boa_06 29 2009LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
JUNE 29, 2009
2:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being four (4) in number.
Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The Minutes of the May 18, 2009 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: Robert Winchester, Vice Chairman
Leslie Greenwood
Scott Smith
James Van Dover
Members Absent: David Wilbourn, Chairman
City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
JUNE 29, 2009
2:00 P.M.
OLD BUSINESS:
No Old Business
NEW BUSINESS:
1.
Z -4435-B
13215 Interstate 30
2.
Z-8464
#1 Treasure Hill Road
3.
Z-8465
5516 Southwood Road
4.
Z-8466
11604 Birchwood Drive
5.
Z-8467
17 Windborough Court
6.
Z-8468
325 W. Capitol Avenue
7.
Z -8468-A
325 W. Capitol Avenue
8.
Z-8469
2324 S. Chester Street
z
-
3NId
a3¢va3
CIO
nntlelHl
Q
T
rn
OJ
y
r
+
U_
OONo
J
Nvw839
N
AVMatloae
HOaV
631S '
NOlNO
V 00
a3H380 '-
c c
MGaOGOrd c
3NId !3
`v 3NId
HJyy
n
aV03J NOI U'WV 110J5
w
a s S�Myd
Na'Vd altl3
N "
yrJ
AlIS63AINn
�.
Al Ica3NNn
W o
SONIadS 83430
S3HOnH
C
IddISS!_�Iw
k
a 6
leJlHa
,�`�
alOna353a
MOaaVa NHOf
3 V
VQ
rl
� 3NN13H
a Oau 3l`JVHS
0a0e3lNJVHS c
o
_ SIOavc
cD o" VNatld A3NOOa
SZS
NV W 05
—
z —
x
ho
t
r
11WI1
�
�b W W 3001a AWN
rJ3'0dlS
c
r
-
Q
-
o
cY s
r
�
Nvnnlns
latlM315
�d'bp
SiIW'Il A113 ate
hvF
,kQ
70
��PJCiP
3
r
ltlpAn✓ 11VON833
O
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: Z -4435-B
Owner: Quality Outdoor Products, Inc.
Applicants: Jerry Holt
Address: 13215 Interstate 30
Description: South side of 1-30, east of Alexander Road
Zoned: C-4
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the paving provisions of Section
36-508 to allow a gravel parking lot.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Metal Carport Sales and Display
Proposed Use of Property: Metal Carport Sales and Display
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Provide existing topographic information at maximum five-foot contour
interval. Show the limits of the 100 -year floodway and floodplain on the
survey. The proposed building appears to be located in the 100 year
floodplain.
2. The minimum Finish Floor elevation of one (1) foot above the base flood
elevation is required to be shown on plat and grading plans.
3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c ) & (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other
than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be
submitted and approved prior to the start of construction.
4. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Sec. 8-283 prior to construction.
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.)
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
The landscaping shown on the previously approved landscape plan for the front
paved portion of the site must be installed and in good horticultural condition or
replaced prior to the issuance of a building permit.
A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or evergreen plantings, is required along the southern
perimeter of the site.
An automatic irrigation system is required.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees
as feasible on this tree -covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch
caliper or larger.
C. Staff Analysis:
The C-4 zoned property at 13215 Interstate 30 is occupied by a one-story
modular office building located near the center of the site, as noted on the
attached site plan. There is a driveway from 1-30 which serves as access to the
property. The front (north) half of the property is paved, with a portion of the
area being used for display of metal carport/garage structures and sheet metal
storage. There is paved parking for approximately 26 vehicles, including under
some of the displayed carport structures. The rear half of the property is gravel
covered. This area is used for the unloading/loading of large trucks, as well as
display of carport structures and storage of materials.
The applicant proposes to construct a 40 foot by 100 foot building at the
southeast corner of the property. The building will be located at lest 15 feet
from the east side property line and 25 feet from the rear (south) property line.
The applicant notes that the building will be used to house a machine to roll -
form roofing for the metal structures. The proposed building will conform with
the ordinance setback requirements.
With the new building construction, the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that
the rear portion of the property be paved where subject to vehicular traffic as
per Section 36-508. The applicant is requesting a variance to maintain the
existing gravel vehicular use area. The applicant notes that the gravel area will
be used as an area to unload trucks with a forklift. The trucks will contain metal
coils which weigh up to five (5) tons each.
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.)
Staff is supportive of the requested paving variance for the rear (south) portion
of this property. Staff feels the maintenance of the gravel area is appropriate in
this situation. The forklift and large truck maneuvering within this area, as well
as the unloading of very heavy materials, would likely tear up an asphalt area
rather quickly. It is very common to find unpaved vehicular use areas for larger
vehicles in heavy commercial and industrial zonings in the City. Examples of
gravel vehicular use areas can be found along Interstate 30 as well as the
City's port industrial area. Staff believes the continued use of the gravel
vehicular use area is reasonable and should have no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties or the general area. As noted earlier, the front portion of
the property where customers and employees will park is paved and
landscaped. The rear gravel area of this property is not visible from 1-30.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested paving variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A.
of the staff report.
2. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in
paragraph B. of the staff report.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 29, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in the "staff recommendation" above. There was no further discussion. The
item was placed on the consent agenda and approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
May 21, 2009
Dear Sir or Madam:
13215 1-30 Little Rock, AR 72—
The reason for my request for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance is as follows.
My location is at 13215 1-30 in Little Rock we sale metal carports and garages. I am attempting to have
a second building (40'x100') built on the back of my property for the purpose of installing a machine to
roll form our own roofing. Under the Zoning Ordinance I would be required to asphalt the back of the lot.
The reason I am requesting the variance is that the back of the property would not be open to the
public and is blocked from view from the front by a privacy fence. The back of the property is currently a
gravel lot used for parking and storage. A gravel lot would be more suitable for the purpose of
unloading the metal coils that are up to 10,000 lbs. I truly believe that an asphalt lot would not hold up to
the weight of the trucks or coils being unloaded by a forklift.
Sincerely,
J Holt
President
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.: Z-8464
Owner: Cecelia Renee Crater
Applicants: Reginald Wright
Address: #1 Treasure Hill Road
Description: Southeast corner of Treasure Hill Road and Rodney Parham Road
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
301 to allow a building addition with reduced rear setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Physical Therapy Office
Proposed Use of Property: Physical Therapy Office
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
The proposed addition will require a thirty-two percent (32%) upgrade towards
the landscape ordinance. It appears a few of the parking spaces aren't meeting
the minimal zoning dimensions for a parking spot and thus this might be an
optimal location for newly landscaped areas.
Any new landscaping located within the public right-of-way will require a
franchise agreement with the City of Little Rock prior to the installation.
C. Staff AnalVsis:
The C-3 zoned property at #1 Treasure Hill Road is occupied by a one-story
brick and frame commercial building. The property is located at the southeast
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
corner of Treasure Hill Road and Rodney Parham Road. There are driveways
from Treasure hill Road which access paved parking on the north, east and
south sides of the building. There is also access from the adjacent commercial
parking lots to the east and south.
The applicant proposes to construct an 18 foot by 33.1 foot building addition on
the rear (south) of the existing commercial building, as noted on the attached
site plan. The proposed addition will be located 24 feet and 28.9 feet from the
west and east side property lines respectively, with a rear (south) setback of
eight (8) feet. Three (3) paved parking spaces will be removed with the
proposed addition. This will leave 18 paved parking spaces on the site. The
applicant notes that additional building area is needed for more exercise and
storage space for the existing physical therapy clinic.
Section 36-301(e)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear
yard setback of 25 feet for this C-3 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow the proposed building addition with a rear
setback of eight (8) feet.
There will be 17 paved parking spaces on the site after the proposed addition.
The ordinance requires a minimum of six (6) spaces for this office use. Retail
use of the building would require eight (8) spaces. With the required upgrade in
landscaping, the applicant may have to eliminate a couple of spaces for
additional landscaped areas.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the reduced rear
setback as reasonable, given the small size of the commercial lot. The lot is
approximately 10,800 square feet in area which is under the typical C-3
minimum lot size of 14, 000 square feet. Additionally, the requested eight (8)
foot rear yard setback backs up to a rather wide shared access area between
this commercial building and the commercial strip center to the south. Based
on the facts that there will be more than ample parking on the site to support
the buildings use and there are no building separation issues, staff believes the
proposed building addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent
properties or general area.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in
paragraph B. of the staff report.
2. The building addition must be constructed to match the existing building.
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 29, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in the "staff recommendation" above. There was no further discussion. The
item was placed on the consent agenda and approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
inw
May 22, 2009
To: City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
From: Renee' Crater
1 Treasure Hill Road
Little Rock, AR 72205
Dear Department of Planning:
I am seeking a setback variance for the property located at 1 Treasure Hill Road
in Little Rock. I'm applying for this variance because of the lack of space for the
rear yard setback that I will am required to maintain. It is my intent to expand my
exercise room allowing for more space and storage of equipment. The required
space that is needed puts the building over the setback requirements. I would
greatly appreciate your consideration of my request as I need more space to be
able to serve my clients with the greatest care. Should you have any questions
concerning this proposal I may be contacted at: 501.944.1410
Sincerely,
Renee' Crater
Treasure Hill Road - Little A, 72205 501.293.8996 • Fax 501.22,3.8998
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.: Z-8465
Owner/Applicant: R. David Scruggs
Address: 5516 Southwood Road
Description: Lot 197, Prospect Terrace No. 3 Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-
516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5516 Southwood Road is occupied by a two-story
stucco single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from
Southwood Road which serves as access. A large pool/rock deck structure is
located within the south half of the rear yard area. The rear yard area slopes
downward from side to side (north to south). There is approximately 15 feet of
drop from the north side property line to the south side property line.
