boa_08 25 2014LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
AUGUST 25, 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 July 28, 2014 meeting were
approved.
Members Present:
Members Absent
Jeff Yates, Chairman
Brad Wingfield, Vice Chairman
Rajesh Mehta
Robert Winchester
Carolyn Lindsey Polk
City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
AUGUST 25, 2014
2:00 P.M.
I. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Z-8963 7 River Ridge Road
B. Z -4582-B 1422 Chester Street
II. NEW BUSINESS:
1.
Z -669-A
North side of E. 4th Street, between
Rock and Cumberland Streets
2.
Z -1718-C
414 E. Capitol Avenue
3.
Z-8968
2101 N. Spruce Street
4.
Z-8969
2400 Blackwood Road
5.
Z-8970
12925 Crystal Valley Road
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: A
File No.: Z-8963
Owner/Applicant: Charles and Leigh Ann Kreps
Address: 7 River Ridge Road
Description: Northeast corner of River Ridge Road and River Valley 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
Q
Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 7 River Ridge Road is occupied by a one-story brick
and frame single family residence. The property is located at the northeast corner
of River Ridge Road and River Valley Road. There is a circular driveway on the
west side of the residence. The driveway extends along the north end of the
residence to a carport at the northeast corner of the structure. There is an existing
brick wall along the east side property line. The lot contains a 30 foot platted
building line along the River Ridge Road (west) frontage and a 25 foot platted
building line along the River Valley Road (south) frontage.
The applicant proposes to construct a six (6) foot high wood fence within the south,
street side yard area, with a small fence section at the northeast corner of the
residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed fence will extend
from the southwest corner of the house, set back approximately 12 feet from the
River Valley Road curb line and tie into the existing brick wall along the east side
property line. A smaller section of six (6) foot high wood fence will extend from the
northeast corner of the house to the existing brick wall.
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
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.)
allow the portion of the six (6) foot high wood fence to be located between the 25
foot platted building line and the south, street side property line.
Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff views the request
as reasonable. The proposed six (6) foot high wood fence will not be out of
character with other fences within this neighborhood. Six (6) foot fence height is
the typical fence height for the enclosure of rear and side yard areas in single
family residential zoning. The proposed fence will be set in approximately 12 feet
from the River Valley Road Curb line, and will be located over 80 feet back from
the southwest (intersection) corner of the lot. Therefore, the proposed fence
should create no sight -distance issues. Staff believes the proposed fence 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, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(July 28, 2014)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the August 25,
2014 agenda, based on the fact that the applicant failed to notify all property owners
within 200 feet of the site as required.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the August 25, 2014
Agenda. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was deferred.
Staff Update:
In response to concerns/comments from a nearby property owner, the applicant has
revised the application to move the fence further back from the River Valley Road curb
line. The applicant is now requesting to locate the six (6) foot high wood fence 20 feet
back from the River Valley Road curb line, which would place the fence approximately
10 feet inside the property line. Staff continues to support the requested fence height
variance, as filed. The Public Works Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and
approved the revised fence placement for sight distance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(August 25, 2014)
Charles and Leigh Ann Kreps were present, representing the application. There was
one (1) objector present. Staff presented the revised application with a
recommendation of approval.
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.)
Rajesh Mehta noted that he would recuse due to business relations with Eddie Martin,
the person present in objection. The Board offered a deferral to the applicants, due to
there being only three (3) voting Board members present. Charles Kreps indicated that
he would like to proceed.
Charles Kreps addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that he
revised the application to move the fence back 20 feet from the curb due to a neighbor's
concerns.
He noted that the neighbor also wanted landscaping between the fence and the street.
He explained that he did not want the landscape issue to be part of the variance
request.
Eddie Martin addressed the Board in opposition. He explained that he and Mr. Kreps
had agreed to landscaping being installed between the proposed fence and the street.
Chairman Yates asked Mr. Martin if he would be agreeable to the fence being installed
first with landscaping at a later date. Mr. Martin stated that he wished to have both
installed at the same time. Mr. Kreps noted that he could not include landscaping as
part of the fence project. The issue was briefly discussed.
Chairman Yates asked the applicants if there was some landscaping between the fence
and street that they planned to do. Mrs. Kreps noted that evergreen trees would
probably be planted.
