boa_07 27 2009LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
JULY 27, 2009
2:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being five (5) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The Minutes of the June 29, 2009 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: David Wilbourn, Chairman
Robert Winchester, Vice Chairman
Leslie Greenwood
Scott Smith
James Van Dover
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
JULY 27, 2009
2:00 P.M.
OLD BUSINESS:
No Old Business
NEW BUSINESS:
1.
Z-8474
7109 Kingwood Road
2.
Z-8475
6712 Cantrell Road
3.
Z-8476
1204 N. Shackleford Road
4.
Z-8479
4808 Club Road
5.
Z-8480
19 Foxfield Cove
6.
Z-8481
SE Corner of Zeuber Road
and Sloane Drive
n
O
`. O
N
I
1i1GFlW AY 365 5 N
IOHI NVO
rr
w
•
w
px. k
o
z
it O
Z
w S°JNIadS ab91H
11NhS' z
w
— -- -
Ku
n
O
`. O
N
I
1i1GFlW AY 365 5 N
IOHI NVO
rr
w
•
w
LU
o
z
it O
Z
w S°JNIadS ab91H
11NhS' z
I Oa SON18d a3.t3O • �..L =-•i—.
n
O
`. O
N
I
1i1GFlW AY 365 5 N
IOHI NVO
rr
4-0
-
w
LU
o
z
it O
Z
w S°JNIadS ab91H
11NhS' z
I Oa SON18d a3.t3O • �..L =-•i—.
— -- -
4—
AIG blw
i
MO
W
— a MUMME NHOf
oa 111On83S3
HSS
" z a
0
wan
es
3
LO
rj
sg
r•j Iry
{{ a lavnnais
..� L i Hsav
n
O
`. O
N
I
1i1GFlW AY 365 5 N
IOHI NVO
~ .w .._..�.._.....��sy�
rr
4-0
-
w
o
z
�
Z
w S°JNIadS ab91H
11NhS' z
I Oa SON18d a3.t3O • �..L =-•i—.
4—
o � - oto slaays
� I
~ .w .._..�.._.....��sy�
4-0
i � m
a as dxa-Iv `
o
�
Z
4—
O
MO
W
JULY 27, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: Z-8474
Owner: Anthony and Leanne Mansell
Applicant: Anthony Mansell
Address: 7109 Kingwood Road
Description: Lot 277 and part of Lot 276, Kingwood Place Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the building line provisions of
Section 31-12 to allow an arbor addition 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 7109 Kingwood Road is occupied by a one-story
brick single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Kingwood
Road which serves as access. The property slopes downward from front to
back. The lot contains a 20 foot front platted building line.
The applicant recently constructed a new arbor -type structure on the front of
the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The arbor was constructed
over a new concrete slab. An older concrete step/stoop structure was removed
from the entry area of the residence. The arbor addition is 12 feet -8 inches by
16 feet -9 inches in size, and located 7 feet -4 inches back from the front (north)
property line. It extends across the front platted building line by 12 feet -8
inches. The arbor structure is unenclosed and does not have a solid roof.
JULY 27, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1 (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 this ordinance standard
to allow the building (arbor) addition which crosses a front platted building line.
Staff does not support the requested variance to allow a front building line
encroachment for the arbor addition. Staff's opinion is that the front
encroachment is not in keeping with the character of the building setbacks
along Kingwood Road. There is little variation in the front setbacks of the
residences along the south side of Kingwood Road, with the exception of one
(1) carport structure at the west end of Kingwood Road (7401 Kingwood Road).
Although there may be a few examples of reduced front setbacks in this overall
neighborhood, staff believes the proposed arbor addition will have an adverse
visual impact on the adjacent properties along Kingwood Road.
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 addition. 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 denial of the requested variance for front building line
encroachment.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 27, 2009)
Anthony and Leanne Mansell were present, representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation
of denial.
