the addition while preserving the tree. 3. It does not appear that any variance is required for this piece of the project. Left Side Retaining Wall and Fence: 1. On the left side of the home (along the left interior property line), there is an existing loose rock retaining wall that is neither functional nor aesthetically -pleasing. We propose to replace that wall with an excavated block wall that will provide greater access to the side of the 2 home, improve the appearance of that area, and allow enhanced use of that side of the property. 2. The new wall will not exceed four (4) feet in height. 3. At the top of the existing retaining wall on the interior left property line and extending for the length of the property commiserate to the home is an 8 foot wooden fence. Due to the topography, it appears to be only 6 foot high as viewed from the adjacent neighbor's property. We propose to remove the existing fence and either reuse it or replace it with a similar structure. 4. This fence is the subject of the variance in Case No. Z-8785. In the event we needed to "renew" or otherwise again receive a variance for this . work with the fence, we include it in this application/ explanation. We ask that the Board grant the requested variance(s) to provide enhanced, but reasonable, use of our property and existing home. The proposed improvements will not be out of character with other similar structures in the area nor will they have any adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area, visually or otherwise. We understand that if the Board approves the building line variance, we will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the addition and will review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or concerns or require further information. Sincerely, Ap� Michael McQueen Kelly McQueen 3 JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-8953 Owner: Kelley McCabe Applicant: Thomas Pownall, Thomas Engineering Company Address: 20 Chalamont Court Description: Lot 18, Block 73, Chenal Valley Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a house and decks with 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 0 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 buildings 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 wall 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. C. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 20 Chalamont Court is occupied by a one-story brick and rock single family residence. A two -car wide driveway at the southeast corner of the lot serves as access. The lot contains a 15 foot front platted building line. The lot slopes downward from front to back (east to west). The rear yard is fenced JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) with a four (4) foot high metal fence. The lot backs up to an open space tract which is approximately 180 feet wide. There is a large multi-level deck with steps located on the rear (west) of the residence. The majority of the deck, along with two (2) corners of the residence, encroach into the minimum 25 foot rear setback. Two (2) of the house corners, at and near the northwest corner of the structure, are located 18 feet to 19 feet back from the rear property line. Corners of the deck are located two (2) feet to 14 feet back from the rear property line. The majority of the deck is uncovered and unenclosed. The deck floor is located five (5) to 12 feet above grade, given the slope of the property. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the existing residence and deck with a reduced rear setback. It has been noted that the applicant is the third owner of this property, and purchased it with the current encroachments. The applicant is in the process of selling the property, and the new prospective owner wishes to have the existing rear encroachments approved/legitimized. Staff is supportive of the requested rear setback variance, for the existing structure only. If all or part of the deck structure is ever torn down due to maintenance issues, the rear setback issue must be brought back to the Board of Adjustment prior to reconstruction. Staff believes approval of the variance with this condition is reasonable. Staff feels that if all or part of the deck is ever reconstructed, it could be reduced in size to provide slightly more setback from the rear property line. Additionally, this lot has a relatively narrow buildable area of 63.5 feet from front to back. The buildable area for other lots along this cul-de-sac range from 79 feet to over 100 feet. There is also an open space tract of approximately 180 feet behind this lot, between it and future lots to the west. Staff believes that with these existing conditions, the reduced rear setback will continue to have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance is for the existing deck structure only. If all or part of the deck structure is ever removed (for maintenance or other reasons), it cannot be reconstructed without approval from the Board of Adjustment. 