Loading...
boa_08 27 2012LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES AUGUST 27,2012 2:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4)in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the July 30,2012 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III.Members Present:Jeff Yates,Chairman Scott Smith,Vice Chairman Rajesh Mehta Robert Winchester Members Absent:Brad Wingfield City Attorney Present:Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA AUGUST 27,2012 2:00 P.M. I.OLD BUSINESS: A,Z-8674-A 207 W.3"Street B.Z-8776 12 Palamino Court C,Z-8784 1921 Country Club Lane 11.NEW BUSINESS: 1.Z-8711-A 5409 Hawthorne Road 2.Z-8779-A 3011 W.Markham Street 3.Z-8797 500 Bobwhite Drive 4.Z-8798 5400/5404 E.Roosevelt Road 5.Z-8799 1910 N.Grant Street 6.Z-8800 5501 Asher Avenue AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO:A File No.:Z-8674-A Owner:207 West 3"Development LLC Applicant:Ben Cox Address:207 W.3'treet Description:South side of W.3"Street,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; Chris 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, AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:A CON'T. maintain,and remove when they become hazards to the public.Mr.Robbie Hudson,Urban Forester for the City of Little Rock recommends denial. 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 fall.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.S~taff Anal ala: The UU zoned property at 207 W.3"Street contains a newly constructed surface parking lot.The property is located on the south side of W.3'treet,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. AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO 'CON'T 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 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'taff recommends denial of the variance to allow above-ground planters for street trees at 207 W.3"Street. 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. T'e 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. AUGUST 27,2012 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(July 30,2012) Haitham Alley was present,representing the application.Staff noted that the applicant needed to give an update to the Board as to the status of the application.Staff noted that the applicant had indicated to have the application deferred. Haitham Alley addressed the Board.He explained that AT&T,Centerpoint Energy and Entergy had utility lines in the area where the street trees are required.He noted that he was in the process of obtaining a price to relocate the utilities.He indicated that the relocation was going to be very expensive.He asked for additional time to obtain information for the Board. Chairman Yates asked that Mr.Alley for an alternate plan for planting the trees.The issue was briefly discussed. Chairman Yates noted that the plan needed to be submitted to staff within two (2) weeks.Mr.Alley indicated that it would be submitted. There was a motion to defer the application to the August 27,2012 agenda.The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.The application was deferred. ~fftaff U data: The applicant submitted a plan to staff on August 9,2012,proposing to install additional landscaping (trees)within the parking lot at the northwest corner of West 3"and Louisiana Streets.The new landscaping is proposed in lieu of planting the street trees at 207 W.3"'treet.The lot at the northwest corner of W.3'"and Louisiana Streets has the same ownership as the 207 W.3"Street property.Therefore,the applicant is requesting a variance from the development provisions of Section 36-342.1 (c )(5)b.to not plant any street trees at 207 W.3 Street.A copy of the proposed plan for landscape upgrade at the northwest corner of W.3"and Louisiana Streets is provided to Board members as a separate packet. AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:A CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(August 27,2012) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had submitted an amended plan for planting trees in-lieu of the required street trees.The applicant had planted eight (8)additional trees within the interior/perimeter landscaped areas of the site.The applicant will also plant six (6)more trees within the existing landscaped beds across W.3"Street to the north (northwest corner of W.3"and Louisiana Streets).The applicant will also make a $2,000.00 contribution to the City's Tree Fund. Staff supported the amended application,subject to the following conditions: 1.The amended application/plan must be approved by the City Beautiful Commission. 2.The trees at the northwest corner of W.3"and Louisiana Streets must be installed within 30 days of the final approval. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff, with a vote of 4 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. a-g~~H-4 207 West 3"Development LLC City of little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock,AR Telephone:501-371-4790 Property Address: 207 West 3 Little Rock Ar 72201 To whom it may concern, 207 West 3'evelopment LLC is requesting a variance to put 11 Willow Oak trees called out in the attached site plan in the green space in lieu ofyutting them in the steel grates in the sidewalk areas.In lieu of this change 207 west 3'ill 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 AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:B File No.:Z-8776 Owner/Applicant:James Rhodes Address:12 Palamino Court Description:Lot 45,Phase 2-8,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 B.