Chairman Yates noted that the two (2) parties needed to work together to resolve the
landscape issue. There was a motion to recess this public hearing to later in the
meeting (after item B.). The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1
recusal (Mehta).
There was a motion to resume the public hearing on this application. The motion
passed by a vote Of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 recusal (Mehta).
Mr. Kreps and Mr. Martin indicated that an agreement had been reached. The issue
was briefly discussed. Staff noted that there were no landscaping requirements for
single family property. Staff also noted that to staff's knowledge the Board had never
placed a condition on a fence height variance that included landscaping. The issue of
landscaping was discussed further.
Mr. Kreps amended his proposal/application to include the planting of one (1) evergreen
tree every seven (7) feet along the south boundary of the proposed fence. The issue
was discussed further.
There was a motion to approve the application without the applicant's amendment. The
motion was withdrawn due to lack of a second.
There was a motion to approve the application as amended by the applicant. The
motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 recusal. The revised
application was approved.
To whom it may concern:
I would like to start by apologizing for not being there in person to be present for the hearing regarding
this matter and I appreciate the consideration that is given regarding this situation. I have had a
previous commitment out of town that has been scheduled for several months. I have requested that
my contractor, Mike Barnett, be there to represent my interest in the hearing. I am writing regarding my
primary residence located at 7 River Ridge Road, Little Rock, Arkansas 72227.
The primary reason I am requesting a variance is for the safety of my family and property. As a current
law enforcement officer I routinely have interactions with a variety of convicted felons that are known
to be involved in narcotics trafficking and various other individuals of ill repute. On multiple occasions I
have had offenders mention my residence, my family, and other threats made towards me and my
family. The reality for me is in this day and age I recognize that if any of these individuals wanted to find
me or my family, that that information is only a mouse click away. My home is also located on a corner
lot near the entrance to River Ridge. It would be very easy for people to park on the adjacent side street
and gain access to the side and rear of my residence (Photo 1). There have been multiple occasions that
I have seen maintenance vehicles and other workers parked on the side street only a few steps from the
backyard and basement access (Photo 3). The current layout offers unobstructed access and view to the
back of my house and to the garage area (Photo 4). It would be very easy for someone to gain entry to a
variety of access points on the back and side of my residence. Another concern I have is that the front of
my house is such a busy street. The only area for children to play and run is in the side yard, since the
backyard is narrow and has limited space. As my family grows the front yard will be very much a safety
issue for children and I believe they need a safe area for them to play. The side street of River Valley is
also a blind curve for west bound traffic (Photo 2). People routinely speed around this curve which could
easily be a safety issue for children and pets. Another reason I am requesting the variance is for the
safety of my pets. I leave my pets out during the days and do not want them to have a view of the street
as it may cause them to bark and become excitable.
In closing I believe that building a privacy fence will help address several of my concerns. I greatly
appreciate your time and hope that this information will help in the decision making process.
Thanks for your time,
C I- 6't'�qzrz-
Charlie and Leigh Anne Kreps
gf
A
r yr
76
a
r
gf
A
I'40vt- 4
-2—^ 00
To whom it may concern:
My name is Charles Kreps. My wife and I have requested a variance in order to build a 6 foot privacy
fence on the south side of our home. My neighbor, Eddie Martin; located at 1 River Valley Road (directly
across the street from where we would like to build), voiced several concerns regarding our plans. We
have both agreed to amend the requested plan to show that the fence would start 20 feet from the
curb. I am pleased that we have been able to reach a compromise regarding this situation.
I would also like to address the fact that I was unable to obtain signatures from several neighbors
regarding the variance hearing. First, I was unable to obtain a signature from Linda and Frank Barry
located at 5 River Ridge Road. They have been staying at their other home located in Hot Springs. Mrs.
Barry stated that she would be glad to speak to someone if necessary. She can be reached at 501-920-
7060. Second, I was unable to make contact with the owners of 10 River Valley Road. I went to the home
multiple times and was unable to make contact with anyone. Finally, I was unable to make contact with
anyone at 11 River Ridge Road. This home is currently vacant and under construction.
Please contact me at 501-258-0597 with any questions or concerns.
Best Wishes,
"O
Charles Kreps
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: B
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.
Landscape and Buffer Issues:
1. Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
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.
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.)
I 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.
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.
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.)
