boa_06 25 2012LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
JUNE 25,2012
2:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being five (5)in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The Minutes of the May 21,2012 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III.Members Present:Jeff Yates,Chairman
Scott Smith,Vice Chairman
Rajesh Mehta
Robert Winchester
Brad Wingfield
Members Absent:None
City Attorney Present:Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
JUNE 25,2012
2:00 P.M.
OLD BUSINESS:
A.Z-8674-A 207 W.3"Street
II.NEW BUSINESS:
1.Z-8520-A 49 Duclair Court
2.Z-8581-A 12 Powderhorn Court
3.Z-8732-A 11935 Interstate 30
4.Z-8776 12 Palamino Court
5.Z-8777 4 Winthrop Point
6.Z-8778 2623 N.Pierce Street
7.Z-8779 3011 W.Markham Street
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO.:A
File No.:Z-8674-A
Owner:207 West 3"Development LLC
Applicant:Ben Cox
Address:207 W.3'~Street
Description:South side of W.3'treet,between Center and Louisiana Streets
Zoned:UU
Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the development provisions of
Section 36-342.1 to allow the planting of street trees in above ground planters along all
street frontages.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Parking Lot
Proposed Use of Property:Parking Lot
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
1.A 3 foot wide space must remain unobstructed to comply with ADA
requirements.
2.Tree planters shall not be within 2 feet from back of curb.
3.A franchise permit is required for tree planters in the right-of-way.
Contact Bennie Nicolo at 501-371-4818 for permit.
B.Landscape and Buffer Comments by:
Christ Marvel Plans Develo ment Administrator
1.All the prior variances proposed the addition of the street trees per the UU
District Standards.These UU district standards are created to specify
standards for the safe addition of landscaping within Urban (high pedestrian
areas).This particular site is in an Urban environment and thus highly
pedestrian.
2.The City of Little Rocks Urban Forester has given feedback noting the
unlikelihood of tree survival in a planter.He highly discourages their use and
once located within the public right-of-way the trees become his to care for,
maintain,and remove when they become hazards to the public.Mr.Robbie
Hudson,Urban Forester for the City of Little Rock recommends denial.
J U NE 25,2012
ITEM NO 'CON'T
3.The UU district standards have been lined out with perimeters and I feel the
standards need to be followed.In my professional opinion,trees will not
survive in a planter located within such a hot,urban,metropolitan area.The
trees would certainly not thrive in such a contained area.The planters also
don't allow for proper drainage nor containment;making the plant saturate and
ultimately die.The tree wells allow more soil,space,i.e.growing area for the
trees root systems;thus the trees are more stable;less likely to fail.Tree wells
also allow for more nutrients,water retention and water percolation.
4.The planters are also a pedestrian hazard.The requirement for the trees being
put into the sidewalks,flush with the sidewalk,is due to the trip hazards
associated with additional objects being located on city sidewalks.They also
take up much more space,create an obstacle on the sidewalk,and become a
safety issue in addition to the other issues denoted above.I recommend denial
of the application.
5.It would also set precedent for other objects/obstructions within our public
rights-of-way.
C.~fftaff Anal ala:
The UU zoned property at 207 W.3'treet contains a newly constructed surface
parking lot.The property is located on the south side of W.3"Street,between
Center and Louisiana Streets.The parking area on the east side of the alley serves
The Hatcher Agency and the lot west of the alley is used by Vratsinas Construction
Company.On July 25,2011,the Board of Adjustment granted several variances
for the new parking lot.The variances were from the development provisions of
Section 36-342.1,the parking provisions of Section 36-511 and the buffer
provisions of Section 36-522.
Section 36-342.1(c )(5)b.of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires street trees in the
UU zoning district as follows:
b.Street trees a minimum of three-inch caliper shall be required (type of
trees as listed in landscape ordinance [chapter 15)).The trees shall be
located a minimum of two (2)feet off the back of a curb and shall be
thirty (30)feet on center and no closer than thirty (30)feet to a street
intersection with a water source provided.The tree canopy shall be
maintained at least eight (8)feet above the sidewalk.
On July 25,2011,the Board approved a variance to allow a reduced number of
street trees to be planted due to existing utility lines.One (1)tree at the northeast
corner of the lot west of the alley,and two (2)trees at the southwest corner of this
lot were approved to be eliminated.Otherwise,all of the other required street trees
were shown on the approved site plan.
The applicant is now back before the Board of Adjustment requesting another
variance with respect to the street trees.The applicant is proposing to plant the
required street trees in above ground planters rather than the in-ground tree wells
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO.:A CON'T
as required.The applicant proposes to construct 36-inch diameter concrete
planters on the sidewalk at the required street tree locations.The planters will be
36 inches in height.The applicant notes that the variety of tree for each planter will
be an approved variety by the City.Therefore,the applicant is requesting a
variance from Section 36-342.1(c )(5)to allow above ground planters rather than
the required in-ground tree wells.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variance.As noted in paragraph B.of the
staff report,Robbie Hudson (City of Little Rock Urban Forester)nor Christy Marvel
(Plans Development Administrator)believe trees will survive in above-ground
planters as proposed by the applicant.The above-ground planters will not provide
an environment suitable for street trees as required by the ordinance.As such,
staff believes the applicant should construct the in-ground tree wells as required.