~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. 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 AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:B CON'T. 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'taff 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(July 30,2012) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the August 27, 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 August 27,2012 agenda with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(August 27,2012) 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 4 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. TQ WHOM IT IVIAY CONCERN;I'M z-7774 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 QN THE FIRST FLOOR.THANK JAMES RHODES AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:C File No.:Z-8784 Owner:Mary Elizabeth Barnett Applicant:Wayne Moore Address:1921 Country Club Lane Description:Lot 6,Elmo Walker Replat Zoned:R-2 Variance Requested:Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 and the easement provisions of Section 36-11 to allow a building addition with a reduced side setback and which encroaches into a utility easement. 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: 1.Provide a grading and drainage plan to show the proposed work. B.~Utilit Issues: AT&T —no objection.No facilities within 10 foot easement. Center oint Ener —no objection.The only facility that may be located in this easement is the service line that serves this house.If it has to be relocated, contact utility.Cost of any relocation will be customer's responsibility. Central Arkansas Water —no objection.No existing or planned facilities within easement. Entercny —no objection.No facilities within easement. Little Rock Wastewater —no objection.No sewer main located within easement, C,S~taff Anal sls: The R-2 zoned property at 1921 Country Club I ane is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence.There is a two-car wide driveway from Country Club Lane at the northwest corner of the lot which serves a garage at the north end of the residence.The property slopes downward from front to back AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:C CON'T. (west to east).The rear (east)half of the property is wooded.The lot contains a 20 foot front platted building line and a 10 foot platted building line along the south side property line.A 10 foot wide utility easement is located along the north side property line. The applicant proposes to construct a single level building addition to the northeast corner of the existing residence,as noted on the attached site plan.The addition is planned to include a new master bedroom and will be approximately 1,240 square feet in area.The addition will be to the main,street level of the house,and constructed above grade (stilt-type construction)because of the slope of the property.The addition will be constructed five (5)feet back from the north side property line.The addition will extend five (5)feet into the 10 foot wide utility easement along the north side property line. Section 36-254(d)(2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of eight (8)feet for this R-2 zoned lot.Section 36-11(f)requires that building encroachments into utility easements be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment.Therefore,the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the room addition with a reduced side setback and which encroaches into a utility easement. Staff is supportive of the requested variances.Staff views the request as reasonable.Staff's main reason for support is that the excessive slope of the property and location of existing decks seems to dictate the location of the proposed building addition.Only approximately 200 square feet of the proposed addition will be located within the utility easement,and only approximately 120 square feet will be located within the required side setback.As noted in paragraph B.,none of the utility companies object to the proposed easement encroachment. Additionally,the property immediately to the north is an undeveloped wooded portion of the overall Country Club of Little Rock property.Staff believes the proposed building addition with side setback and easement encroachments will have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or the general area. D.Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback and easement variances,subject to the following conditions: 1.Compliance with the Public Works comment as noted in paragraph A.of the staff report. 2.Compliance with the utility comments as noted in paragraph B.of the staff report. 3.The proposed addition must be constructed to match the existing residence. AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:C CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(July 30,2012) The applicant was not present.It was noted that Public Works needed additional information on the project (grading and drainage plan).There was a motion to defer the application to the August 27,2012 agenda.The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.The application was deferred.~Staff I date: The applicant met with Public Works and discussed the construction plans for the building addition.Public Works has indicated no issues with the proposed plans. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(August 27,2012) 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 4 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. WAYNE MOORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ZIZI WATT 8712EET,SUITE E /L11TLE ROCK,AR 72227 /50I-228.55I5 TELEPHONE /501.228 6787 FAX =~~ May 30,2012 Mr.Dana Carney Zoning &Subdivision Manager City of Little Rock Planning &Development 723 West Markham,1"Floor Little Rock,AR 72201-1334 Re:Zoning Variance Application —Barnett Residence at 1921 Country Club Lane AKA Lot 6,Elmo Walker Replat,Little Rock,AR Dear Mr.Camey, I am requesting two variances for the above described real property on behalf of Mary Elizabeth "Boots"Barnett,Owner.I am enclosing a notarized affidavit authorizing me as her agent regarding this request. The first requested variance (Section 36-254)is for a revised 5'ide yard setback for the proposed construction of a main level master suite. The second requested variance (Section 36-11/fl is to allow for the master suite construction to build over an existing utility easement.The previous side yard setback lies within this easement. Please note the uniqueness of this lot's location as it relates to surrounding property owners.The Country Club of Little Rock is the only neighboring property to the immediate north. I am enclosing letters from all the appropriate utilities regarding the easement which includes CenterPoint Energy,Entergy,AT&T,Little Rock Wastewater and Central Arkansas Water. Thank you for your consideration of this application.You may contact me by calling 228-5515 or emailing wmccsbcglobal.net should you have any questions. Thank you. neey, ore, Pre sid t Cc:Boots Barnett l3.SPM:IALIST IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF FINE HOMES /REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT HHHA *TO AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:1 File No.:Z-8711-A Owner/Applicant:Mr.and Mrs.James W.Rogers Address:5409 Hawthorne Road Description:Lot 3,Block 9,Newton's 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.~fftaff Anal ala: The R-2 zoned property at 5409 Hawthorne Road is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence which was recently constructed.There is a one- car wide driveway at the northwest corner of the property.The drive runs along the west side of the house to a detached carport in the rear yard area. The applicant proposes to construct an eight (8)foot high wood fence to enclose the rear yard area,as noted on the attached site plan.There will be approximately 70 feet of eight (8)foot high fencing along the west side property line,50 feet across the rear (south)property line and 90 feet along the east side property line. Six (6)foot high wood fencing will continue along the east and west property lines to the front corners of the residence. Section 36-516(e)(1)a.of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of six (6)feet for residential fences.Therefore,the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the eight (8)foot high fencing. Staff is supportive of the requested variance.Staff views the request as reasonable.The proposed fence height will be compatible with the area.Other similar fence heights have been constructed in this neighborhood. AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:1 CON'T. For the most part,the houses within this neighborhood were constructed with crawl spaces,with the finished floors,decks,etc.located several feet above grade. Given this situation,the proposed eight (8)foot fence height will provide additional privacy for this single family lot.Staff believes the requested fence height will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance,subject to a permit being obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(August 27,2012) 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 4 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. July 19,2012 ~I Mr.Monte Moore F'7/-Q Little Rock Dept.of Planning g2:Development City of Little Rock 723 W.Markham Street Little Rock,AR 722or Re:Jane gz Jay Rogers 5409 Hawthorne Little Rock,AR 72207 Dear Mr.Moore, Mr.gr Mrs.Jay Rogers are requesting one variance for a fence at our residence at 5409 Hawthorne. I am writing to request permission to put up a stockade fence which will be 8'all across the back of the property (5o')and on the west property line 8'all from the back of the property line for 7o'.Where the 8'ence ends,the fence will be 6'igh for another 45'. This takes the fence to the front edge of the house.On the east side of the property from the back property line for 9o'he fence will be 8'igh.Where the 8'ence ends for the next 25'he fence will be 6'igh which also takes the fence to the front edge of the house. This request is being made for several reasons.First,the neighbor to the east has an 8'encethatrunsapproximately2ofeetfromthebackofhispropertylinebetweenour homes.And,the neighbor to the west has a 6'ence which sits on top of a two foot wall. So,this in essence is an 8'ence too.Also,our neighbor to the back has a garage which sits on the property line and we would like to hide it as much as possible. We have visited with all three neighbors and they have no objection to this proposal. The neighbor to the west,Mr.Victor Jones,plans to upgrade his fence while we are installing our new fence.Mr.Mark Mallory owns the rent house to the east and he is has not objections and Mr.Doak Foster owns the home to the south and he also has no objections to the 8'ence. Please refer to the attached survey,which shows the proposed request.Should you have any questions,please contact me at 664-526'. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, &.MRc ps. J W.Rogers Jay W.Rogers AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:2 File No.:Z-8779-A 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 Section 36- 502 to allow a restaurant use 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: 1.At time of building permit,the driveway on Markham shall be closed. 2.At time of building permit,the driveway on Johnson Street shall be reconstructed to a maximum width of 26 feet. 3.Contact Mel Hall at 501-918-5217 for inspections of any work in the public right-of-way prior to placement of concrete or asphalt or for onsite clarification of requirements prior to commencing work. 4.At 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. 5.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.. D.~Staff 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. AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:2 CON'T 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 applicant 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. 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 37-507(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 17 percent of the overall parking requirement to be located entirely off-site. On June 25,2012 the Board of Adjustment approved variances for no on-site parking for the proposed restaurant use,with 72 percent of the overall parking requirement to be located off-site.The applicant had an agreement to use the Jett Service Station property (southwest corner of W.Markham and Johnson Streets) as off-site parking.The variances were approved 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. The applicant is now back before the Board of Adjustment to amend the previously approved variances to eliminate "condition f/3".The applicant does not have the off-site parking agreement with Jett's Service station any longer. 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. AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:2 CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(August 27,2012) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter on August 20,2012 requesting this application be withdrawn.Staff supported the withdrawal request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn with a vote of 4 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. wg~W z We are seeking approval to amend the conditions put on our approval for a parking variance in Case No.Z-8779.After our approval,which was conditioned on the parking agreement with Jett's Service Station,it was determined that basing an investment of this magnitude on a parking agreement without set terms would not be a good business decision.We decided to seek approval for the parking variance based on the available parking in the lot at Markham and Johnson that would convey with the property.If the entrance on Johnson is closed,we estimate 9 available parking spaces.This is a mixed use neighborhood and the original design was to blend commercial and residential.We have reached out and met with the neighborhood association at their July meeting and will be attending the August meeting to discuss with them further.We had several neighbors that came to us in support,which is why we decided to continue forward and seek the variance with existing parking. Trey Prewitt AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:3 File No.:Z-8797 Owner/Applicant:Betty J.Wineland Address:500 Bobwhite Drive Description:Lot 70,Cardinal Heights Addition Zoned:R-2 Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36- 516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property:Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property:Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A.Public Works Issues: No Comments B.~Btaff Anal ala: The R-2 zoned property at 500 Bobwhite Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence.The property is located at the north end of Bobwhite Drive,with the Christ Lutheran Church/School and Summerhill Apartment properties adjacent to the north.There is a two-car wide driveway from Bobwhite Drive at the southeast corner of the property. The applicant proposes to replace an existing six (6)foot high wood fence along a portion of the north side property line with an eight (8)foot high fence,as noted on the attached site plan.The proposed fence will be six (6)feet of solid wood,with two (2)feet of lattice on top.The proposed fence will run for approximately 69 feet -7 inches along the north property line,and turn to the north for approximately 18 feet -9 inches. Section 36-516(e)(1)a.of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of six (6)feet for residential fences,and four (4)feet for fences located between a building setback line and street property line.Therefore,the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed eight (8)foot high fence. AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:3 CON'T. Staff is supportive of the requested variance.Staff views the request as reasonable.The north property line where the fence is proposed abuts an 0-3 zoned property which is occupied by the Christ Lutheran Church/School development.If the church requested a permit for a fence on their side of this property line,an eight (8)foot high fence would be allowed.The athletic field for the church/school development is located adjacent to this single family lot.An eight (8)foot high fence will aid in screening/buffering this single family lot from the church/school development.Staff believes the proposed fence height will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C.Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance,subject to a permit being obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(August 27,2012) The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions. Staff noted that the recommendation of approval was for the fence as proposed or a solid eight (8)foot high wood fence,if desired by the applicant. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff with a vote of 4 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. June 29,2012 7.-8'7 7 ('z.7~ Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning &Development City of Little Rock 723 W.Markham St. Little Rock,Arkansas 72201 I am writing to ask for a waiver of the ordinance prohibiting fences running to the street and limiting privacy fence height to 6 feet.I am enclosing photos of my residence at 500 Bobwhite Drive and the existing fence. My property adjoins the Christ Lutheran Church &School to the north.The existing 6 ft,cedar fence running alongside my property to the street was put in place to provide partial protection from golf balls,soccer and footballs.As a favor to me and to provide further protection,the church/school agreed to leave existing trees and undergrowth in place to assist in blocking these balls from flying into my yard, sometimes at rather high speed.In fact one ball struck the side of my house,which is brick,hard enough to knock a framed print off the wall in my guest room,The south goal post of the church school's football field is 49 feet from my bedroom window. Many years ago,the church,two of my neighbors and I went together to add a section of fence that would block passage into the area behind the fence.This was done to end the accumulation of old tires and other refuse,beer cans,liquor bottles and syringes that had begun to accumulate in what had become a hiding spot.When the church added fencing a few years ago,their fence adjoined the existing fence to deter unauthorized passage onto the school grounds. In the 26 years I have lived at this address,my house has been burglarized 3 times,starting about 9 years ago.The second burglary occurred in October of 2009 and the third in January of 2011.I purchased a security system immediately following the first burglary in 2003 and upgraded the system in February 2011 for added protection.I submitted a claim to my insurer due to the value of the jewelry that was stolen in the 2009 burglary,plus the cost of replacing a nearly new Pella patio door.I decided against filing a claim for the 2011 burglary,even though the cost of repair and the value of the 2-month old flat-screen TV that was stolen exceeded $2,000.I was told there was a possibility that the underwriters would consider burglaries 15 months apart as being "back to back."This could result in my insurance being dropped or my being reclassified as living in a high-risk neighborhood.That classification would remain as long as I continued to live in my home. In the last burglary,the burglars climbed over the older section of fencing to get in and out of my backyard.As you can see by one of the photosthat isattached,they broke off a fence board in their zeal to retreat.I would like to replace the old six-foot tall fence with new 6-foot,wooden privacy fencing and add 2 feet of lattice atop that for a total of 8 feet.I think this would seriously impede unwelcome backyard visitors.The other photos are of the fencing running along the north side of my property to the street. This may be an unusual request,but given the fact that my immediate neighbor to the north is a football/soccer field,I'm sure the church will have no objection.There are only 4 houses on my street in addition to mine,and my neighbors are aware and supportive of my efforts to protect my property. I had my property surveyed in 2011 and am enclosing a copy of the survey.There is an error in that my home is listed as a single story frame rather than brick.I have not had an engineer or surveyor provide a detailed description of the fencing since it would be standard wooden privacy fencing,6 feet in height, with an additional two feet of lattice framed and installed to achieve 8 feet in height.It will replace existing wooden privacy fencing that has been in place 26 or more years. Please consider this a formal request. 500 Bobwhite Drive Little Rock,AR 72205 AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:4 File No.:Z-8798 Owner/Applicant:Sharon Gates Address:5400/5404 E.Roosevelt Road Description:Lots 20 and 21,Rose Meadows Addition Zoned:R-2 Variance Requested:Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 156 and the accessory building provisions of Section 36-2 to allow an accessory building with a reduced front setback and on a separate lot. 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 Residence and Detached Garage STAFF REPORT A.Public Works Issues: No Comments S.