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
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. She explained the clean-up project for the
neighborhood which she had been involved in. She explained that trash was left on the
site when the building was torn down.
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
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.)
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.
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
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.)
drive-thru. Mr. Montoya stated that it was and explained. The issue was briefly
discussed.
Wayne Burt addressed the Board with concerns. He stated that he agreed with staff's
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.
Staff Update:
On August 13, 2014 the applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff. The revised site
plan removes the drive-thru area from the plan. The revised plan locates the proposed
building slightly further back from the south street side property line, and provides a
6.75 foot buffer/landscape strip on the north side of the building. The building is now
located 17 feet back from the south property line. Variances are still needed for a
reduced land use buffer (minimum 6.75 feet required) along the north side of the
proposed parking area, and a reduced street side setback from the south property line
(minimum 25 feet required).
Staff continues to not support the requested variances. Although the applicant has
removed the drive-thru area from the plan, staff still believes the applicant is trying to
accomplish too much in the proposed development of this small C-3 zoned lot. The
plan shows a wide sidewalk from W. 15th Street to the south side of the building and
labeled "service entrance". This service entrance is to allow trucks to park on the street
and unload merchandise. If this is the case, the trucks could occupy a large part of this
32 foot wide street, and be located rather close to the intersection corner. Staff still
feels that the proposed site design is not appropriate for this location.
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: B
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(August 25, 2014)
Eric Montoya, Eunice Montoya and Troy Laha were present, representing the
application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the revised application
and a recommendation of denial.
Troy Laha addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained the
revisions to the application. He discussed the increased setback and buffer being
provided with the elimination of the drive-thru window and driveway.
Rajesh Mehta asked if the ABC permit was still active. Mr. Laha noted that it was. Mr.
Mehta noted that he supported the application as revised. Vice -Chairman Wingfield
also noted support for the revised application. Bob Winchester asked when the
business would receive deliveries. Mr. Montoya noted that they were between 9:00
a.m. and noon.
There was a motion to approve the revised application, subject to compliance with the
Public Works and Landscape/Buffer comments as noted in paragraphs A and B of the
staff report. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The revised
application was approved.
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.
flan— B
�_ 459, -3
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
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 i_ n crimes since the closure of therimer____.
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
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: Z -669-A
Owner: McCain Lodging Downtown
Applicant: Michael Clifford, Winford Lindsay Architect
Address: North side of E. 4t" Street, between Rock and Cumberland Streets
Description: Lots 4-9 and part of Lot 10, Block 38, Original City of Little Rock
Zoned: UU
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the height provisions of Sections 36-
342.1 to allow a hotel building with increased building height.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Commercial Building and Parking
Proposed Use of Property: Hotel and Parking
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
Staff Update:
Staff's review of this application indicates that additional variances are needed for the
proposed project. On August 12, 2014 Staff informed the applicant of this issue. The
applicant requested deferral of this application to the September 29, 2014 agenda to
address the additional variances.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(August 25, 2014)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the September
29, 2014 agenda, based on the fact that additional variances may be needed for the
proposed project.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 29, 2014
Agenda. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred.
Date: July 29, 2014
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
Board of Adjustments
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas
To whom it may concern:
YWJ L 1, A
We are requesting a variance of the Little Rock Code of Ordinance on behalf of Pinnacle Hotel Group.
This is for the new construction of a Hilton Garden Inn at Block 38 of the Original Town of Little Rock,
Lots 4 — 9 & the south 12' of Lot 10. The owner would like to provide a public amenity to the hotel
(addition of a bar), but because of prototype standards provided by Hilton, this could not be achieved on
the first level. Had this retail space been provided on the first level the height limitations of 72' (Sec. 36-
342.1.e) would have been increased by an additional 28'. We are requesting a variance to allow the
hotel roof to be at 79'-4" (7'-4" above the allowable height). Based on the heights of surrounding
structures, we feel this will not be intrusive to the existing environment.
If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Thank you for your
assistance with this project.
Sincerely,
ll
ei Cli o
Winford Lindsay Architect
Cc: file 213050
W I N F O R D L I N D S A Y A R C H I T E C T
344 W. Pike Street, Lawrenceville, GA 30046 Voice: 770.963.8989 Fax: 770.822.9492
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.: Z -1718-C
Owner: River Market South, LLC.