Anthony Mansell addressed the Board in support of the application. He described a
water run-off problem associated with the property. He explained that the new
concrete slab in front of the residence was intended to keep water run-off away from
the home's entry area. He noted that the arbor structure was constructed to help
improve the appearance of the concrete slab area and front of the residence. He
explained that there were other encroachments into the front yard areas in the
neighborhood, including fences and walls. He further explained that many of the
neighbors supported the arbor addition. He stated that he notified property owners
outside the 200 foot required area. He noted that 25 of 46 property owners along
Kingwood Road signed a petition of support.
Leanne Mansell made additional comments in support of the application. She
explained that the front yard area, around the arbor addition, would be landscaped.
JULY 27, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1 (Con't.
James VanDover explained that the issue of fences and walls within the front
setback area was not persuasive because the fence/walls were not violations. He
asked if neighbors were aware of the variance request. Mrs. Mansell explained that
they were.
Scott Smith asked if there was any additional work to be done to the arbor. Mr.
Mansell stasted that there was some finish trim work left. Mrs. Mansell explained
that the area would be landscaped with the arbor appearing as a landscape feature.
Mr. Smith noted that he would like to see a different column design for the arbor.
Staff explained that the reason for recommendation of denial was the fact that the
proposed encroachment into the front setback was out of character with the other
properties along Kingwood Road. This issue was briefly discussed.
Scott Smith noted support for the variance and explained. Vice -Chairman
Winchester noted that he had trouble defining an arbor as a structure. He explained
that it was more of a landscape feature.
There was a motion to approve the application, subject to the following conditions:
1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted
building line as approved by the Board.
2. The arbor structure must remain unenclosed with no solid roof.
3. The arbor structure must remain unattached to the principal structure.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was approved.
June 18, 2009
To: Board of Adjustment
City of Little Rock
Re: Proposed Zoning Variance
7109 Kingwood Road
Dear Board Members:
Thank you for considering our request.
Over the years after we moved into our current address at 7109 Kingwood Road, we have experienced
increased flooding problems as heavy rains forced water to overflow from the street toward our house.
Because of elevation characteristics, much of the rainwater running down the street diverts to our house
before it can get to the street drain. Frequently, the rain is heavy enough that there is more or less a
"river" rushing down our sidewalk (which is perpendicular to the street).
This problem was exacerbated a few years back when a speed bump was placed in front of our house;
specifically, the speed bump seems to funnel the water in such a way as to cause more of it to come up
and over the curb and into our yard. Two years ago, one of the worst events resulted in a couple of
thousand dollars in modifications to our house to repair the damage and overcome the incoming water.
(Nevertheless, because we have a young child, we are supportive of the speed bump.)
We have tried many maneuvers inside and around our house to address the flooding. The house has
been designed with various drainage devices, but when the rain is heavy enough, there is just too much
water to divert from the house, and it stands in pools and seeps into our basement. The heavy rains of
this spring made it evident that we had failed to overcome our problem.
Thus, upon the advice of a civil engineer, our strategy became one of trying to stop the water before it
could collect at our front door. The plan was to erect a concrete slab (a little less than 13'x 16') at the
entrance to our house. The slab is a few inches off the ground, but hopefully sufficient to block the
water.
We felt that the slab by itself would not have a positive visual effect. Therefore, we aimed to treat it as
a sort of patio/sitting area, perhaps with some tile. And in an effort to complete the image, we evolved
a plan of putting an arbor over it.
The dimensions of the arbor and its proximity to our house has been drawn in on the included survey.
Its location with respect to the setback area is the subject of this variance request. We will describe the
arbor and offer information to support our belief that the variance is appropriate.
The area of the arbor is about a foot in each direction over the patio, and you can stand under it. Its
sides are completely open. The top is open as well, except for decorative rafters that span the top.
(While not in our current plan, wooden rails could be used to attach the arbor to the house, if we are
directed to do so.) As is the nature of an arbor, it allows for climbing shrubs or vines, and in that sense
it could blend with trees and vegetation in other yards that line our street. We have included a picture
presenting a view of the arbor from the street.