The applicant is proposing to construct six (6) and eight (8) foot high wood
fencing around the rear yard/pool area, as noted on the attached site plan. An
eight (8) foot tall wood fence is proposed along the south and west sides of the
pool area and rear (west) property line. Six (6) foot high fencing with a gate is
proposed at the end of the driveway, creating an entrance to the rear yard/pool
area. The applicant notes that the eight (8) foot fence height is needed to
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 3 (Con't.)
provide privacy between this property and the property immediately south, and
to provide safety for the pool area by restricting access to the pool area by
children in the neighborhood.
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 along interior lot lines. Therefore,
the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the fence with an eight (8) foot
height.
Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff's support is
based on the issues of screening and safety as raised by the applicant. With
the slope of the property, the rear yard of the lot immediately south is several
feet below the grade of the pool area. However, the rear deck and windows of
the adjacent house are at approximately the same level as the pool area. A six
(6) foot fence would provide very little privacy between the two (2) properties.
Additionally, the taller fence will aid in creating a safe environment for the pool
area. It will make the pool area less visible to the surrounding properties and
help keep children from entering the property without permission. The
requested eight (8) foot fence height will not be out of character with other taller
fences in this neighborhood. Staff believes the proposed fence will have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the area. The property owner
immediately to the south at 5520 Southwood Road has submitted a letter of
support for the fence variance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 29, 2009)
The applicant was present. There was one objector present. Staff presented the item
and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in the "staff recommendation" above. Vice -chair Winchester asked the
objector to speak.
Claudia Stallings, of 5523 Sherwood Road, stated she wanted the property pins to
be in place prior to the fence being built. She stated she did not want gates in the
rear fence whereby people might cross her property to enter the applicant's property.
The applicant responded that he was not placing the fence on the property line at
one point and he had additional property which would be outside of the fenced area.
He stated he needed a gate in that area to maintain his property.
A motion was made to defer the item. The motion failed to receive a second.
The applicant stated he would string a line along the property line.
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 3 (Con't.)
Scott Smith asked Ms. Stallings if she would object to the requested fence height if
the property lines were correctly marked. She stated she did not object to the fence
height .
During the ensuing discussion, the Board determined that there was an apparent
property line dispute. Scott Smith asked staff if the issue before the Board was only
the fence height variance. Staff responded that he was correct.
A motion was made to approve the fence height variance, subject to compliance with
all staff conditions. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1
absent.
Ellen and David Scruggs
5516 Southwood Road = ��
Little Rock, AR 72205
May 22, 2009
To Whom It May Concern,
We purchased our home on 5516 Southwood Road in 2001 and proceeded to to make an extensive remodel to the home,
built in 1924. To complete the home, we added a pool along with major improvement to the landscaping of the backyard.
Our house sits at the sloop of the hill of our street and because of that our yard sits above that of our neighbors.
We are requesting a T variance for a fence to be built surrounding our backyard for a couple of reasons, the proximity of
the pool to that of our neighbors back decking and windows, would benefit our neighbors for their privacy and as well as
ours and we are in a neighborhood with lots of children and with having a pool comes a concern for safety.
Having taken great care and pride in our home and feel that the improvements that we made have only enhanced the
neighborhood, we would appreciate your understanding in this matter and consider the request.
Sincerely,
lit,
David Scruggs
Scott & Amy Curran :Z
5520 Southwood Road
"vj
Little Rock, AR 72205 —2 _ GI
501-614-7644
May 18, 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
We are neighbors of David and Ellen Scruggs. Our home is immediately to the South of theirs. We
understand that they are seeking approval for an 8' fence. We fully support their efforts to build this
fence. We have no objection to the fence being 8' in height and, in fact, recognize that the unique
topography of the neighborhood warrants consideration of a deviation from the norm of a maximum 6'
fence. We hope that you will give their request, and our support, due consideration in the approval
process.
We are happy to provide any further support that the Scruggs may need in connection with this matter.
Accordingly, please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or require any additional
information.
Sincerely,
t
Scott Curran
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z-8466
Owner/Applicant: Tiffany Lyons
Address: 11604 Birchwood Drive
Description: Lot 88, Birchwood Addition, Plat #2
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 to allow a deck with a reduced side setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 11604 Birchwood Drive is occupied by a two-story
brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from
Birchwood Drive which serves as access. The property is located on the north
side of Birchwood Drive, between Fleetwood and Ashwood Drives. A large in -
ground pool area is located in the rear yard of the residential lot.