D.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the variance to allow above-ground planters for street
trees at 207 W.3'treet.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(April 30,2012)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter on April 26,2012
requesting this application be deferred to the May 21,2012 agenda,so that additional
information could be submitted to staff and the Board.Staff supported the deferral
request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the May 21,2012 agenda
with a vote of 4 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(May 21,2012)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter on May 16,2012
requesting this application be deferred to the June 25,2012 agenda,so that additional
information could be submitted to staff and the Board.Staff supported the deferral
request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 25,2012 agenda
with a vote of 4 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO.:A CON'T
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(June 25,2012)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the July 30,2012
agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to send the required notifications to
surrounding property owners.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 30,2012 agenda
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
207 West 3"Development LLC
City of little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock,AR
Telephone:501-371-4790
Property Address:
207 West
3'ittleRock Ar 72201
To whom it may concern,
207 West 3'evelopment LLC is requesting a variance to put 11 Willow Oak trees
cried out in the attached site plan in the green space in lieu clotting them in the steel
grates in the sidewalk areas.In lieu of this change 207 west 3 will install 11 planters on
the sidewalk with an approved tree by the City of Little Rock in each planter.The
concrete planters (36"Dia x 36"H)will be above ground in locations based on the plan
approved by the board of adjustment.We are providing more than the original plans
show.
The reason for the change is the Lot west of us was not required to install trees in the
sidewalk;this will also create a trip hazard since this is a major intersection with the
school being across the street.Last but not least there are utilities below ground in the
proposed sidewalk.The utilities would have to be relocated if the tree grates were to be
installed at the locations noted on approved plans.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me 501-658-5796
Sincerely,
i
aitham Alley
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO.;1
File No.:Z-8520-A
Owner/Applicant:Turag Ronaghi
Address:49 Duclair Court
Description:Lot 11,Block 4,Chenal Valley Addition
Zoned:R-2
Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-
516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property;Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property:Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B.S~taff Anal ala:
The R-2 zoned property at 49 Duclair Court is occupied by a one-story brick single
family residence.There is a paved alley located along the rear property line.A
driveway from the alley serves as access to a garage on the rear of the residence.
On April 26,2010 the Board of Adjustment approved a variance to allow a six (6)
foot-nine (9)inch tall wood fence which had been constructed to enclose a portion
of the rear yard area,as noted on the attached site plan.The applicant has since
not been able to obtain approval of the fence from the Chenal Valley Architectural
Control Committee.
The applicant recently was approved by the Chenal Valley Architectural Control
Committee for an eight (8)foot high wood fence with a combination of horizontal
and vertical elements (see attached sketch).The committee approved
construction of a new fence with the following conditions:
1.The upper horizontal section of the fence must be louvered;
2.The louvered section must have separate vertical support posts spaced at
two to three foot intervals;
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO 1 CON'T.
3.The height of the sections of the fence must be changed to a one foot base,
a five foot vertical section,and a two foot upper horizontal section;and
4.Horizontal rails must be provided at the midpoint and top of the vertical
section of the fence.
The committee has informed the applicant that the fence construction must be
completed no later than July 15,2012.Please see the attached letter from the
committee for additional information.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a.of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence
height of six (6)feet for fences in R-2 zoned areas.Therefore,the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow an eight (8)foot high wood fence to enclose a
portion of the rear yard area.
Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance.Staff views the request
as reasonable.The proposed fence,as approved by the Chenal Valley
Architectural Control Committee,will not be out of character with the area.There
are other fences and walls throughout this neighborhood and other nearby
neighborhoods which have heights greater than six (6)feet.Staff believes the
proposed eight (8)foot high fence which will enclose a rather small rear yard area
will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.The
applicant has submitted a letter of support from the adjacent neighbor at 47 Duclair
Court who is also the president of the Duclair Court Homeowner's Association.
C.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance,subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the conditions contained in the letter dated May 18,2012
from the Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee.
2.A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(June 25,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
—/March 26,2012
~-8'5u -P
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I,Turag Ronaghi,449 DuClair Court,hereby applyforvarianceinheightoffenceinrearandbackof449DuClairCourt,from 6'9"to 8',Fence has been partially
TU I
March 26,2012 —g'gzo-$
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN-
As President of DuClair Court Homeowner's Association,andnextdoorneighbor(447),I have no objections to the height oftheproposedfenceat449Duclair,The previous approval by theCityofLittleRockwasfor6'9",Present request for approvalisfora.height of 8',
Mickey Miller
447 DuClair CourtLittleRock,Arkansas
C6enal 'Valley 9 rckl'tectttral
(;on tro 4,ommt t tee
May 18,2012
Mr.Ataollah Ronaghi
49 DuClair Court
Little Rock,Arkansas 72223
RE:Lot 11,Block 4
Mr.Ronaghi:
The Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee met on April 18,2012,and
reviewed the submittal for your proposed fence on your property at 49 DuClair
Court.Based upon the submissions received by the Committee,your plan was
approved subject to the following changes:
1.the upper horizontal section of the fence must be louvered;
2.the louvered section must have separate vertical support posts spaced
at two to three foot intervals;
3.the height of the sections of the fence must be changed to a one foot
base,a five foot vertical section,and a two foot upper horizontal section;and
4.horizontal rails must be provided at the midpoint and top of the
vertical section of the fence.