We also observed homes up and down our street and the parallel street, Rockwood. We notice that
within the blocks of 6900 and 7500, and elsewhere nearby, there are numerous situations where
structures, including fences and carports, have been erected within the 25' setback area. We have
supplied six pictures, included herewith. (Other instances exist in our area, but we felt that this would
be sufficient to establish the point.) The carports, for instance, that we observed are quite massive in
comparison to the arbor dimensions. And they appear to be closer to the street.
The evidence from these pictures is intended to indicate that we do not seek a unique or special
arrangement that is different from many homes around us.
Our streets are very wooded and shaded. A practice in our neighborhood is that homes have front yard
sitting areas. Our arbor would be consistent with this. And its design does not present a one -of -a -kind
visual distraction, particularly given that so many other structures on our streets sit just as close in the
setback area.
To summarize our request, let us please reiterate the following points:
• The arbor evolved as an aesthetic response to a flooding problem from the street.
• The flooding problem was exacerbated by the installation of a speed bump in front of our
house.
• The arbor is not a distraction, indeed, it is minimized by the wooded landscape on our street.
• In the immediate vicinity of our home, there are numerous instances of existing structures, some
recent, which stand in the setback area. Some of these are much more prominent than the arbor
we would have.
Again, we thank you for considering our request, and would be happy to supply additional information
that might assist you in your determination.
Respectfully yours,
Anthony and Leanne Mansell
Owners, 7109 Kingwood
MR,
-��,�Iwmowiwr IMIWININ
I
06/18/2009
Comparison Photos of Homes along the Kingwood/ Rockwood
Corridor
Fence surrounding patio in front of
7201 Kingwood:
Rock wall extending to street at 7301
Kingwood
Carport built above driveway at 7401
Kingwood
00,00
10.
y44,
i��N 1
1
y
spa
yy
rrr
f009
„y,.a r ine
x ` t ♦ r
y44,
i��N 1
1
y
spa
yy
rrr
„y,.a r ine
06; 18112009
JULY 27, 2009
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.: Z-8475
Owner: One Bank and Trust, N.A.
Applicants: Development Consultants, Inc./Robert Brown
Address: 6712 Cantrell Road
Description: Part of Block 2, Bellevue Addition
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
301 to allow construction of a new branch bank building with a reduced street side
setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Existing Branch Bank Facility
Proposed Use of Property: New Branch Bank for Drive Through Service Only
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
1. Compliance with the city's Landscape and Buffer Ordinance is required.
2. Street buffers required along the Cantrell Road and "T" St perimeters.
Buffers are to be six (6) percent of average depth of the lot. Buffers appear
to comply with allowable 25% trade off on the site.
3. Perimeter Landscape strips are to be nine feet in width. Landscape
appears to comply with allowable 25% trade off on the site.
C. Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned property at 6712 Cantrell Road is occupied by a one-story bank
branch facility. The property is located at the southeast corner of Cantrell Road
and "T" Street. The existing building is located near the center of the property.
There are access drives from Cantrell Road and "T" Street which serve the
JULY 27, 2009 i
ITEM NO.: 2 (Con't.)
property. The elevation of the property is slightly higher than that of the
adjacent streets.
The applicant proposes to remove the existing structure from the property and
construct a new branch bank building, as noted on the attached site plan. The
new building will also be located near the center of the property, with the
building being 15 feet back from the north ("T" Street) property line. Drive
through lanes will be located on the south side of the building. The drive
through canopy will be located 31.3 feet back from the south (Cantrell Road)
property line. The proposed building will be located well over 30 feet from the
east and west property lines. Two (2) new access drives from "T" Street will
serve the proposed branch bank facility.
The applicant is requesting one (1) variance with the new auto branch bank
development. Section 36-301(e)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance require
minimum building setbacks of 25 feet along street side property lines.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 15 foot street side
setback from the north ("T" Street) property line. All other building setbacks
conform to ordinance standards.