The applicant recently began construction of a 16 foot by 16 foot wood deck
structure on the east side of the residence, at the southeast corner of the
house. The deck structure is approximately 18 inches above grade, with a
setback from the east side property line of approximately one (1) foot. The
south and east sides of the deck are enclosed with six (6) foot wood fence
pickets. A new section of six (6) foot wood fencing will lead from the northeast
corner of the deck to the existing wood fence along the east side property line.
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 4 (Con't.)
The deck structure will be underpinned with wood lattice. The entire deck
structure will be stained to match the brick on the residence. A window on the
east wall of the house will be converted to a door for access to the deck
structure. The deck structure will be uncovered.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
setback of seven (7) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement to allow the deck
addition with a reduced side (east) setback.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff's support is based primarily
on the fact that the deck is only approximately 18 inches above grade. If the
deck were less than 12 inches above grade, there would be no variances
required. Although staff typically does not support side setbacks of less than
1.5 feet with certain circumstances, staff believes it is reasonable in this case,
as a six (6) foot high fence could be located on the side property line with a
deck or patio less than one (1) foot above grade. The applicant is requesting
the deck area as a play area for her dog and infant child, away from the pool
area in the rear yard. Staff believes the requested area reduced side setback
for the deck addition is reasonable and should have no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties or general area. The applicant has informed staff that the
property owner immediately to the east has no problem with the deck addition.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The deck must remain uncovered.
2. The deck must be underpinned with lattice.
3. The deck must be stained to match the brick on the existing house.
4. A building permit must be obtained for the deck construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 29, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in the "staff recommendation" above. There was no further discussion. The
item was placed on the consent agenda and approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
Proposed Privacy Fence & Floor
Tiffany Lyons
ons
1604 Birchwood Dr.
Little Rock, AR. 72211
Phone (501) 744-0406
Date: May 15, 2009
To Whom It May Concern -
The proposed project is a 16 foot x 33 foot privacy fence with a 16 foot X 16 foot outdoor
wooden floor (low level deck).
This enclosure will be used to contain Sierra's-(Tiffany's--9-yea-f- old daughter) Jack Russell dog
(Max).
It is proposed in a dog training manual that a fence to contain a Jack Russell be 8 foot high.
The enclosed area will be made up of 50% grassed area and 50% wooden outdoor floor to be
used as a secure play area for the child and dog.
I also have a 1 year old who will soon be in need of a secure play area. The pool in the back
yard does not facilitate a safe play area for children and nor does the unfenced front yard
facing Birchwood Dr.
This project has been started but is now suspended as we were not aware of the need for a
permit for this type of structure.
It should be noted that the adjacent neighbor has agreed to the construction of this fence and
likes the additional privacy granted to them.
Description of Project:
East/West Fence: This new fence runs from the eastern side of the house, parallel to
Birchwood Dr for a distance of 16 feet and stops approximately 1 foot before the
property line.
® North/South Fence: This new fence parallels the property line for a distance of 33 feet
and ties into an existing east/west fence and small shed. From the end of the new east/
west fence, this section maintains the approximate 1 foot buffer from the property line.
Ground Conditions- The ground slopes downwards at a constant small grade from the
eastern side of the house towards the neighbors.
® Floor/Deck: This will be 16 feet X 16 feet, starting at grade at the house rising to
approximately 18 inches above ground level on the eastern edge of the project.
® The north side of the outdoor floor will have a hand rail for added security.
o Access: This will be through a door on the side of the house directly into the closed
area. The existing gate to the pool area will remain locked.
® The grassed area will have concrete paving stones paced flat along the inside edge of
the fence to avoid Max digging under the fence and escaping.
I thank you for your consideration and trust that this project will be approved.
Regards,.,II,'?
Tiffany Lyons.
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.: Z-8467
Owner/Applicant: Joseph R. Kern
Address: 17 Windborough Court
Description: Lot 18, Burnttree Addition, Phase I
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the building line provisions of
Section 31-12 to allow a residence 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
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 17 Windborough Court is occupied by a one-story
masonry and stucco single family residence which was constructed several
years ago. The property is located at the end of Windborough Court, a cul-de-
sac street. There is a two -car wide driveway from Windborough court at the
northwest corner of the property, leading to a two -car wide garage at the
northwest corner of the house. The property slopes downward from front to
back (west to east). Because of the excessive slope, the lot was platted with a
15 foot front platted building line.
When the house was constructed, a small portion of the northwest corner of the
house encroached across the 15 foot front platted building line, as noted on the
attached sketch. The area of encroachment is approximately 15 square feet in
area, extending across the front platted building line by approximately 4.5 feet.
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 5 (Con't.)
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 a variance from the ordinance standard
to allow the front corner of the residence to cross the front platted building line.