2. Compliance with the Building Codes requirements as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (June 30, 2014) 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 and 1 absent. The application was approved. THOMAS ENGINEERING COMPANY 3810 LOOKOUT RD NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72116 (501) 753-4463 FAX (501) 753-6814 NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS May 20, 2014 Mr. Monty Moore Zoning Administrator City of Little Rock Planning Department 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Variance Request — Rear Building Setback Lot 18, Block 73, Chenal Valley Addition # 20 Chalamont Court Dear Mr. Moore: We would like to be placed on the June 30`h, 2014 Board of Adjustment agenda in order to request a variance of the rear building setback for Lot 18, Block 73, Chenal Valley Addition. The home and deck are existing and encroach into the setback as shown on the included survey. Justification for this request are as follows: 1. The lot depth is unusually small in comparison to the surrounding lots. Because of the shape of the lot, the buildable depth is limited to 63.5 feet as shown on the survey. By comparison, the neighboring lot's buildable depth is considerably larger and ranges from 79 feet to 107 feet. This is shown on Exhibit "A" 2. The steep slope of the lot limits the usable/flat area of the back yard and therefore the deck is utilized as the outside sitting area of the home. 3. The Preliminary Plat of this area is shown on Exhibit "B." This map shows that any future lots to the rear of the subject property will be separated by a natural buffer tract with a width of approximately 180 feet. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Thomas R. Pownall, P.E. Project Engineer JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-8954 Owner/Applicant: Grady McCorkle Address: 1 Accadia Court Description: Lot 30, Block 126, Chenal Valley 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: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 1 Accadia Court is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of Chenal Valley Drive and Accadia Court. A private drive easement is located along the south property line. The lot contains a 25 foot platted front building line along Accadia Court, and a 15 foot platted street side building line along Chenal Valley Drive. A driveway from the private drive serves as access to the property. The property slopes downward from west to east and south to north. An open space tract is located between the lot and the Chenal Valley Drive frontage. The applicant proposes to construct six (6) foot and eight (8) foot high wood fencing to enclose the rear yard portion of the property, as noted on the attached site plan. Eight (8) foot high wood fencing is proposed along the north (Chenal Valley Drive) property line and along the south (private drive) property line. Six (6) foot high wood fencing Is proposed along the rear (east) property line and between the rear corners of the house and the proposed eight (8) foot high sections. 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 and a maximum height of six (6) feet for fences located elsewhere on a residential lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a fence height variance for that portion of the fence located between the platted 15 foot side building line and JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) the open space tract and for the eight (8) foot high section along the south side property line. Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. Six (6) foot high fencing would be allowed by right where the eight (8) foot high fencing is proposed. The increased fence height will help reduce light and noise generated by Chenal Valley Drive, a fairly busy roadway. Staff believes the proposed eight (8) foot high fence will not be out of character with the neighborhood, nor have an adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (June 30, 2014) Staff informed the Board that on June 25, 2014 the applicant requested this application be withdrawn. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for withdrawal. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was withdrawn. Grady McCorkle 1 Accadia Ct. Little hock, AR 72223 May 6, 2014 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Department of Planning and Development: -'T-44,--;+'5 -91- 913 5 '� I am requesting approval for a variance for a privacy fence for my property; 1 Accadia Ct (Lot 30). There are two sections of the fence that need to be 8' because of the natural drainage and slope of the lot. Additionally, the sidewalk on the Chenal Valley side of the lot is higher than the property because of the slope for drainage. See Figure 1 below. This is a corner lot that has roads on three sides and a green space in back; no other fence will be connecting to it. The remainder of the fence would be the standard 6'. See Figure 2 below. Figure 1(view of Chenal) Sincerely, Grady Mc rkle Figure 2 (view of private drive) JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-8955 Owner/Applicant: Kerry and Julie Craft Address: 8 Miramar Court Description: Lot 19, Block 109, Chenal Valley Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a deck 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 Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 8 Miramar Court is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. A two -car wide driveway from Miramar Court serves as access to the property and a side -loading garage. The lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line. The rear yard is fenced with wood privacy fencing. The applicant proposes to construct a 14 foot by 21 foot wood deck on the rear of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed deck will be uncovered and unenclosed. The deck will be one (1) to three (3) feet above grade. It will be located 11.5 feet from the rear (west) property line and over 30 feet from either side property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the deck addition with a reduced rear setback. Staff is supportive of the requested rear setback variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The applicant submitted a letter of approval from the Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee. The Committee approved the deck plans, subject to no portion of the deck being higher than 24 inches above grade. Staff believes it is possible to construct the deck in this manner. The deck will be uncovered and unenclosed. With the wood fence enclosing the rear yard area, the proposed deck will not be visible form the abutting properties. Staff believes the proposed deck JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) with reduced 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: 1. The deck must remain uncovered and unenclosed. 