Applicant: Jamie Moses, Moses Tucker Real Estate
Address: 414 E. Capitol Avenue
Description: North side of E. Capitol Avenue, between Rock Street and River
Market Avenue
Zoned: PCD (proposed UU)
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-342.1
and the parking design provisions of Section 36-511 to allow a new building with reduced
setback along Capitol Avenue and a parking area with reduced parking space size.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Undeveloped
Proposed Use of Property: Multifamily Development
STAFF REPORT
0
Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
1. 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. This strip shall be at least nine (9) feet wide.
The property is located in the City's designated mature area. A 25% reduction
of the perimeter requirements is acceptable. A minimum 6.75 foot planting
strip is required along the entirety of the north property line.
3. 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 (7
1/2) feet in width. The property is located in the City's designated mature
area. A 25% reduction of the interior green space is acceptable.
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
4. Trees shall be included in the interior landscape areas at the rate of one (1)
tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces. There are fifty-four (54) parking
spaces shown. Five trees (5) would be required. Only one (1) tree can be
attributed to the parking area. The remainder of the trees shown on the plan
are counted towards perimeter, street buffer, or building requirements.
5. The compact parking stalls are approximately fifteen (15) feet in depth. The
minimum depth requirement for right angle parking is twenty (20) feet.
6. 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 PCD zoned property at 414 E. Capitol Avenue occupies the south half of the
block bounded by E. Capitol Avenue, E. 4t" Street, Rock Street and River Market
Avenue. The property has been cleared and graded in preparation for new
construction. There is a new hotel facility being constructed within the north half of
the block.
On October 1, 2013 the Board of Directors rezoned this property from UU to PCD
(Ordinance #20,800). The rezoning was to allow a development consisting of 84
apartment units, 2,900 square feet of retail space and a ground floor parking
garage. The PCD rezoning was required based on the density/number of
apartment units proposed on this one (1) acre site.
The applicant has since revised the development plan for this property, and has
requested that the PCD zoning be revoked and the UU zoning be restored. This
issue will be heard by the Planning Commission on September 18, 2014 and the
Board of Directors at a later date. The new plan for the property reduces the
number of apartment units from 84 to 59 (conforms to UU zoning) with no retail
space. A three (3) story building is proposed within the south half of the property,
with a paved parking lot with 54 spaces on the north side of the proposed building.
Access drives will be from Rock Street and River Market Avenue. The applicant is
requesting two (2) variances with the proposed development. The variances are
being reviewed, subject to the UU zoning being re -instated.
The first variance is from Section 36-342.1(f)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance (UU
District Area Regulations) requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet along
Capitol Avenue. The proposed structure is located on the south (front) property
line with no setback.
The second variance is from Section 36-511(a) (Parking Design Regulations).
This section requires that right angle parking spaces have minimum depths of 20
feet, with at least 20 feet of maneuvering area. The depths of the parking spaces
within the proposed lot range from 15 feet to 19 feet -10 inches.
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as
reasonable. The reduced front setback was part of the previous development plan
approved by the Planning Commission and City Board. The proposed front
setback will not be out of character with the general area. There are numerous
buildings to the west which have little or no setback from the Capitol Avenue
property line. With respect to the parking lot plan, staff feels that the plan will work.
The 15 foot deep spaces are labeled as "compact" spaces on the plan.
Additionally, the driveway (maneuvering area) between the rows of parking ranges
from 21 feet to slightly over 23 feet. Therefore, there is a little additional depth built
into the maneuvering area. Staff believes the proposed apartment building with
surface parking will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the
general area.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested front setback and parking design
variance, subject to the following conditions:
1. The PCD zoning must be revoked, with the UU zoning restored, by
the City's Board of Directors.
2. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer Issues as noted in
paragraph B. of the Staff report or any variance as may be granted
by the City Beautiful Commission.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(August 25, 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.
Mr. Bruce T. Moore
City Manager
City of Little Rock
500 W. Markham St., Ste 203
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: MacArthur Commons Short -form PCD
File No.: Z -1718-A
Dear Bruce:
&W J-1-74
MOSES (2- P—s)
TUCKER 0
REAL ESTATE
July 18; 2014
This letter is to request revocation of the above stated PCD for development of the MacArthur
Commons Apartment project located at 414 Capitol Ave., Little Rock, AR 72201.