We have enclosed herewith a drawing illustrating each of the preceding four
required changes.
The fence improvements should be undertaken as soon as possible following receipt
of this letter and must be completed not more than thirty (30)days following
commencement of this work.In any event,all construction must be completed not
later than,July 15,2012.
7 Chenal Club Blvd.Little Rock,AR 72223 (501)821-5555
Should you have any questions concerning this approval or the conditions for completing your
fence as set forth hereinabove,please feel free to contact the undersigned at your first
convenience.
Sincerely,
CHENAL VALLEY ARCHITECTURAL
CONTROL COMMITTEE
7 Chenal Club Blvd.Little Rock,AR 72223 (501)821-5555
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO.:2
File No.:Z-8581-A
Owner/Applicant:Denise J.Burrow
Address:12 Powderhorn Court
Description:Lot 30,Pebble Beach Park Addition
Zoned:R-2
Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-
516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property:Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B.~Staff Anal sis:
The R-2 zoned property at 12 Powderhorn Court is occupied by a two-story brick
single family residence.There is a two-car wide driveway from Powderhorn Court,
which serves as access to a two-car garage at the north end of the residence.The
property slopes downward from Powderhorn Court from north to south and west to
east.The lot contains a 25 foot platted building line along the north and west,
street fronting,property lines.The front of the house faces west.
On August 30,2010 the Board of Adjustment approved front setback and building
line variances for a covered,unenclosed porch on the front of the residence.The
applicant completed the required replat of the building line,but to date,has not
constructed the porch.
The applicant is now before the Board regarding a newly constructed fence which
encloses a portion of the rear yard area,as noted on the attached site plan.The
east-west sections of the fence which extend from the house to the rear (east)
property line are six (6)foot high wood fence sections.The fence section which
runs along the rear (east)property line for approximately 88 feet is eight (8)feet in
height.
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO 'CON'T.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a.of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence
height of six (6)feet for fences in R-2 zoning.Therefore,the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow the eight (8)foot high fence section along the rear
(east)property line.
Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance.Staff views the request
as a reasonable.The proposed eight (8)foot high fence section will not be out of
character with the area.There are other fences of similar height throughout the
neighborhood.With the downward slope of the property from north to south,the
increased fence height will allow additional privacy between the subject residence
and the residence to the east.Staff believes the eight (8)foot high fence along the
rear property line will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the
general area.
C.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance,subject to a
building permit being obtained for the fence construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(June 25,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
T4 +z
Denise J Burrow
12 Powderhorn Court 2-k5S'i-6
Little Rock,AR 72212 ('~~v-)
May 21,2012
Board o f Adjustment
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
Re:Variance Application
Board Members,
Please find attached my application and supporting documentation requesting an
extension of a previously approved variance for the construction of a porch on the front
on my home (part of the porch would fall within the twenty-fine foot building setback).I
am also requesting a new variance relating to a privacy fence that was constructed along
the eastern boundary of the property.
The extension of the original two year period for the porch is requested as I am finally
nearing the point of construction,but am not certain that all of the permits will be pulled
by the contractor before the August 30,2012 expiration.I have been delayed with the
demands of finishing my nursing degree and the selling my husband's former home.
Copies of the Board's previous approval,a lot survey with reference drawing of the
proposed porch drawn and the lot survey with the approved building setup changes are
included.
The new variance request relates to a notification dated May 14,2012 informing me that
part of the new privacy fence was in violation of Zoning Ordinance No.36-516,e (I).
The eastern and southern sections of this fence were constructed by Southwest Fence
Company in late February of 2012.Each section was originally to be six feet tall to
match the previously construction fence on the northern boundary.However,when the
poles were set for the section across the back of the lot (eastern section),I noticed that my
neighbor's first floor windows and backyard disarray were still visible from my first floor
and deck.Mr.Jacks (Southwest Fence)was contacted to determine if there were options
that would provide further privacy and eliminate the visual intrusion.He suggested
making the fence in this section eight feet tall,with a gradual decline to six feet at each
end.No mention was made of a city code regarding fence height or that a variance would
be required.Based upon his suggestion and an assessment of the desired results,the
decision was made to increase the height of the eastern fence to eight feet.
