Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
boa_04 24 2006
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES APRIL 24, 2006 2:00 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being three (3) in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Minutes of the March 27, 2006 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present: Members Absent: Andrew Francis, Chairman Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman David Wilbourn Debra Harris Fletcher Hanson City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA APRIL 24, 2006 2:00 P.M. I. OLD BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: A. Z -2668-A 209 N. Pierce Street B. Z -7905-A 2809 Kavanaugh Blvd. C. Z-8014 100 Main Street D. Z-8016 4015 West Markham Street II. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: 1. Z -6615-A 1520 Rock Street 2. Z -6732-C 201 East Markham Street 3. Z -6980-A 5036 West Crestwood 4. Z -7996-A 22 Carriage Creek Drive 5. Z-8024 124 North Woodrow Street 6. Z-8025 24 Patricia Lane 7. Z-8026 4800 Hawthorne Road 8. Z-8027 8 Valley Club Circle 9. Z-8028 500 Broadway 10. Z-8029 62 Epernay Circle 11. Z-8030 6704 Heather Lane 0) • O Ud — a312Va1 O llntlelw M N Z a 9 •� W — U�J 00�� Nvwa3o n ■ � � o �■ tVn ode \ � AtlM0tl0aB H96V NolNp J S3HO 63H3a0 0 9NIN IN � > N �MO8000M o 3AId 33 e atl0 N0111WV 11O)s s SJNiydS -- Natld NIV3 �J N o AlISa3niN TF A11Sa3n w Q- 59NIddS a3A30 S3HONH o IddISS – lODIHJ X - � co MOaaVe NHor alona3s3a 3 W yb �Q 3aN13H _ o Da 3l V S 08D331XOVHS o SIDdvs L, wvHa 3Naoa u– — e11Wll 4110 hJyJ 39016 AWN J3Jbfs `o p OROS �I , V i fepK�' 02 z s NVAnins 16VM31S V Q irSdb`Y O S1IWIl A11o2�'-� z � d�o1nJ 31VON833 O rn APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z -2668-A Owner: Ron Miller Applicant: White-Daters and Associates Address: 209 N. Pierce Street Description: Lot 21, Strong and Waters Addition Zoned: O-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the development provisions of the Midtown Overlay District standards of Section 36-385 through 36-396 to allow construction of a new office building. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Office Proposed Use of Property: Office STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: A 5 foot wide sidewalk is required along the property frontage. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. A minimum six foot and nine inch (6-9") perimeter landscaping strip is required along the northern, southern and western perimeters of the site. This area is to be located out of the public right-of-way. This is a requirement of both the landscape ordinance and the buffer ordinance. A variance from this requirement will require approval from the City Beautiful Commission. It appears the parking lot maneuvering area can be reduced; thus allowing for more green space along the perimeters of the property. APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: A A water source within seventy-five feet is required for all new landscaped areas. C. Staff Analysis: The 0-3 zoned property at 209 N. Pierce Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame structure which is being used as an office. There is a one -car wide driveway from Pierce Street leading to a small parking area on the east side or rear of the building. The property is located with the Midtown Overlay District as established by the Board of Directors on December 2, 2003. The Midtown Overlay District provides specific design requirements for new development or redevelopment within the district boundaries. The applicant proposes to remove the existing structure from the property and construct a new 3,200 square foot (2 story) office building on the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed building will be located approximately 94 feet back from the front (west) property line. A driveway at the northwest corner of the property is proposed to serve a small parking area (8 spaces) located between the proposed building and Pierce Street. The applicant is requesting several variances from the Midtown Overlay District design standards. The requested variances are as follows: • Section 36-389( c) of the City's Zoning Ordinance (Midtown DOD) allows no more than one (1) curb cut per block face. The proposed new driveway will be one (1) of several curb cuts along this block face from W. Markham Street to "B" Street. • Section 36-390( c) requires that all surface parking be located to the side and rear of buildings. As noted previously, the applicant is proposing an 8 -space parking lot between the proposed building and Pierce Street. • Section 36-392(a) requires that at least 60 percent of a building's ground floor front fagade be glass windows. The applicant has not provided building design information to staff, as of this writing. • Section 36-392(b) requires that front setbacks on streets other than arterial streets be zero (0) feet, but no more than 20 feet. As noted previously, the proposed building is set back approximately 94 feet from the front (west) property line. The applicant should also be aware that signage and site lighting must conform to the overlay district. Any ground -mounted sign must be monument style and conform to the height and area standards of the 0-3 zoning district. No wood, painted signs or pan -face -style signs are allowed in the district. Any 2 APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: A site lighting must conform to Section 36-395 of the ordinance. Additionally, any variances from the City's Landscape Ordinance must be reviewed and approved by the City Beautiful Commission. Staff does not support the requested variances from the Midtown Overlay District requirements. Staff believes the proposed development does not comply with the purpose and intent of the newly established Midtown Overlay District Ordinance. The site should be designed as to compliment and encourage pedestrian use. Staff believes there is space on the site to pull the building up to near the front property line with a different building footprint, and