Staff is supportive of the requested street side setback variance. Staff views the
request as reasonable. The commercial lot has an irregular shape, being
triangular in nature. The west property line is only 40 feet in depth, increasing
to a depth of 100 feet along the east property line. The proposed building
structure is relatively small, with the enclosed portion being only 500 square feet
in area. The drive-thru canopy is approximately 960 square feet in size. Staff
feels the applicant has proposed a quality redevelopment plan for the property.
Staff believes the plan will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or
the general area.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
2. Any signage on the site must conform to ordinance standards.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 27, 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 5 ayes and 0 noes.
FUNNIXF
U. \ _
CONSULTANTS
U 6 `01 M. I M
June 4, 2009
Mr. Monte Moore
City of Little Rock
Planning and Development Division
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: One Banc at Cantrell & "T" Street
Board of Adjustment Variance Requests
DCI Project #08-139
Dear Monte:
Enclosed are our application materials for variance requests related to the One Banc site at
Cantrell and "T" Street. The following items are enclosed for your review:
1. Six copies of a recent boundary survey.
2. Six copies of the proposed site plan.
3. Completed application form, property description, and owner's authorization affidavit.
4. Our check for the $205.00 filing fee.
The purpose of this application is to gain approval to re -develop this site with a new drive-through
banking facility. There will be no customer services within the proposed teller building and no
customer parking. We have developed numerous site layouts and reviewed the preliminary
design with CLR Traffic, Engineering, and Planning representatives. The proposed plan is
supported by CLR Traffic as the best alternative for customer stacking and reducing potential
issues on Cantrell Road.
The variances requested and hardship conditions are specified in the enclosed application form.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Dev opment Consultants, Inc.
obert M. Brown
Vice President
Cc: Mike Heald
Engineering
Planning
Land .Surveying
Landscape Architecture
2200 North Rodney Parham Road, Suite 220 • Little Rock, Arkansas 882
509 West Spring Street, Suite 135 • Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 m Telephone 479.444.7880 • Fax 479.251.8210
JULY 27, 2009
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.: Z-8476
Owner/Applicant: Jeffrey C. Jones
Address: 1204 N. Shackleford Road
Description: Lot 191, Walnut Valley Addition
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 deck addition with reduced
side setback and which encroaches into an 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. The vertical supporting members of the deck must be located at the top of
bank or no further than 3 ft. from the house foundation.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 1204 N. Shackleford Road is occupied by a one-
story rock and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway
from N. Shackleford Road which serves as access. Grassy Flat Creek runs
along the south side property line. The south side yard of the property slopes
downward to the creek. There is currently a second story being added to the
residence. There is a ten (10) foot wide easement along the south side
property line.
The applicant is proposing to construct a six (6) foot by ten (10) foot deck on
the south side of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The
proposed deck will be uncovered and unenclosed, and located approximately
three (3) feet back from the south side property line. The deck will be located
within the easement running along the south side property line.
JULY 27, 2007
ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.)
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
yard setback of 7.5 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-11(f) requires
building encroachments into easements be reviewed and approved by the
Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow
the deck addition with a reduced side setback of three (3) feet, and its
encroachment into an easement.
The applicant submitted letters from the five (5) public utility companies
addressing the easement encroachment. The comments are as follows:
• Little Rock Wastewater — no objection to encroachment. Sewer lines on
other side of creek.
• Central Arkansas Water — no objection to encroachment. No existing or
planned facilities located in easement.
• CenterPoint Energy — no objection to encroachment.
• AT&T — no objection to encroachment.
• Entergy — no objection to encroachment. No facilities located in
easement.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the proposed
uncovered, unenclosed deck addition as reasonable. The property is adjacent
to a rather wide creek area. There is approximately 150 feet of separation
between this residence and the residence across the creek to the southwest.
As long as the deck is constructed as per the Public Works requirement, as
noted in paragraph A. of this report, staff feels the deck structure will have no
adverse impact on the adjacent property, creek area or neighborhood.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback and easement
variances, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A.
of the staff report.
2. The deck must remain uncovered and unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 27, 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 5 ayes and 0 noes.