Staff is supportive of the requested building line variance. Staff views the
request as very minor. With the excessive slope of the property, the residence
was pulled forward on the lot as much as possible. However, the contractor at
that time did not compensate for the curvature of the front platted building line
near the northwest corner of the lot. This resulted in approximately 15 square
feet of the overall structure (over 3,400 square foot building foot print)
encroaching across the front platted building line by approximately 4.5 feet.
There was ample side yard area from the south side property line for the
residence to be shifted approximately six (6) feet to the south and avoid the
building line encroachment. Therefore, it appears obvious that a mistake was
made when the structure's foundation was laid out on the lot. Staff feels the
encroachment being located on a lot at the end of a cul-de-sac street, within the
curvature of the cul-de-sac, has no negative visual impact on the adjacent lots
or other lots along the roadway.
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's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line variance, 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 29, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in the "staff recommendation" above. There was no further discussion. The
item was placed on the consent agenda and approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
The Board of Adjustment May 81" 2009
Department of Planning and Development,
723, West Markham,
Little Rock
Arkansas
Dear Distinguished Members of the Board of Adjustment,
I hereby request your kind attention to my appeal for a variance from the Zoning
Ordinance with regard to my property located at 17 Windborough Court, Little Rock AR
72212 situated on Lot # 18 of the Burrittree, Phase 1 which is an addition to the City of
Little Rock. The issue at hand is that a small section of the Northwest part of the garage
goes over the building line which curves at this point. I understand that this is a common
problem with properties located on a cul-de-sac where the center point of the road is
measured differently. I would like to get this anomaly in the unusual lot configuration
resolved by your granting a variance.
Thank you for your consideration.
Joseph R Kern
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.: Z-8468
Owner: Bank of the Ozarks and Mainstream Technologies
Applicant: Jasper S. Barton, Jr./ Cuerden Sign Co.
Address: 325 W. Capitol Avenue
Description: Southeast corner of W. Capitol Avenue and S. Spring Street
Zoned: UU
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-
342.1 to allow a ground- mounted sign.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Bank and Offices
Proposed Use of Property: Bank and Offices
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (Bennie Nicolo, 371-4818)
for the private improvements located in the right-of-way.
B. Staff Analysis:
The UU zoned property at 325 W. Capitol Avenue contains a three-story office
building which previously housed the Federal Reserve Bank facilities. The
property is located at the southeast corner of W. Capitol Avenue and S. Spring
Street. There is a paved parking lot on the south side of the building. A paved
alley is located along the building's east side. Driveways from S. Spring Street
and the alley access the parking lot.
The building is currently being remodeled for a new property owner, Bank of the
Ozarks. As part of the remodeling project, a new canopy structure will be
constructed over the building entry at the northeast corner of the building, along
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 6 (Con't.)
W. Capitol Avenue. The canopy will be approximately 12 feet by 41 feet in
area, with a height of approximately 16 feet.
The applicant is proposing a new ground -mounted sign at the west end of the
canopy structure. The sign will be approximately 18.5 feet in height, with an
area of approximately 127.5 square feet. The sign will be located in an area
between the building and the W. Capitol Avenue right-of-way. The sign
structure will be constructed from the same type of stone/granite as the
building. The letters and logo will be fabricated from polished stainless steel.
The sign will be flood light illuminated from the ground.
Section 36-342.1(c)(11) of the City's Zoning Ordinance (UU District Standards)
states that ground signs may only be allowed in the UU district as a variance
approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the ground -mounted sign.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff believes the request is
reasonable, as the sign will be relatively small in scale as compared to the
overall building area. Although the applicant has attempted to make the sign
part of the canopy structure, staff views the sign as a ground -mounted sign. It
will have the appearance of being a wing wall of the canopy structure. The
bank building is set back from the north and west street side property lines, with
ample area for the sign structure. The ground -mounted sign will be more
pedestrian oriented in scale as compared to a possible larger sign placed on
the wall of the building. Staff believes the proposed ground -mounted sign will
have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a ground -
mounted sign in the UU zoning district, subject to the following conditions:
1. The sign must not exceed the height and area dimensions as noted in the
staff report.
2. A sign permit must be obtained for the sign.
3. The sign must be set back at least five (5) feet from the north property
line.
4. There are to be no other ground -mounted signs located on the property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(J U N E 29, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in the "staff recommendation" above. There was no further discussion. The
item was placed on the consent agenda and approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
May 22, 2009
Dana Carney
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
1107 West Markham
Little Rock AR
RE: Bank of the Ozarks, 325 Capital Little Rock AR- Ground Mounted Sign Interpretation/Variance
Request
Dear Mr. Carney,
Iof2
Bank of the Ozarks, requests a sign variance to allow for the installation of a monument sign to be
located on the North side of their property at 325 Capital. This structure was originally the Federal
Reserve Bank building, and has been acquired by Bank of the Ozarks, and Mainstream Technologies.