The former PCD application granted by the Planning Board in August, 2013 was originally for a (4) story,
84 -unit apartment complex with a ground level retail component to occupy the south 1/2 of the block
formerly occupied by the ARKLA building on the same site.
The initial PCD was required due to primarily two variances: (i) Building Setback requirement of 25'
from Capitol Avenue and (ii) permitted Density of 72 -multi -family units per acre within the UU Zoning
District. The August 2013 application submitted requested a modification in front yard setback from
25' to 12' on Capitol Avenue and a density of 84 units versus the 72 that are permitted by code. The
Board and Developer agreed to all other comments from Neighborhood, Public Works, Utilities, Parks
and Recreation, Fire, County and CATA Transit and PCD was approved subject to final plan review.
Upon submitting revised Construction documents for the project in June 2014 there were several
changes made to the project including additional of a surface parking and reduction of overall number of
units in the project. After a discussion between developer, architect and planning staff it was
recommended that the former PCD be revoked and recommended that the revised project plan
(variances) be submitted for review by Board of Adjustment and City Beautiful.
Although the project has changed slightly from the formerly approved PCD it is our belief that the
integrity of the development remains as it was with the scale being reduced slightly and surface parking
component added. In the event that the reduction in density, setback variance and parking issue with
related landscape requirements cannot be approved at staff level we ask for your support of the project
as it is reviewed by City Beautiful and Board of Adjustment.
Commercial Brokerage • Management • Leasing Development • Consulting
200 River Market Ave., Suite 501 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Phone 501-376-6555 • Fax 501-376-6699
www.mosestucker.com
Please note that the application for both Board of Adjustment and City Beautiful are attached hereto.
Again thank you for your considering our request to move this project forward as expeditiously as
possible.
Most sincerely,
NA--U�
Ja ie Moses
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.: Z-8968
Owner: Janet Ludwig
Applicant: Don Ludwig
Address: 2101 N. Spruce Street
Description: Lot 13, Block 5, Country Club Heights Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156
and 36-254 to allow an accessory structure with reduced separation, reduced street side
setback and increased rear yard coverage; and a porch addition 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:
No Comments
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.
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.)
C. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 2101 N. Spruce Street is occupied by a two-story brick
and frame single family residence. The property is located at the northeast corner
of N. Spruce Street and Stonewall Road. There is a paved alley along the rear
(east) property line. A two -car wide driveway from the alley serves a two -car wide
carport at the northeast corner of the property. There is a rock retaining wall
running along all of the property boundaries. The lot is approximately six (6) to
eight (8) feet above the grade of Stonewall Road.
The applicant proposes to remove the existing carport structure and construct a
new two -car garage, with vehicular entrance from Stonewall Road. The garage will
be 29'-3" by 26'-4" in size. It will be located on the rear (east) property line, eight
(8) to ten (10) feet back from the south street side property line, and 14 to 16 feet
from the north side property line. It will be separated from the house by three (3) to
eight (8) feet. The garage will have a short covered walk connection to the house.
The garage will cover approximately 52 percent of the required rear yard area (rear
25 feet of the lot). The applicant is also proposing to construct a 24'-8" by 10 foot
screened porch on the south side of the residence. The screened porch will have
a curved front, with a side setback ranging from zero (0) feet at the center of the
porch to three (3) to five (5) feet at the ends. The applicant is also proposing to
construct a small covered entry on the front, northwest corner of the house. The
covered entry will be set back 32 feet from the front (west) property line and over
five (5) feet from the north side property line.
Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum street
side setback of 15 feet for accessory structures in R-2 zoning. Section 36-
156(a)(2)b. requires that accessory structures be separated from principal
structures by at least six (6) feet. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. also requires that
accessory structures occupy a maximum of 30 percent of the required rear yard
area (rear 25 feet of the lot). Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a minimum side
setback (principal structure) of five (5) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the new
accessory garage structure with a reduced street side setback, reduced separation
and increased rear yard coverage, and the screened porch addition with a reduced
side setback. The small covered entry conforms to ordinance requirements.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances associated with the proposed garage
and screened porch construction. Staff views the request as reasonable. The
proposed improvements will not be out of character with many other lots in this
general area. There are numerous accessory structures in this neighborhood
which exceed the maximum rear yard coverage and have reduced setbacks. The
fact that the improvements are generally directed toward the south (Stonewall
Road) property line, and the lot is elevated along this property line, will lessen the
visual impact of the reduced setback. Additionally, there are several other
structures to the east, along both sides of Stonewall Road, which have similar
setbacks. Staff believes the proposed additions to this property will have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.)