May 21,2012
Board of Adjustments
Variance Application
My desire was not to circumvent the City Zoning Ordinances or to uy to get one by the
City or its Boards,we were trying to gain some additional privacy in our backyard,as
well as provide that same level of privacy to the one neighbor whose lot would be
impacted by the height of this fence section.The process to apply for a variance began as
soon as we received the violation notification and accordingly,I have included the lot
survey with the fence drawn for reference,a copy of the fence construction invoice,a
copy of the violation notification letter and several photos of the fence and properties.
Also included is a copy of the neighborhood Area Zoning which shows the orientation of
my house and the one to my east.
I will now begin the process of contacting and notifying the appropriate neighbors and
posting the required signage regarding my request.Thank you in advance for your
consideration of my request and for recognizing my desire to comply with the City'
Ordinances.
Sincerely,~p8~~-
Denise I Burrow
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO.:3
File No.:Z-8732-A
Owner:Ace Signs of Arkansas
Applicant:Jason Offutt
Address:11935 Interstate 30
Description:East side of l-30,at Otter Creek South Road
Zoned:1-2
Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-554
to allow a ground-mounted sign with increased sign area.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Commercial Sign Company —under development
Proposed Use of Property:Commercial Sign Company
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
No Comment
B.~StaffAnal ss:
The 1-2 zoned property at 11935 Interstate 30 is in the process of being developed
as the new location for Ace Signs of Arkansas.The site has been cleared and
grading work is currently being done in preparation for new building construction.
The new development will include a 25,200 square foot building located within the
west half of the property.Paved parking will be located on the west side of the
building with an access drive from the I-30 frontage road at the northwest corner of
the property.The applicant is also constructing a gravel equipment yard within the
east half of the property,with a paved access driveway within the pipe stem from
Otter Creek South Road.The gravel equipment yard will be fenced with eight (8)
foot high black vinyl-coated chain link fencing.A gate will be located at the north
end of the paved access driveway.On December 19,2011 the Board of
Adjustment approved a variance to allow the equipment yard area to be gravel and
not paved.
The applicant is currently proposing to install a ground-mounted sign within the
front portion of the property,along 1-30,as noted on the attached site plan.The
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO.:3 CON'T.
proposed sign will have a height of 30 feet and an area of 160 square feet (10 feet
by 16 feet).The sign will contain graphics for "Ace"signs,as shown on the
attached sketch.
Section 36-554(a)(2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum sign height
of 30 feet and a maximum sign area of 72 square feet for signs in industrial zoning.
Therefore,the applicant is requesting a variance from this section to allow the
proposed ground sign with increased sign area.
Staff is supportive of the requested sign variance.Staff views the request as
reasonable.Staff's support is based primarily on the fact that the sign will be
located along a major interstate and not in the interior of an industrial park
development.The adjacent property to the north is zoned C-3,which allows 160
square foot ground signs.There are numerous other signs with heights and areas
of commercial nature and larger in this area along 1-30.A billboard is located on
the adjacent property to the south,with another billboard across 1-30 to the north.
Existing commercial signs are located to the north,within the commercial
development at I-30 and Mabelvale West Road.The proposed sign area will not
be out of character with other signs in this general area.Staff believes the
proposed sign will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the
general area.
C.Staff
Recommendation'taff
recommends approval of the requested sign variance,subject to the following
conditions:
1.The ground-mounted sign will have a maximum area of 160 square feet and
a maximum height of 30 feet.
2.A sign permit must be obtained for the sign.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(June 25,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
May 22,2012
z -h'73'7--~
Mr.Monte Moore
Department of Planning 5 Development
723 Nest Markham Street
1"Floor
Little Rock,AR.72201
Monte,
I am requesting a variance for the sign square footage allowance at 11935 I-
30.Currently the site is zoned Industrial.The square footage allowed is 72 squa re
feet with a total height of 30 feet.I am requesting a variance to change to
commercial zoning regulations like the adjacent property.That would allow Ace
Signs to get 160 square feet of signage,We would agree to keep the sign at a
maximum height of 30 feet.I have attached a drawing showing where the sign
would be placed and how it would look in comparison to the 19'x48'ign located
directly next to the property.I have also attached a site plan showing where the
sign would be located.
Thank you for the opportunity to go before the variance board with this request.
Best Regards,
Jason Offutt
sion axe outooos aovaavisnca
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO.:4
File No.:Z-8776
Owner/Applicant:James Rhodes
Address:12 Palamino Court
Description:Lot 45,Phase 2-B,Perry Place Addition
Zoned:R-2
Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254
to allow a building addition with a reduced rear setback.
Justification;The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property:Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
No Comments
S.~fftaff Anal ala:
The R-2 zoned property at 12 Palamino Court is occupied by a one-story brick and
frame single family residence,with living space on a second level within the roof
line.There is a one-car wide driveway from Palamino Court which serves as
access.A detached garage is located on the north side of the residence.The lot
contains a 25 foot front platted building line.