have a drive on one side of the building with the parking in the rear. This type of revised site design could eliminate all but one (1) of the requested variances. Staff feels the proposed site plan could have an adverse impact on future redevelopments in the Midtown Overlay area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances from the Midtown Overlay District requirements. Staff Update: The applicant contacted staff on April 10, 2006 and requested this application be deferred to the May 22, 2006 Agenda. The applicant is continuing to work on an alternative site design. Staff supports the deferral request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the April 24, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 24, 2006 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the May 22, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was places on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the May 22, 2006 Agenda by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 3 © WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 Phone: 501-821-1667 Fax: 501-821-1668 February 24, 2006 Mr. Monte Moore, Zoning Administrator City of Little Rock Neighborhoods and Planning 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Arkansas School Pictures Mr. Moore, 2 - :7 -(t --,?- Please find attached three copies of the site plan for the above referenced project. Ron Miller with Arkansas School Pictures would like to redevelop his office building at this location. ASP currently operates from an office at this location. The existing office building would be razed and the new facility constructed towards the rear of the property to allow parking in the front. This property is zoned 0-3, but falls within the Midtown Overlay District. This property is small and with the existing development on either side, many of the fabulous ideas within this new Ordinance fail to apply. The developer is requesting a variance from the requirements of this district, but will develop under the 0-3 requirements. A side yard setback variance from the required 10 ft. is requested. The property is only 50 ft. in width and this requirement makes it difficult for redevelopment. Please place this item on the next available Board of Adjustments docket. Do not hesitate to call should you have any questions or require additional information. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. uc: Kon hillier — ArKansas Jcnooi rlctuies CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z -7905-A Owner: Frank Whitbeck Applicant: Michael Trevisone Address: 2809 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Part of Lots 18 and 19, Block 36, Pulaski Heights Addition Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-301 and the parking provisions of Section 36-502 to allow a deck addition with a reduced setback and a use with reduced off-street parking. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Bar/Lounge Proposed Use of Property: Bar/Lounge STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: No Comments C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 2809 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by a one-story commercial building located between Beechwood and Palm Streets. The commercial building contains a mixture of commercial uses, with 2809 Kavanaugh Blvd. occupying only a portion of the overall building. This portion of the building is occupied by the Hillcrest Fountain, a bar/lounge (restaurant- APRIL 24, 2006 TEM NO.: B (CON'T type) use. There is on -street parking in front of the building and in the general area. The space occupied by the bar/lounge use occupies approximately 1, 530 square feet of the building. Section 36-502(b)(3)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 15 off-street parking spaces for this use. On August 29, 2005, the Board of Adjustment approved a parking variance for the business. The applicant is now proposing to construct a 21.5 foot by 24 foot deck on the rear of the building as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed deck will be located 4.75 to 5 feet back from the rear (south) property line and will be 6 to 7 feet above grade. The deck will allow for outdoor restaurant -type seating for 4 to 5 tables. The deck will have a hand rail around its perimeter. There will be no walls, fences, etc. around the deck. The deck will also not be covered. Section 36-502(b)(3)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance would require five (5) additional off-street parking spaces for the additional deck seating area. Section 36-301(e)(3) requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet for C-3 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the deck structure with a reduce rear setback and without providing any additional off- street parking. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. This commercial building, as well as several others in this general area along Kavanaugh Blvd., has relied entirely on off-site parking for a number of years. There is on -street parking in front of this building as well as on many other surrounding streets. The proposed bar/lounge use will be primarily an after-hours use and will have additional options for parking, as several of the surrounding uses which have off-street parking will be closed the majority of the time when the bar/lounge is operating. Additionally, the applicant has submitted a letter from Delta Trust, who has a small parking lot across Kavanaugh Blvd. to the northwest, granting permission to use their parking lot (16 spaces) after hours. With respect to the requested rear setback variance for the proposed deck, the deck will not extend any closer to the rear property line than the portion of the commercial building immediately to the east. The deck with outdoor seating will not be out of character with the neighborhood. Staff believes the request is reasonable and should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. 