City of Little Rock
Dept. of Planning and Development
Board ofAdjustment
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Sirs,
,�:� --a-- �5
June 15th, 2009
I would like to request a residential zoning variance for my single family residence
located at 1204 North Shackleford Road, Little Rock, AR 72211.
Last year the city created a small loose boulder, obstruction in the creek next to my
house which creates the effect of a small waterfall. I would like to construct a 6ft x 10ft
deck on the south side of the house on which to enjoy this scenic view.
Grassy Flat Creek is located directly south and runs along the entire length of my
property. From the edge of the house it is approximately a 30 ft incline at a grade of
roughly 45 degrees into the creek itself. The slope is comprised of rock, bushes, a few
trees and a bamboo thicket. Although there is a ]Oft utility easement extending out from
the house towards the creek there are no utilities located between the house and the creek,
no future plans for any, and additionally, the terrain would make any future location of
them in that easement area next to impossible. I have requested and received permission
to construct a deck in the easement area from all the utilities and have attached to
my application their correspondence granting their approval.
Thank Yo
Jeffrey C. Jones
1204 North Shackleford Road
Little Rock, AR 72211
501-227-5548
JULY 27, 2009
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.:
Owner/Applicant
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z-8479
Andrew L. Jones
4808 Club Road
Lot 3, Block 1, Country Club Heights Addition
R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 to allow a porch 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:
1. Measures to control an increase in stormwater drainage should be
implemented to not cause damage onto adjacent property from the
increased impervious area.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 4808 Club Road is occupied by a two-story
frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Club
Road at the southeast corner of the lot. There is a ten (10) foot wide paved
alley located along the rear (north) property line. A four (4) foot wide deck
(uncovered and unenclosed) is located on the rear of the house, at its
northwest corner. The existing deck is 22 feet back from the rear (north)
property line.
The applicant proposes to remove the existing deck and construct a new 12
foot by 16 foot screened -in porch at the northwest corner of the residence. The
proposed porch will be located 14 feet back from the rear (north) property line
and maintain the same side setback (west) as the existing residence, which is
JULY 27, 2009
ITEM NO.: 4 (Con't.)
approximately eight (8) feet. Steps from the proposed porch to the rear yard
area will be located along the rear wall of the residence.
Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance require a minimum rear
yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from
this ordinance requirement to allow the screened porch addition with a 14 foot
rear setback.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff believes the request is
reasonable. The requested reduced rear setback for a porch structure will not
be out of character with other properties in the area. The residences within this
block on the north side of Club Road have front setbacks which are double the
typical minimum front setback of 25 feet. The residence at 4808 Club Road is
located approximately 51 feet back from the front property line which greatly
reduces the size of the rear yard area. The residence immediately to the west
has a landing/step structure for a deck with a similar rear setback as proposed.
Additionally, the two (2) properties immediately to the east have building and
raised deck areas which extend closer to their rear (north) property lines than
the proposed porch. Staff believes the proposed porch addition will have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The paved alley
along the rear property line provides ten (10) additional feet of separation
between the proposed porch and the residential property to the north.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to
compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A. of the
staff report.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 27, 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 5 ayes and 0 noes.
June 24, 2009
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR
Andrew and Elizabeth Jones
4808 Club Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is being written as a request for a residential zoning variance at our residence
on Club Road. Specifically, we are requesting a variance to build a screened -in porch on
the back side of the house (north).
As it exists today, the distance from the back property line to the structure's edge — which
is a 4'x16' deck — is 22'. The plans for the new deck, which would be 12'x16', would
reduce this distance down to 14'. It is important to note that the property line backs up to
a common area — a 10' wide access alley that is used by the 4 surrounding homes.
Therefore, the distance from the new structure to the next property line would be
approximately 24'.