The applicant recently removed an 18 foot by 22 foot wood deck from the rear of
the residence,and began site work (footings)for a one-story addition,as noted on
the attached site plan.The proposed addition will occupy the same 18 foot by 22
foot footprint as the deck.The proposed addition will be located 10 feet to 16 feet
back from the rear (east)property line.It will not encroach into the 10 foot wide
utility easement which runs along the rear property line.The addition will be well
over 20 feet back from the south side property line and 65 feet from the north side
property line.
Section 36-254(d)(3)of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear
setback of 25 feet for principal structures in R-2 zoning.Therefore,the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow the room addition with a reduced rear setback.
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO.:4 CON'T.
Staff is supportive of the requested rear setback variance.Staff views the request
as reasonable.The single family lot in question has an irregular shape and a
relatively shallow depth of 79 feet along the south side property line.The typical
single family lot ranges in depth from 100 to 150 feet.The existing lot depth
greatly reduces the buildable area from front to back.Additionally,the proposed
addition will occupy the same footprint as a deck which was recently removed from
the rear of the residence.The residence immediately to the south has a small deck
which encroaches into the required rear setback.Staff believes the proposed
building addition with reduced rear setback will have no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties or the general area.Ample separation will exist between the
proposed building addition and the residences to the east.
C.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance,subject to the
following conditions:
1.A building permit must be obtained for the construction.
2.The addition must be constructed to match the existing residence.
3.The addition is limited to one (1)story in height.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(June 25,2012)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the July 30,2012
agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to send the required notifications to
surrounding property owners.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 30,2012 agenda
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
TO WHOM IT IVIAY CONCERN;I'M z.—S'77 ~
PROPOSING TO ADD A MASTER
BEDROOM TO MY 3BEDROOM FAMILY
HOME.I'M A DISABLE VETERAN FROM
THE IRAQ,AFGANISTAN WAR AND MY
MASTER BEDROOM KNOW IS ON THE
SECOND FLOOR AND I'M HAVING
PROBLEM CLIMBIMG THE STAIRS THIS
WHY I WANT TO ADD A ROOM DOWN
ON THE FIRST FLOOR.THANK JAMES
RHODES
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO.:5
File No.:Z-8777
Owner:Chenal Valley Construction
Applicant:Joe Miles
Address:4 Winthrop Point
Description:Lot 36,Block 15,Woodlands Edge Addition
Zoned:R-2
Variance Requested:Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a new residence with a
reduced front setback and which crosses a front 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
A.Public Works Issues:
No Comments
S.~fftaff Anal ata:
The R-2 zoned property at 4 Winthrop Point is occupied by a newly constructed
two-story rock,brick and frame single family residence.There is a two-car wide
driveway from Winthrop Point at the southwest corner of the lot.The drive
accesses a garage at the west end of the residence.The property slopes
downward from front to back (south to north).The lot contains a 25 foot front
platted building line.
The residence is set back from the front property line 20.7 feet to 28 feet,as noted
on the attached site plan.It encroaches across the front platted building line by 2.8
to 4.3 feet at corner points along the front of the residence.The applicant notes
that the encroachment was not known until an as-built survey was done after the
house construction was near completion.
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO.:5 CON'T.
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
standards to allow the building addition with reduced front setback and which
crosses a front platted building line.
Staff is supportive of the requested front setback and building line variances.Staff
views the request as a reasonable.It appears obvious that a mistake was made
when the foundation of the house was initially laid out on the lot.The mistake was
not observed until the residence was near completion.The residence with reduced
front setback will not have the appearance of being out of alignment with the other
residences along this side of Winthrop Point because of the curvature of the
roadway.Staff believes the front setback and building line encroachment will have
no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
If the Board approves the building line variance,the applicant will have to complete
a one-lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the
residence.The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk'
office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
C.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and building line variances,
subject to completion of a one-lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted
building line as approved by the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(June 25,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
zg~+~
4-24-12 H-8 777
Dear review board,I am writing this to ask for a variance in the
building line.It is Lot 36,Block 15 of Woodlands Edge.The address is 4
Winthrop Point in Little Rock.Due to an unknown oversight during or
calculation error during construction we encroached on the building line in
the front of the property.The left front corner is just over 4 feet to close to
the road.The mistake was not discovered until the project was near
completion.I take responsibility and assure that this will not happen again.
Please allow this variance.The house looks good and fit's the lot well.I
believe it does not look out of place or take anything away from the
neighborhood.All the neighbors I spoke with do not have an issue with the
house placement.Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joe Miles
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO:6
File No.:Z-8778
Owner:Kori and Eric Gordon
Applicant:Jacob White
Address:2623 N.Pierce Street
Description:Lots 1 and 2,Block 23,Parkview Addition
Zoned:R-2
Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254
to allow construction of a new residence with a reduced rear yard setback.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Single Family Residence and Vacant Lot
Proposed Use of Property:Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
No Comments
S.S~taff Anal sls:
The R-2 zoned property at 2623 N.Pierce Street is comprised of two (2)platted
lots.Lots 1 and 2,Block 23,Parkview Addition.The property is located at the
southeast corner of N.Pierce and aYS Streets.Lot 1 contains a one-story frame
single family residence.There is a two-car wide driveway from aYS Street at the
northeast corner of the property.Lot 2 is currently vacant.A house which
previously existed on the lot has been removed.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new two-story single family residence on
the two (2)lots,as noted on the attached site plan.The proposed house will have
a 25 foot setback from the front (west)property line and a 15 foot setback from the
rear (east)property line.Eight (8)foot setbacks will be provided along the north
and south side property lines.A driveway from nYa Street will access a garage at
the northeast corner of the house.The footprint of the residence,including
porches,will be approximately 7,200 square feet.