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to compliance with
the Building Codes Comments as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(August 25, 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.
July 23, 2014 %�- 43
Mr. Monte Moore 0--,074s/
City of Little Rock — Department of Planning & Development (Le
\723 W. Markham St.)
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
Dear Monte:
We are the proud owners of the property at 2101 N. Spruce St., the northeast corner of Spruce and
Stonewall Rd. This is Janet's childhood home, built by her parents John and Phyllis Miller in 1960. We're
now planning to improve the property and we're hoping for variances to the City Municipal Code.
Improvement of the residence and property is based upon one underlying objective: changing the
front of the house to face Spruce (instead of Stonewall as it always has been). This design challenge is
compounded by several things:
1.) the original, existing residence is angled on the property, reducing already limited clearance on
the sides of the property at the NW and SE corners of the residence;
2.) main entrance (from Stonewall) to the existing residence is approximately nine (9) feet higher in
elevation than the road;
3.) the property receives both groundwater and surface water flows from properties above to the
north, creating flooding and other drainage concerns. There is also at least one natural spring flowing
through the property and discharging onto Stonewall;
4.) the existing carport is accessed from the alley, which is quite steep (compounded by recent
stormwater improvements) to the south, with egress resulting in scraping of vehicles' undersides. The
alley is steep to the north as well, prohibiting egress when icy; and
5.) the existing carport, which occupies 44% of the rear yard area, regularly floods from surface
drainage down the alley and does not provide the security desired as will a garage.
We believe our planned improvements will complement what is already a beautiful neighborhood
without negatively affecting neighbors or the flow and safety of traffic and pedestrians. We hope the
Board of Adjustment agrees.
Thank you. „g .
z,ai n. serum si
Liltk R..ck ArL,nu.
Fh a A'S
ions '2
JULY24,2014 q� 3 West Elevation
Yury Linaac,aRnnc.i. SCALE: 1/C � 1•-0•
12
Janet & Don Ludwig
501-664-3197
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z-8969
Owner/Applicant: Jacob Edge and Adiel Looney
Address: 2400 Blackwood Road
Description: Lot 87, Kingwood Place Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516
to allow a fence with increased height.
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 2400 Blackwood Road is occupied by a one-story brick
and frame single family residence. The property is located at the northwest corner
of Blackwood Road and Hawthorne Road. There is a two -car wide driveway near
the southwest corner of the lot. The drive leads to a one-story carport/storage
building within the rear yard area. There is an existing rock retaining wall along a
portion of the south street side property line and along the west side (rear) of the
house, between the house and the carport/storage building. The retaining wall
ranges in height from at grade to approximately four (4) feet tall. There is a four (4)
foot high chain-link fence which extends from the southeast corner of the house to
the retaining wall. There is a three (3) foot high metal fence along the top of the
retaining wall. The lot contains a 20 foot front platted building line along the north
(Blackwood Road) property line and a 10 foot platted street side building line along
the south (Hawthorne Road) property line.
The applicant proposes to replace the existing chain-link and metal fences with a
six (6) foot high wood fence, as noted on the attached site plan. The six (6) foot
high wood fence will extend from the southeast corner of the house to the retaining
wall, and run along the top of the retaining wall to the corner of the deck structure
at the rear (west) of the residence.
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
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.)
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 six (6) foot high wood fence to be located within the street side yard area
and between the 10 foot side platted building line and the Hawthorne Road right-
of-way.
Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff views the request
as reasonable. The fence will be located on top of a rock retaining wall
approximately 10 feet back from the pavement of Hawthorne Road and 30 feet
back from the pavement of Blackwood Road. Only approximately 35 linear feet of
fencing will be located along the south (Hawthorne) property line. The proposed
fence will not be out of character with other fences in this neighborhood. The
Public Works Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved the
proposed fence for sight distance. Staff believes the proposed fence 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, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(August 25, 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.