Attached please find a site plan showing the proposed sign, and its location, as well as details of the
building elevation. The property is zoned UU, which does not allow for ground mounted signs. I
believe this is due to the fact that most buildings in this zone are built on the property line, and it would
not be practical to allow freestanding signs located in the street right of ways. As I mentioned, this
building was constructed by the Federal Government, and therefore was exempt from city and state
regulations. This building sets back from the property lines about 20', because of this set back, the
building is concealed from traffic driving on Capital Avenue by the neighboring buildings which are
constructed on the property lines. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Board of Adjustment
grant us a variance to be allowed to install a permanent ground mounted monument type sign as noted
on the attached documents. This sign is to be fabricated from polished stainless steel, and will be flood
light illuminated from the ground. The actual structure is to be fabricated from the same type of stone
as the building, with the Bank of the Ozarks Logo and letters reading "Bank of the Ozarks" as per the
attached artwork.
As you know, the building owners are making a substantial investment to help revitalize the downtown
community, and we have reduced the sizes of all of the permitted signs to conform to a professional
image of one of Arkansas's most distinguished financial institutions. We do however find it necessary
to be visible to our customers, and without a monument sign located in the front yard our customers
will not have adequate time to safely signal and turn on to Spring street. The Federal Reserve Bank
originally had a ground mounted sign on the property, and the owners did not realize a ground mounted
sign was not allowed, until they had already acquired the building.
Serving Arkansas Since 1920
AGaoa A,,--Tisi G Log's A L7 -r s...
May 22, 2009
Bank of the Ozarks has made a deliberate effort to enhance the original appearance of the building.
This monument sign will be fabricated from the same type of stone as used on the lower portion of the
building and will be a very attractive sign and will compliment the building design.
One final note, that may make this variance request unnecessary; this monument is a structurally
component and is actually attached to the canopy, and therefore the building, so, is this a wall sign? If
you feel it is a wall sign, then the variance request would be unnecessary.
However, the Bank does request an interpretation of your roof sign classification, the letters mounted
on the canopy, which is a structural component of the building do not extend above the building roof
line, the are only mounted on top of the glass canopy. I am sure you would agree that they do not
extend beyond the facade of the building, and in no way do they protrude above the building lisle as
does a number of much larger roof signs within the city. Therefore, I respectfully request an
interpretation of roof sign determination from the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Further, if we receive a
favorable interpretation, we will only be putting the logo diamond on the wall sign, and not put letters
on it, only on the canopy.
Serving Arkansas Since 1920
A o v T is,,N 00.EH Nr7-r Cr7s .. I 'r jpA yam°!
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.: Z -8468-A
Owner: Bank of the Ozarks and Mainstream Technologies
Applicant: Jasper S. Burton, Jr./ Cuerden Sign Co.
Address: 325 W. Capitol Avenue
Description: Southeast corner of W. Capitol Avenue and S. Spring Street
Zoned: UU
Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested, appealing staff's
determination that a proposed sign is a roof sign.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Bank and Offices
Proposed Use of Property: Bank and Offices
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (Bennie Nicolo, 371-4818)
for the private improvements located in the right-of-way.
B. Staff Analysis:
The UU zoned property at 325 W. Capitol Avenue contains a three-story office
building which previously housed the Federal Reserve Bank facilities. The
property is located at the southeast corner of W. Capitol Avenue and S. Spring
Street. There is a paved parking lot on the south side of the building. A paved
alley is located along the building's east side. Driveways from S. Spring Street
and the alley access the parking lot.
The building is currently being remodeled for a new property owner, Bank of the
Ozarks. As part of the remodeling project, a new canopy structure will be
constructed over the building entry at the northeast corner of the building, along
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 7 (Con't.)
W. Capitol Avenue. The canopy will be approximately 12 feet by 41 feet in
area, with a height of approximately 16 feet.
As a component of the canopy construction, the applicant proposes to place a
sign on top of the canopy roof (front edge), as noted on the attached sketch.
The sign will be constructed of free standing individual letters of brushed
aluminum. The letters will be 21 inches in height and attached to a base plate
which will be one (1) foot above the roof line of the canopy. When staff
reviewed the proposed sign, staff determined that the sign should be classified
as a roof sign, and thus a prohibited sign type as per Section 36-543(7) of the
City's Zoning Ordinance. Following is the ordinance language as found in
Section 36-543 (prohibited signs) and Section 36-530 (sign definitions):
Sec. 36-543. Prohibited signs and sales promotion devices.
"The following type signs are prohibited in all districts unless
otherwise noted:
(1) Abandoned signs.
(2) Banners, pennants, festoons, searchlights, except as allowed
in section 36-557, sub -section (d).
(3) Signs imitating or resembling official traffic or
government signs or signals.
(4) Snipe signs or signs attached to trees, telephone poles,
fences, public benches , or placed on public property or public
right-of-way.
(5) Vehicular signs.