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO.:6 CON'T.
Section 36-254(d)(3)of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear
setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot.Therefore,the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the new residence with a 15 foot rear yard setback.
Staff is supportive of the requested rear setback variance.Staff views the request
as reasonable.Similar variances have been approved in the past for houses in
this general area.As noted previously,the footprint of the proposed house is
approximately 7,200 square feet including the porches.This amounts to a lot
coverage of approximately 52 percent.If the two (2)lots were developed
individually,the allowed building footprint would be 7,220 square feet (3,480 for Lot
1 and 3800 for Lot 2).In addition,accessory buildings with a maximum area of
712.5 square feet (337.5 for Lot 1 and 375 for Lot 2)would be allowed.The
proposed building plan for the property leaves very little rear yard space for
accessory buildings.As such,staff's support will be conditioned on there being no
accessory structures on the property.Therefore,the overall massing of the
proposed residence will be very similar to what would be allowed if the lots were
developed with two (2)houses.Staff believes the proposed residence will have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance,subject to the
following condition:
~No accessory structures will be allowed on the site.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(June 25,2012)
Kori Gordon was present,representing the application.There were two (2)objectors
and two (2)supporters present.Staff presented the application with a recommendation
of approval.
Kori Gordon addressed the Board in support of the application.She explained that a
larger garage was needed because of the number of persons in her family who drive
and would be driving.She explained that on-street parking was difficult because of the
existing street widths.She noted that a detached garage had been discussed,but an
attached garage better suited their needs.She also noted that guttering and French
drains would help the drainage problem in the area.
Jennifer Peacock also addressed the Board in support.She explained that the project
architect had initially miscalculated the required setbacks and the house was larger than
what is being proposed.She also noted concern with on-street parking in the area,
Chris Monroe also spoke in support.He stated that he was the property owner and
resident immediately to the south.He noted that he had tom down and constructed a
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO 6 CON'T.
new house on the adjacent property.He explained that he preferred one(1)residence
on the subject property rather than two (2)residences.He also discussed the on-street
parking problem in the area,and noted that a large garage was needed by the
applicants.He stated that an attached garage was preferred.
Jane Brown of 2620 N.Fillmore Street spoke in opposition.She discussed the impact
of new development in the area on drainage.She also noted that the height of the
proposed residence would have a negative impact on her property.
Marilyn Zornick of 2624 N.Fillmore Street also spoke in opposition.She explained that"Y"Street was a very narrow street and parking off the street would be difficult.She
explained that her rear yard was not very deep and the new residence would have a
negative visual impact.She discussed the size of the new homes in this area.She
discussed the view from her house to the west.
Mrs.Gordon explained that there will be a large amount of landscaping along the rear
property line to help screen the proposed residence.In response to a question from the
Board Mrs.Gordon stated that the garage would be accessed from "Y"Street.
Vice-Chairman Smith asked if there anything about the site which dictated the proposed
footprint of the house.Mr.Monroe noted that "Y"Street basically functioned as an alley
and a garage access would be best from "Y"Street.He explained that the lots slope
downward to the east and any construction would be above the homes to the east.Mrs.
Gordon explained that the footprint of the house had been larger originally,but was
reduced to be more in line with ordinance requirements.
Vice-Chairman Smith made additional comments related to the variance and the need
to adhere to ordinance requirements.The issue of the variance was discussed further.
The Board asked staff about the setback differences between accessory and principal
structures.The issue was briefly discussed.
Rajesh Mehta asked about the garage portion of the proposed house.The issue was
briefly discussed.
Robert Winchester asked about the size of the garage space.Mrs.Gordon explained
the need for the attached garage space.The issue was discussed further.
Brad Wingfield asked what would be located within the southeast corner of the house.
Ms.Peacock noted that it would be the living area for the applicant's mother.
Chairman Yates asked what portion of the house would have to be eliminated to provide
the 25 foot rear set back.Mrs.Gordon noted that space for the kitchen,pantry and
laundry room would be reduced.The issue was briefly discussed.
Chairman Yates asked how much heated and cooled space the proposed house
contained.Mr.Gordon noted approximately 5,900 square feet.Mr.Monroe noted that
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO.:6 CON'T.
the size of the proposed house will be consistent with the neighborhood.This issue
was briefly discussed.