Please contact us with any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Andrew L. Jo es
JULY 27, 2009
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.: Z-8480
Owner: Dan and Beth Cirwinski
Applicant: James Miles
Address: 19 Foxfield Cove
Description: Lot 17, Block 14, Woodland's Edge Subdivision
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a residence with reduced
front setback and which crosses a platted building line.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 19 Foxfield Cove is occupied by a recently
constructed two-story brick and rock single family residence, as noted on the
attached site plan. There is a two -car wide driveway from Foxfield Cove which
serves as access. There is a 25 foot front platted building line which follows the
curvature of the front property line, located along the bulb of the cul-de-sac
street.
When the residence was constructed, one (1) mistake was made in the lay -out
of the structure. A small portion of the front of the residence extends
approximately 3.5 feet across the front platted building line. The encroachment
represents approximately 36 square feet of the overall residence.
JULY 27, 2009
ITEM NO.: 5 (Con't.)
Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front
setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12(c ) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that
building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of
Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these
ordinance standards to allow the new residence with a reduced front setback
and which crosses a front platted building line.
Staff is supportive of the requested building line variance. Staff views the
request as very minor. Apparently the contractor at time of construction did not
compensate for the curvature of the front platted building line. This resulted in
approximately 36 square feet of the overall structure (over 3,500 square foot
building foot print) encroaching across the front platted building line by
approximately 3.5 feet. The lots within this area of Woodland's Edge
Subdivision are allowed to have minimum rear setbacks of 15 feet. There was
ample rear yard area for the residence to be shifted up to seven (7) 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 along 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:
(JULY 27, 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 5 ayes and 0 noes.
��Iw/ o� (&
16300OW;qn �Wt
c&� "o-ehv, 2"7222,223
(0/-- S�/- NNOO
June 26, 2009
To: Dept. of Planning and Development
From: James Miles
Subject: Zoning Variance
Sir,
I am making this request for a variance in the zoning ordinance for Lot 17
Block 14 Woodlands Edge, an addition to the City of Little Rock, AR.
This request is necessary due to an oversight on my part, when placing the
house on the Lot.
The survey shows a 3.5 ft encroachment at the center of the front building
line.
I hope you find this an acceptable request for granting a variance.
Thank you,
JULY 27, 2009
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.: Z-8481
Owner: United Hoist and Crane, Inc.
Applicant: Steve Littleton
Address: Southeast Corner of Zeuber Road and Sloane Drive
Description: Tract F-1, Area 102, Little Rock Port Industrial Park.
Zoned: 1-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the paving provisions of Section
36-508 to allow an unpaved vehicular use area.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Undeveloped
Proposed Use of Property: Office/Warehouse
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. The Master Street Plan classifies Zeuber Road as a minor arterial. At time
of building permit, additional right-of-way dedication will be required.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issue:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2. Street buffers are required along the Sloane Drive and Zeuber Road
perimeters. Street buffers are to be six (6) percent of the average depth of
the lot. The street buffer on the Zeuber Road perimeter is to be no less than
19.5 feet. The street buffer on the Sloane Drive perimeter is to a no less
than 35 feet. Any required right-of-way dedication could affect placement of
the buffers. Buffers are to be exclusive of any right-of-way.
3. Zeuber Road perimeter Landscape strip should extend 10 feet south of the
south driveway. Any development of the portion of the tract extending to the
south will require additional landscaping in that area.
JULY 27, 2009
ITEM NO.: 6 (Con't.)
4. Screening of dumpsters is required.
5. Screening requirements for street perimeter planting strips are noted in
Chapter 15, Section 15-55. Screening may be vegetation or combination of
plantings and berms. Contact staff for information.
C. Staff Analysis:
The 1-3 zoned property located at the southeast corner of Zeuber Road and
Sloane Drive is currently undeveloped and mostly grass covered. Some site
work is taking place in preparation of new building construction. The overall
property is flat and free of slope. All surrounding properties are undeveloped.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new office/warehouse facility on the
property, as noted on the attached site plan. The office portion of the building
will represent 1,267.5 square feet, with 5,000 square feet of warehouse space.
A 1,000 square foot trailer canopy will be located at the east end of the building.