(6) Trailer or temporary signs that do not meet the standards for
freestanding permanent signs.
(7) Roof signs, or any sign that is not mounted on a vertical surface.
(8) Rotating signs.
(9) Off -premises signs except as specifically permitted elsewhere
in this article."
Section 36-530 Definitions
"Roof sign means any sign erected over or on the roof of a building."
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 7 (Con't.)
The applicant is appealing staff's determination that the proposed sign on top of
the canopy is a roof sign. The applicant notes the following in the attached
letter:
"However the Bank does request an interpretation of your roof sign
classification, the letters mounted on the canopy, which is a structural
component of the building do not extend above the building roof line, they are
only mounted on top of the glass canopy. I am sure you would agree that they
do not extend beyond the fapade of the building, and in no way do they
protrude above the building line as does a number of much larger roof signs
within the city. Therefore, I respectfully request an interpretation of roof sign
determination from the Board of Zoning Adjustment."
Section 36-342.1(c )(11) of the City's Zoning Ordinance does allow wall signs in
the UU district as per Section 36-553 of the Code. Buildings are allowed to
have a wall sign(s) on street facing building facades. Up to 10 percent of the
street facing fagade area can be used for a wall sign(s). The definition of a wall
sign as per Section 36-530 is as follows:
Section 36-530 Definitions
"Wall sign means a sign attached parrallel to and extending not more than
eighteen (18) inches from the wall of a building. "Wall sign" includes
painted, individual letter and cabinet signs and signs on a mansard."
The Board of Adjustment is being asked to determine if the sign as proposed by
the applicant is a roof sign as defined and prohibited by ordinance, or a sign
which should be permitted.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 29, 2009)
The applicant was present. Prior to staff presenting the item, the applicant stated he
wished to withdraw the appeal. A motion was made to accept the withdrawal
request. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
May 22, 2009
Dana Carney
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
1107 West Markham
Little Rock AR
RE: Bank of the Ozarks, 325 Capital Little Rock AR- Ground Mounted Sign Interpretation/Variance
Request
Dear Mr. Carney,
lof 2
Bank of the Ozarks, requests a sign variance to allow for the installation of a monument sign to be
located on the North side of their property at 325 Capital. This structure was originally the Federal
Reserve Bank building, and has been acquired by Bank of the Ozarks, and Mainstream Technologies.
Attached please find a site plan showing the proposed sign, and its location, as well as details of the
building elevation. The property is zoned W, which does not allow for ground mounted signs. I
believe this is due to the fact that most buildings in this zone are built on the property line, and it would
not be practical to allow freestanding signs located in the street right of ways. As I mentioned, this
building was constructed by the Federal Government, and therefore was exempt from city and state
regulations. This building sets back from the property lines about 20', because of this set back, the
building is concealed from traffic driving on Capital Avenue by the neighboring buildings which are
constructed on the property lines. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Board of Adjustment
grant us a variance to be allowed to install a permanent ground mounted monument type sign as noted
on the attached documents. This sign is to be fabricated from polished stainless steel, and will be flood
light illuminated from the ground. The actual structure is to be fabricated from the same type of stone
as the building, with the Bank of the Ozarks Logo and letters reading `Bank of the Ozarks" as per the
attached artwork.
As you know, the building owners are malting a substantial investment to help revitalize the downtown
community, and we have reduced the sizes of all of the permitted signs to conform to a professional
image of one of Arkansas's most distinguished financial institutions. We do however find it necessary
to be visible to our customers, and without a monument sign located in the front yard our customers
will not have adequate time to safely signal and turn on to Spring street. The Federal Reserve Bank
originally had a ground mounted sign on the property, and the owners did not realize a ground mounted
sign was not allowed, until they had already acquired the building.
Serving Arkansas Since 1920
Good A dverti ing Does Not Cost... Pays
May 22, 2009
Bank of the Ozarks has made a deliberate effort to enhance the original appearance of the building.
This monument sign will be fabricated from the same type of stone as used on the lower portion of the
building and will be a very attractive sign and will compliment the building design.
One final note, that may make this variance request unnecessary; this monument is a structurally
component and is actually attached to the canopy, and therefore the building, so, is this a wall sign? If
you feel it is a wall sign, then the variance request would be unnecessary.
However, the Bank does request an interpretation of your roof sign classification, the letters mounted
on the canopy, which is a structural component of the building do not extend above the building roof
line, the are only mounted on top of the glass canopy. I am sure you would agree that they do not
extend beyond the facade of the building, and in no way do they protrude above the building line as
does a number of much larger roof signs within the city. Therefore, I respectfully request an
interpretation of roof sign determination from the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Further, if we receive a
favorable interpretation, we will only be putting the logo diamond on the wall sign, and not put letters
on it, only on the canopy.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jasper S. (Jap) Burton Jr.,
President
Serving Arkansas Since 1920
Good Advertising Does Not COSEL.. It P !
