Loading...
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