~fftaff Anal ata: The R-2 zoned property at 5400 E.Roosevelt Road is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence.A one-car wide drive from E.Roosevelt Road is located at the southeast corner of the lot.The lot at 5404 E.Roosevelt Road (adjacent lot to the east)is currently undeveloped.A one-car wide driveway is located at the southeast corner of this lot.A house which previously existed on the site was removed.The lots contain a 25 foot front platted building line. The applicant proposes to construct a one-story 24 foot by 32 foot detached garage on the vacant lot,as noted on the attached site plan.The garage will be located 30 feet back from the front (south)property line and 7.5 feet from the east side property line.The garage will be located approximately 26 feet form the house.A circular driveway is proposed to serve the accessory garage. Section 36-156(a)(2)c.of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 60 feet for accessory buildings in residential zones.Section 36-2 (definitions)requires that an accessory building be located on the same zoning lot as the principal building.Therefore,the applicant is requesting variances from AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:4 CON'T. these ordinance standards to allow the detached garage with a reduced front setback and on a separate lot from the principal structure. Staff is supportive of the requested variances.Staff views the request as reasonable.The proposed accessory garage structure will align with the other single family residences to the east and west along E.Roosevelt Road.The applicant is proposing to utilize part of the foundation where a residence was previously located.There are several vacant lots to the east and southeast.If construction of the accessory building is approved,the two (2)lots will be essentially tied together as a single zoning lot.Staff believes the proposed accessory building with reduced front setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C.Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance,subject to the garage structure being constructed to match the house. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(August 27,2012) 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 4 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. July 26,2012 2 -5'7Z'fI Sharon Cates 5400 East Roosevelt Road Little Rock,AR 72206 Ph:(501)490-0634 E-mail:sharoncates@sbcglobal.net Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock,AR 72201-1334 RE:Request for Variance This request is for a variance to build a detached garage/storage structure on the property located at 5404 East Roosevelt Road in Little Rock,AR 72206.This is a vacant lot located adjacent to our present residence of 5400 East Roosevelt.Both lots have been surveyed and approved. We would like to build this structure where a house was formally located before it was demolished and removed.By building in the location at this site which located 30 ft. from the sidewalk versus 60 ft.we would be able to maintain the integrity of the present backyard and cover the rubble left from the demolition of the house.Also during heavy rains,the water tends to rise within that 60 ft.thus putting the proposed structure at risk of partly flooding.By being located at the 30 ff.site,it would also better enable us to transport our totally handicapped 36 year old nephew in his wheel chair to the vehicle for doctors appointments. Sharon Cates AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:5 File No.:Z-8799 Owner:Iberia Bank Applicants:Keri Richardson,Condray Signs Address:1910 N.Grant Street Description:West side of N.Grant Street,between Kavanaugh Blvd.and aRS Street Zoned:C-3 Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-557 to allow a wall sign without street frontage. Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property:Office Proposed Use of Property:Office STAFF REPORT A.Public Works Issues: No Comments S.~Staff Anal ala: The C-3 zoned property at 1910 N.Grant Street is occupied by a two-story brick office building.Driveways from N.Grant Street at the northeast and southeast corners of the property serve as access.Paved parking is located on the west and south sides of the building. The applicant proposes to install a wall sign on the south fat;ade of the building,as noted on the attached sketches.The wall sign is approximately 60 square feet in area,and is proposed to be located between windows on the second floor fat;ade. The sign will identify "Williamson Insurance"which is located in this portion of the building. Section 36-557(a)of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that wall signs be located on building facades which face streets.Therefore,the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to locate the proposed sign on a non-street side of the building. AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:5 CON'T. Staff is supportive of the requested sing variance.Staff views the request as reasonable.The proposed wall sign will be on a side of the building which will aid in identifying the building to traffic coming from the south (Cantrell Road,N. University Avenue and N.Grant Street).The sign will also identify the tenant, "Williamson Insurance",which is located on the second floor of the building.Staff feels that the proposed sign is a reasonable alternative for signage on this property.The property contains no ground sign.A ground sigh with a maximum height of 36 feet could be located at the southeast corner of the property.Staff believes the proposed wall sign without direct street frontage will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area. C.Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance,subject to a permit being obtained for the new sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(August 27,2012) 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 4 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. Condray" '"'igns 1107 E.Harding Avenue Pine Bluff,Arkansas 71601 (870)534-5210 phone (870)534-5217 fax July 31,2012 City of Little Rock Board of Adjustments We are requesting a variance for this location because we were denied a sign permit due to this property not having any street frontage.This building has been subdivided with 2 tenants. My customer,Williamson Insurance,is located in an alley.We are asking that you grant us this variance,so our customer can advertise his business with signage,and to have some recognition for existing and future customers. Thank you, Keri Richardson keri condra si s.corn AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:6 File No.:Z-8800 Owner:Jimmy Duong Applicant:Bao Chan Address:5501 Asher Avenue Description:Southwest corner of Asher Avenue and Polk Street Zoned:C-3 Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36- 502 to allow a restaurant use with reduced parking. Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property:Vacant Commercial Building Proposed Use of Property:Restaurant STAFF REPORT A.Public Works Issues: 1.At time of building permit,the north driveway on Polk Street shall be closed. Curb and gutter shall be installed to replace driveway. 2.At time of building permit,contact Mel Hall at 501-918-5217 for inspections of any work in the public right-of-way prior to placement of concrete or asphalt or for on-site clarification of requirements prior to commencing work. 3.At 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. B.Landsca e and Bufferlssues: Site plan must comply with the city's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. If the rehabilitation of the existing structures exceeds the fifty percent (50%)of the replacement cost of the building then the landscaping must be brought into compliance accordingly. The landscape ordinance will require a nine foot (9')wide landscape strip around the sites entirety;if the building rehab meets the fifty percent threshold. AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:6 CON'T. Additional green space and trees are highly recommended by the City of Little Rock and the City Beautiful Commission. C.~fftaff Anal ata: The C-3 zoned property at 5501 Asher Avenue is occupied by a one-story commercial building.The property is located at the southwest corner of Asher Avenue and Polk Street.Access drives from Asher Avenue and Polk Street serve the property.Paved parking is located on the north,south and east sides of the building.The paved parking area contains 36 striped spaces,with six (6)of the spaces being double stacked spaces at the southwest corner of the building. The applicant proposes to use the existing 3,960 space foot commercial building as a restaurant.A restaurant use previously occupied the building.At that time the paved parking lot to the west was used as off-site parking.That parking agreement no longer exists. Section 36-502(b)(3)c.of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires 39 on-site parking spaces for the proposed restaurant use.Therefore,the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the restaurant use with 36 on-site parking spaces. Staff is supportive of the requested parking variance.Staff views the request as reasonable.The applicant is providing 36 parking spaces for the proposed restaurant use.This represents 92 percent of the parking requirement.The double-stacked spaces at the southwest corner of the property can be used for employee parking.The property has a history of restaurant use.Additionally, there are nearby options for off-site parking if the need arises.Staff believes the proposed restaurant use at this location with slightly reduced parking will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area. D.Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance,subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1.Compliance with the Public Works comments as noted in paragraph A.of the staff report. 2.Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer comments as noted in paragraph B.of the staff report. 3.The property must be used as an "eating place,inside",with no drive-thru window and no outdoor dining. AUGUST 27,2012 ITEM NO.:6 CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(August 27,2012) 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 4 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. Letter te LiMe Rock City Roard g-g geo To Whom It May concern, My name is Bao Chan,reside in Little Rock,~I'e been a chef for the last 18 years.I recently found a perfect place to open my restaurant{A vietnamese and chinese cuisine)at 5501 asher ave,formerly "The Union Restaurant and Lounge"The only problem is they don't have enough parking space according to the city requirement,we occupy 4000 sq II cunently have 35 included 1 handicap space,but we count on majority foot trafnc customer Irom UALR and UALR student Apartment which is I block away, hopefully we can have the city board to reduce the required parking to our current available parking space for restaunmt operation Sincerely Yours, C''~~ Bao Chan EEIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIEIIII llllllllllll Ilmllllllll IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII: IIIIIIININ IIIIIIIIIIII . IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII Emlijlllllll IIIIIIIIIIII Ii1IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII Illllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII III'.IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII)i1lllllll IIIIIIII EIIEILlllllll IIIIIIIIIIII ~III S~~ ~5I~ I ~~III~ ~~ I I ~ August 27,2012 There being no further business before the Board,the meeting was adjourned at 2:04 p.m. Date:8 tCha'ecreta