There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff.The motion
passed by a vote of 3 ayes,2 nays and 0 absent.The application was approved.
May 22,2012 2-
R'77'o:
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock,AR
From:Jacob White Construcfion Company
2400 N.Pierce
Little Rock,AR 72207
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter as a request for a residential zoning variance.I am a home builder
and am representing the homeowners for the lots at 2623 and 2615 North Pierce Street.
After purchasing these two lots,and having their plans drawn,the homeowners
discovered that they need a rear setback variance.This variance is needed to allow for an
attached garage on the back of the property.
The reason we are asking for a variance is that the garage that the family needs will be
15'rom the rear of the property in lieu of the 25'hat is required.This family needs a
four car garage.There are six people in the immediate family,as well as a mother that
will be living in this home.Not allowing for this setback for this gamge could cause
major traffic issues.
This home is in a part of Little Rock where parking is at a premium.The streets are
already congested enough without the addition of this many more drivers in the near
future.The area that we are requesting the setback is on the rear of the property off of"Y"Street.This is basically a glorified alley,and is not wide enough to park on.This
street is narrow to begin with and the family would like to be able to park in the garage
instead of having to park on this street.This garage would prevent congestion on "y"
Street and North Pierce Street.
I am requesting that a variance be granted to allow the homeowner to have this much
needed garage.Cnanting this would allow for adequate parking as well as help with the
traffic flow of the neighborhood.This structure will be attached,and will be constructed
to fit in with the neighborhood.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.My cell phone number is 501-
912-2444.
Thanks,
Jacob White
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO.:7
File No.:Z-8779
Owner:Coy D.Wimberly Living Trust
Applicants:Brian Teeter and Trey Prewitt
Address:3011 W.Markham Street
Description:Lot 24,Block 2,C.S.Stifft's Addition
Zoned:C-3
Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Sections 36-
502 and 36-507 to allow use of an existing building as a restaurant with reduced parking.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Commercial Building and Parking Lot
Proposed Use of Property:Restaurant with Bar Service
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
No Comment
S.~fftaff Anal ala:
The C-3 zoned property at 3011 W.Markham Street is occupied by a one-story
commercial building.The building previously housed the Buice Drug Store.The
building contains 3,653 square feet of gross floor space.The building is part of a
row of commercial buildings fronting W.Markham Street,between Booker and
Johnson Streets.There is a small paved parking area at the west end of the
buildings,at the southeast corner of W.Markham Street and Johnson Street.The
lot has the same owner as the subject building,and contains six (6)striped parking
spaces.The parking lot pavement is in need of repair.
The applicants propose to use the 3,653 square foot building as a restaurant/bar.
The proposed establishment will be open only during evening hours (open at 4:00
p.m.)and on weekends.The applicants propose to utilize the small parking lot as
described above.The applicants also have a written agreement (see attached)to
use the Jett's Gas and Service Station property across Johnson Street for
additional parking.Staff estimates the Jett lot will allow parking for approximately
20 vehicles,including around the gas pumps,with no vehicles being blocked in.
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO 'CON'T
The applicant has noted that there will be little overlap in operating hours of the two
(2)businesses.
Section 36-502(b)(3)c.of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires 36 off-street/on-site
paved parking spaces for the proposed restaurant/bar use.Section 36-507(a)
allows up to 25 percent of the off-street parking requirement to be located off-site
(within 300 feet of the building it serves).Therefore,the applicant is requesting
variances from these ordinance standards to allow the restaurant/bar use with no
on-site parking and approximately 72 percent of the overall parking requirement to
be located entirely off-site.
Staff does not support the requested parking variance.There are two (2)other
restaurant uses located in this immediate area.The Oyster Bar is located at 3003
W.Markham Street,in an adjacent building to the east.Pizza D'ction is located
at 2919 W.Markham Street,at the southeast corner of W.Markham and Booker
Streets.Both of these restaurants are non-conforming with relation to their
individual parking requirements.Neither restaurant has the off-street parking to
comply with current ordinance standards.Staff feels that the two (2)existing
restaurant uses are already placing a strain on the available parking in this general
area.There is no on-street parking along W.Markham Street in front of the
proposed restaurant/bar,as exists for the restaurant uses along Kavanaugh Blvd.
in the Hillcrest and Heights areas.Staff believes parking for the proposed
restaurant/bar will encroach into the residential area to the south.Staff believes
that the parking demand for the proposed restaurant/bar will exacerbate a parking
problem which already exists in this immediate area.
C.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested parking variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(June 25,2012)
Trey Prewitt was present,representing the application.There were three (3)objectors
and one (1)supporter present.Staff presented the application with a recommendation
of denial.
Trey Prewitt addressed the Board in support of the application.Mr.Prewitt explained
that the location was chosen for a restaurant use.He noted that the building was in
need of repair.He also noted that one (1)of the access drives to the small parking lot
could be closed and the lot re-striped for more parking.He discussed the Jett Service
Station property and its use for off-site parking.He informed the Board that the building
had 3,300 square feet and not 3,653 as originally reported to staff.Mr.Prewitt
explained that a portion of the building had been used as residential in the past.