July 28, 2014
To whom it May Concern:
This letter serves as our proposal requesting variance from the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for our home; 2400
Blackwood Road, Little Rock, AR 72207.
When Ingle Fence Company first applied for the permit, which
would result in a six-foot tall fence, the permit was declined
because 2400 Blackwood Road is a corner lot. The contractor for
Ingle said he thought we should apply for a variance and it was
well within reason because the slope of the lot and the manner in
which it is terraced. The contractor also said that a six-foot tall
fence in this location would not obstruct any sightlines.
We have additional reasons for requesting this variance and the
following should justify our proposal and provide sufficient detail
for the Board of Adjustment:
***We have two dogs that could potentially jump a fence that is
only four -feet high.
***The windows on the side of 2400 Blackwood Road could be
easily accessed if someone decided they wanted to break in. We
would like the six-foot height to provide additional privacy as we
have an eight-year-old little girl whose bedroom is on that side of
the house.
Thank you for taking the time to review our application. We
appreciate your consideration!
Kind Regards,
Adiel Looney and Jacob Edge
The Homeowners
2400 Blackwood Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.: Z-8970
Owner: Daniel Hardy
Applicant: Ray Ellen
Address: 12925 Crystal Valley Road
Description: Southwest corner of Crystal Valley Road and Goldleaf Drive
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254
and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a residence with reduced front
setback and which crosses a platted building line.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
V
Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 12925 Crystal Valley Road is occupied by a one-story
frame single family residence. The property is located at the southwest corner of
Crystal Valley Road and Goldleaf Drive. There is a two -car wide driveway from
Goldleaf Drive which serves as access. The lot contains a 30 foot platted front
setback along Goldleaf Drive and a 30 foot platted street side setback along
Crystal Valley Road.
When the residence was originally constructed, it was built with two (2) minor
encroachments across the platted building lines. The north end of the house
crosses the front platted building line by 5.2 feet, resulting in a 24.8 foot setback
from the north (front) property line. A small portion of the structure crosses the
street side platted building line by approximately 0.5 foot, resulting in a 29.5 foot
setback from the east (street side) property line.
Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front
setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12(c ) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that
building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of
Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance
AUGUST 25, 2014
ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.)
standards to allow the existing residence with reduced front setback and which
crosses front and street side platted building lines.
Staff is supportive of the requested front setback and building line variances. Staff
views the request as reasonable. The two (2) existing encroachments are not out
of character with this overall residential subdivision. The north wall of the
residence aligns with most of the other residences to the west, along the south
side of Goldleaf Drive. It appears that the residences along the south side of
Goldleaf Drive were constructed with 25 foot front setbacks. This residence also
aligns with the other residential structures to the north, along the west side of
Crystal Valley Road. Staff believes the existing encroachments have no adverse
impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete
a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted building lines for the existing
residence. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's
office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and building line variances,
subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted building
lines as approved by the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(August 25, 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.
J-��.45
-9-91770
To: Board of Adjustment
Property: 12925 Crystal Valley Road, Little Rock, Arkansas
Request: Variance or Easement of 30' Building Setback Line that Encroaches on Home.
Summary:
Through the process of selling their home, a survey was ordered on Daniel & Jessi
Hardy's home. The survey, ordered by the title company on behalf of the buyer showed
that the building setback line was thirty feet from the street on the north and east side
of their home. This line runs 5.2 feet across the garage of their home on the north side
(Goldleaf Drive) and less than 6 inches across the chimney of their home on the east
side of their home (Crystal Valley Road).
It is possible that when the home was built in 1987, in order to make room for the
Drainage/Utility Easement on the west side of the home and the large Drainage/Utility
Easement and ditch on the south side of the home the, the builder moved the home to
the north and slightly west.
The buyer has elected not to close on the home until the setback has been moved to no
longer encroach on the home.
We know that the home is nearly within the regular zoning ordinance of twenty five feet
and request a variance of this line or an easement so it no longer encroaches on the
home.
Thank you for considering our request for adjustment. We appreciate your time.
W
W
Q
YI
I�IIAI
ANII�
NINY�
AAA
nY�
I
Millill
ME
111111111
5
:.
m
a
I
W
Q
Z
W
1111
5
:.
m
a
I
W
Q
Z
W
AUGUST 25, 2014
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:46
p.m.
Date:
Chairma