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 8
File No.: Z-8469
Owner/Applicant: Richard Siller
Address: 2324 S. Chester Street
Description: Lot 7, Block 8, Walt Worthen's Addition
Zoned: R-4
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-
516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-4 zoned property at 2324 S. Chester Street is occupied by a two-story
frame single family residence. The property is located at the northwest corner
of S. Chester Street and W. 24th Street. There is a paved alley along the rear
(west) property line. A two -car garage structure is located at the northwest
corner of the lot. There is a two -car wide driveway from W. 24th Street which
leads to a carport at the southwest corner of the residence. A driveway from
the alley accesses the garage structure. The floor level of the house is located
six (6) to eight (8) feet above the grade of the adjacent streets.
There is an existing retaining wall along the east (front), west (rear) and south
(street side) property lines. The wall along the front property line ranges in
height from 3.5 to 5 feet, the wall along the rear property line ranges in height
from 2 to 4 feet, and the wall along the south street side property line ranges in
height from 4 to 6 feet. The wall is a structural/retaining wall and has existed
since the lot was developed many years ago.
JUNE 29, 2009
ITEM NO.: 8 (Con't.)
The applicant recently constructed a wood fence along a portion of the south
side property line and rear property line. The fence is located approximately
one (1) foot inside the masonry wall along the south property line and two (2)
feet inside the wall along the rear property line. The wood fence west of the
entry drive from W. 24th Street is six (6) feet in height above the finished grade.
The fence east of the drive ranges in height from six (6) feet to eight (8) feet.
The gate structure is six (6) feet in height. There will be a section of wood
fencing which will span over the gate. This will be an overall fence height of
approximately 10 feet for only the width of the gate opening.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence
height of four (4) feet for fences located between a building setback line and a
street right-of-way. This R-4 zoned lot would require a side building setback of
5 to 6 feet. A maximum fence height of six (6) feet is allowed elsewhere on the
lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the fencing which
exceeds four (4) feet in height along the south street side property line,
between the property line and the side yard setback.
Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff views the
request as reasonable. For the most part, the applicant is requesting to
enclose the rear yard area with a standard six (6) foot high wood fence. The
fence height increases for a short distance along the south side property line
and over the gate because of the slope and maintaining a level fence height.
The fence has the appearance of being a much higher structure because of the
grade of the property being several feet higher than the adjacent streets. The
proposed fence appears to not create any blind corner issues, as the existing
retaining wall is set back several feet from the curb line of W. 24th Street. Staff
believes the fence height as proposed 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
the following conditions:
1. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction.
2. The gate portion of the fence must be repaired, with the space over the
gate being completed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 29, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in the "staff recommendation" above. There was no further discussion. The
item was placed on the consent agenda and approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
Richard C Siller
P.O. Box 5543
Stockton, CA 95205 1�
9Y (a,
3/8/09
City of Little Rock
Dept. of Planning and Development
723 W Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
Mr. Monte Moore (Z&E Admin)
Enclose Please Find an Application for Zoning variance.
I am a former resident of LR graduated Horace Mann Hi in 1956, I would like to return
home and help clean up the city. My Mother still lives there and she is not in very good
health, this gives me one of the best reasons I know to return. That visit I made a few
years ago almost made me cry. Little Rock is nay home. I purchased a property
located at 2324 S. Chester St., EVENTH®UGH, IT WAS BURNED OUT. I
spent much of my life savings to rehabilitate it and I am planning to live there. Two (2)
air conditioners were stolen and all of the copper from under the house was also taken. It
has been broken into three (3) times first time The police didn't come, the second time
ADT the security company I paid to protect the place didn't call the police, the third time
the police just rolled by and looked at the house according to the neighbors. After all that
has taken place, I need a fence to help prevent thieves from having such easy access to the
side of the property that is next to the street where they enter.
At the present time I can only be there about six (6) month of the
year. I have to work more here so that I can do more there.
PLEASE HELI', Thank you in advance.
Sincerely Yours,
Richard Siller
cc C. Scott
A
2
0
I
z
Q
CD
Q
I
VA -1
ui
N
70
F-
W
J
LLJm
Q
m
J
J
>
02
y
Z
~W
L
Lli
f—
w
O
w
m
W
w
0=
m
~
Q
U
LLI
W
—J
Z
Z
J
2C��cn>3:
m
z
2
0
I
z
Q
CD
Q
I
VA -1
ui
N
70
F-
LIJ
Q
Cn
J
>
02
y
~W
Z
Q�C�>W
Q
Z�
W
Z
W
O=
U
J
m
z
Q
2
0
I
z
Q
CD
Q
I
VA -1
ui
June 29, 2009
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:22 p.m.
Date: 7/ G!Ej
Chairman
Secretary