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO 'CON'T
Lewis Leslie,of 115 S.Johnson Street,addressed the Board in opposition.He
explained that overflow parking for the restaurant would take place in front of his house
and other homes in this immediate area.He submitted photos to the Board of the Jett
Service Station property and discussed.He noted that there were two (2)other
restaurant uses in the immediate area with not enough parking.He submitted a letter of
opposition from another property owner.
Fred Strebeck,of 114 S.Johnson Street,also addressed the Board in opposition.He
explained that Jett Service Station parking was very close to his property.He asked
about the closing hours for the restaurant.He discussed the closing hours for the other
businesses in this immediate area.
Robert Walker,president of the Capitol View/Stifft Station neighborhood association,
also spoke in opposition.He expressed concerns with the parking situation in this area.
Jason Roberts,of 3009 W.Markham Street,spoke in support of the application.He
explained that needed improvements to the building would be very expensive and that it
would be a nice investment for the area.He discussed the area with respect to the
proposed use of the building.
Mr.Prewitt stated that he did not know what the closing hours would be for the
proposed restaurant.He made additional comments in support of the parking variance.
There was general discussion related to parking in the general area and the proposed
use of the existing building.
There was additional discussion of the parking variance and how the variance,if
approved,would apply to another ownership.
Rajesh Mehta asked if any handicap parking would be provided.Mr.Prewitt explained
that one (1)handicap parking space could probably be provided in the small parking lot.
Mr.Mehta asked about the parking agreement with Jett's Service Station.Mr.Prewitt
stated that it was an open agreement with no time limit.There was additional
discussion of the parking variance.
Vice-Chairman Smith made comments related to the proposed use of the property and
parking for a multi-use development.Mr.Mehta noted that there are other permitted
uses which could occupy the building and have a smaller parking requirement.
There was a motion to approve the application with the condition that it be for the
specific restaurant and parking agreement.The motion was discussed.
The motion to approve the application was re-stated and amended,with the following
conditions:
1.The parking variance is for the proposed property owner,Brian Teeter,only.
2.The parking variance is for a restaurant use only.
3.The parking agreement with Jett's Service Station must be maintained.
JUNE 25,2012
ITEM NO 'CON'T
Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,re-stated staff's recommendation of denial.
The motion passed with a vote of 3 ayes,1 nay,0 absent and 1 recusal (Yates).
The application was approved.
g7a 1
We are requesting a variance in the parking provisions of Section 36-502 of the Little
Rock Code of Ordinances to permit the use of an existing and established building as a
bar/restaurant with reduced parking.The total gross square footage of the location is 3,653.
The business would have a dedicated 2,730 square foot parking lot at the corner of W.
Markham and Johnson.This would allow for an estimated 7-9 parking spaces dedicated to this
business.Additional parking would be utilized from on street parking on the streets south of
Markham,similar to other restaurant/bars currently in the area.The proposed tenants are
established restaurant/bar owners around Little Rock and throughout Arkansas and we feel this
location will add to the recent resurgence of the Stifft's Station area.Our intentions are to
preserve and maintain the character of the building and it's interiors to allow others to enjoy its
significance on the history of our city.The Buice Drugstore has been a landmark for decades in
Stifft's Station and we hope that you will allow other's to enjoy its character as a new gathering
spot for the community.
Trey Prewitt
2-g-7)g
Parking Agreement
This is an agreement between Brian Teeter (owner of former Buice Drug Store and adjoining
parking lot located at 3013 W Markham)and George Jett (owner of Jett's Gas 5 Serv.located at
3101 W Markham).This agreement specifies that parking shag be mutual and shared for
business purposes/customer/employees parking between the two owners.Thereby
customers/employees of Mr.Jett's may park in Mr.Teeter's parking a lot and
customers/employees/tenants of Mr.Teeter's may park in Mr.Jett's lot.
Each party agrees to a mutual respect of one another's property and will make all attempt to
protect,monitor and keep tidy the mutual/shared space.
This agreement is based on the current and proposed business operating hours.Whereby Mr.
Jett's business/use be primargy operating during the day and Mr.Teeter's business/use be
primarily operating during the evening hours.
Signed
Signed
June 4,2012.
0
C
o
o ~St
Xexx y
0 Z
o
D
0
63
I-
D0
o O O CI2ZPU&X —LoIoI-
LU
I-IJ"g)UJ Q LUgOICiU27OI—OU UJ
Io LU LIJIL:LJ LO -J UI LJ g a IU
M LU LU
UJ g &~-x u UJ C Z Z lL g~I I VOUJ UJ I-&UJ&Z —ZZI—~—2 Z I-
IU IU K UJ X ——&O 22&nQQ&-I-Z Lo 0 0 &-
June 25,2012
There being no further business before the Board,the meeting was adjourned at 3:33 p.m.
Date:++I
C r Secreta