2. No portion of the deck must exceed a height of 24 inches above grade. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (June 30, 2014) 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 and 1 absent. The application was approved. Kerry Craft 8 Miramar Court Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 May 2, 2014 -�- -46 �- �i55 To whom it may concern, R� I would like to build a 14 feet by 21 foot wooden deck with standard 36 inch railings connected to the open side of my covered porch. The deck would have two sets of steps to the ground. The high side of the deck will be 3 feet from the ground and on the opposite side will be less than one foot. The deck will be an enhancement to the property to allow outdoor activities on a level surface. The deck will be 11.5 feet from the back lot line that is currently wooded. The back of the property is fenced in on all sides with a 7 foot wooden privacy fence. There will be no invasion on the properties surrounding the proposed construction property. Thank you, r Kerry Craft JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-8956 Owner: Various owners Applicant: Joe White, White-Daters & Associates Address: 4100-4512 Carter Lane and 16307 Taylor Loop Road Description: West side of Carter Lane, south of Taylor Loop Road 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 Public Works Issues: 1. The City has an upcoming public project to improve Taylor Loop Road where it ties into LaMarche Drive. The new proposed fence should stop 50 feet from the Taylor Loop Road right-of-way in order to provide sufficient intersection sight distance. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 4100-4512 Carter Lane and 16307 Taylor Loop Road is occupied by several single family homes with multiple ownerships. The single family lots are located on the west side of Carter Lane, south of Taylor Loop Road. The northern two (2) lots back up to LaMarche Drive, with the southern lots backing up to right-of-way for the extension of LaMarche Drive. The City plans on beginning construction of the LaMarche Drive extension this fall. LaMarche Drive is a 36 foot wide collector street. The various property owners along the east side of LaMarche Drive/LaMarche Drive extension (west side of Carter Lane) propose to construct an eight (8) foot high wood fence along the rear (west) property lines of the various lots, as noted on the attached site plan. With the LaMarche Drive connection, LaMarche will run between Cantrell Road and Chenal Valley Drive/Rahling Road. The owners are requesting the eight (8) foot high fence to help reduce the amount of increased noise and light which will be produced by the road connection. JUNE 30, 2014 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.) 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 and a maximum height of six (6) feet for fences located elsewhere on a residential lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a fence height variance to allow the eight (8) foot high wood fence to be located between the 25 foot rear building setback and the LaMarche Drive right-of-way. Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. Once the LaMarche Drive connection is completed, the roadway will carry a considerable amount of traffic between the Taylor Loop Road area and the Rahling Road/Chenal Parkway area. The traffic will produce noise and light pollution of which the various property owners are not accustomed to. The taller fence height will help reduce the amount of excess noise and light. Staff believes the proposed fence with increased 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 compliance with the Public Works comments as noted in paragraph A. of the staff report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (June 30, 2014) 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 and 1 absent. The application was approved. © WHITE - DATERS $ ASSOCIATES, INC. 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 Phone: 501-821-1667 www.whitedaters.com May 20, 2014 Mr. Monte Moore, Zoning Administrator City of Little Rock Neighborhoods and Planning 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Carter Lane properties Mr. Moore, Please find attached 6 copies of the exhibit for the zoning variance for the above reference project. The property owners along the eastern side of the future LaMarche connection would like to construct 8 ft. privacy fences along their west property lines. Currently the property to the west of their ownerships is wooded. The City plans to begin construction of the LaMarche connection this fall. Once constructed is completed, all the existing trees will be removed and a 36 ft. wide collector street will be constructed running north/south adjacent to their properties. The owners would like to construct the 8 ft. fences adjacent to the future street in order to eliminate noise and light pollution from their homes and yards. Please place this item on the June 30, 2014 docket. Do not hesitate to call should you have any questions or require additional information. CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT - SURVEYING - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE V LUw Q Z G a LL 0 0 co I op E II, J Ono I W a JUNE 30, 2014 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. Date:�-�� 14-A auu�'