Two (2) access drives from Zeuber Road will serve the property. The
northernmost drive will access a paved parking lot located along the north
(front) and west sides of the building. The south drive will access a fenced area
at the rear of the building, which will be utilized for heavy truck and trailer
access. The rear fenced area as indicated on the attached plan will be covered
with crushed stone and not paved.
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 rear
area of the property with a crushed stone base. The rear fenced area will be
utilized for heavy truck and trailer traffic to and from the site.
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 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 use of the crushed stone 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 will be paved and
landscaped.
JULY 27, 2009
ITEM NO.: 6 (Con't.)
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:
(JULY 27, 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 5 ayes and 0 noes.
7123 1-30 Suite 19
Little Rock, AR 72209
3080 Lynch Street
Jackson, MS 39309
Phone: (501) 562-6698 Phone: (601) 353-7003
Toll Free: (800) 562-6698 Toll Free: (866) 754-9200
Fax: (501) 562-6799 Fax: (601) 352-7737
June 26, 2009
Ms. Donna James
Subdivision Administrator
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Site Plan Review Application
Tract F-1, Area 102 of Little Rock Port Industrial Park
Dear Ms. James:
As an Executive Vice -President of United Hoist & Crane, Inc., I will represent the company as
applicant for a Variance before the City of Little Rock Board of Adjustment.
In 2008, United Hoist & Crane, Inc., purchased the property referenced above from the Little
Rock Port Authority. Our company provides and installs crane and monorail systems for
industrial and commercial applications and provides maintenance service to said systems. We
purchased this property with plans to construct our Arkansas offices and warehouse at this
location. We propose to construct a small 25'x 50' (1250 s.f.) pre-engineered metal building
office structure and a 50'X100' (5,000 s.f.) pre-engineered metal building warehouse structure.
The property purchased also allows United the ability to expand the office and warehouse areas
as our Arkansas operations grows.
Due to the nature of our business, we receive and must temporarily store structural steel, steel
crane and monorail runway sections as well as other heavy steel components. These deliveries
by semi -truck are infrequent, occurring normally just once a week and it is not uncommon for
only one semi -truck delivery once in a month. The rear yard area behind the warehouse is to be
used as the "lay -down area" for the steel material and the fabrication yard of our products. The
handling and moving of these materials during our operation will gouge and tear up asphalt
surfaces and create a yard maintenance issue that will be beyond normal maintenance
capabilities of company personnel. In lieu of the asphalt paving, we propose to construct the
"lay -down" area with 8 to 10 inches of AHTD Class 7 Material compacted to 95% of Modified
Proctor density.
For the reasons listed we are requesting that United Hoist & Crane, Inc. be granted a variance
from the paving requirements of Code Section 36-508 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances.
We think the paving requirement places as undue burden on our operation and the proposed
compacted paving is in keeping with the industrial nature of the area, the lot zoning and our
proposed use.
Should you have any questions, please contact me.
Steve Littleton
Executive Vice -President
❑
O
U
LLI
w
LU
0
F -
z
LU
2
F-
V)
D
n
cl
LL
0
a
0
CIO
(Y
I
OEM
OVA
z
ui
CO
cc
LU
z
G
LLJ
0
Cf)ED
LU
LU
0
cc
LLJ
z
0
z
(-)0
Lu
>
Cf)
Z
z
D
0
U)
o
LLJ
UJ
Lij
cc
F -
UJ
z
Z
U)
>
LU
00
0
co
0
-0
z
(-)
LLJ
Llj
LU
Z
ly
D
>
0
C/)
LLJ
LIJ
Lu
0
m
z
UJ
—J
U)
<
I
OEM
OVA
z
ui
CO
cc
LU
z
G
LLJ
0
Cf)ED
LU
LU
0
cc
LLJ
z
0
z
(-)0
Lu
>
Cf)
Z
z
D
0
U)
o
LLJ
UJ
Lij
cc
F -
UJ
z
Z
U)
>
I
OEM
OVA
z
ui
CO
cc
LU
z
G
July 27, 2009
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:34 p.m.
Date: 8/ 3) 10`
J�:i c. zi A-.,--,
Chairman