2 APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested parking and setback variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. The deck structure must remain uncovered and unenclosed on its south and west sides. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the deck construction. 3. There are to be no outdoor speakers or amplification for the outdoor seating/deck area. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 27, 2006) Michael Trevisone was present, representing the application. There were three (3) persons present with concerns. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Michael Trevisone addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained the agreement with Delta Trust to use their parking lot after hours. He noted that his employees could park at that location. He explained that there are other parking options in the area. Doug Green addressed the Board in opposition. He explained that there was a parking burden on the Kroger property to the south. He noted that when the bank begins construction across Kavanaugh to the north, parking in the area would become more of a problem. Dennis Burrow, of the Hillcrest Merchant's Association, also addressed the Board in opposition. He noted that Kroger had expressed concern with over usage of their parking lot. He discussed the parking issue in the general area. He requested the application be deferred in order for the issue of parking to be discussed. Scott Smith, of the Hillcrest Resident's Association, addressed the Board with concerns. He expressed concern with the proposed deck being compatible with the general area. He requested the application be deferred to allow time for the issue of compatibility to be discussed. Chairman Francis explained that he favored staff's recommendation with respect to this application. Chris Wilbourn concurred with Chairman Francis. Vice -Chairman Burruss expressed concern with the parking issue. He expressed support of staff's recommendation, but stated he was leaning toward a deferral. Fletcher Hanson also explained that he was considering a deferral of the application. Staff noted that they were not opposed to a deferral to allow the applicant an opportunity to meet with the sj APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 27, 2006 CON'T.) Hillcrest Residents' and Merchants' Associations to discuss issues related to this application. The issue of dumpsters was briefly discussed. Mr. Trevisone stated that the dumpster would be cleaned out and changed out on a regular basis to avoid odors. Vice -Chairman Burruss briefly discussed the proposed deck. He asked if any screening could be placed along the south side of the deck, with the deck being pulled back (approximately 4 feet) to allow some landscaping. Mr. Trevisone indicated the issue of landscaping/screening would be acceptable. Chairman Francis discussed additional conditions to staff's recommendation. He proposed the following additional conditions: • The employees of the Hillcrest Fountain must park in the Delta Trust parking lot. • Sign(s) must be posted on the front door/windows of 2809 Kavanaugh informing customers of the available parking in the Delta Trust parking lot. • Shorten the deck by four (4) feet to allow the underside (south side) of the structure to be screened with lattice and planter boxes. The issue of Canon Grill's grease trap was briefly discussed. Mr. Burrows and Mr. Green explained that the proposed deck would cover the existing grease trap. Mr. Smith explained that the neighborhood association would like to meet and discuss the issue before the Board acts on the application. Vice Chairman Burruss noted that he was comfortable with the application with the additional conditions proposed by Chairman Francis, but would not be opposed to a deferral. Mr. Trevisone noted that the Hillcrest Fountain wanted to be a good neighbor and would be in favor of a deferral to allow time for the issue to be discussed with the Hillcrest Residents' and Merchants' Associations. There was a motion to defer the application to the April 24, 2006 Agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) Michael Trevisone was present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff briefly described the application, noting the applicant had revised the site plan providing an additional four (4) feet of rear setback and a screening fence (to hide the lower portion of the deck) and planter boxes along the south side of the deck. The revised plan also provides a trap door on the deck to service the existing grease trap. 112 APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006 CON'T.) Staff recommended approval of the application, subject to the three (3) conditions noted in paragraph D. of the agenda report, and the following additional conditions: • The employees of the Hillcrest Fountain must park in the Delta Trust parking lot. • Sign(s) must be posted on the front door/windows of 2809 Kavanaugh informing customers of the available parking in the Delta Trust parking lot. • Shorten the deck by four (4) feet to allow the underside (south side) of the structure to be screened with lattice and planter boxes. The applicant offered no additional comments. Scott Smith, President of the Hillcrest Resident's Association, addressed the Board. He explained that the Board of his association did not oppose the application. There was a motion to approve the application as revised and recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The revised application was approved. 5 :2 - -7 �s 2/22/06 APPLICATION FOR A NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING VARIANCE THE HILLCREST FOUNTAIN 2809 KAVANAUGH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203 I, MICHAEL TREVISONE, ACTING AS AN AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 2809 KAVANAUGH, WOULD LIKE TO PETITION THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A PARKING VARIANCE. CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY HAS A VARIANCE FROM THE PARKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36-502 TO ALLOW RESTAURANT -TYPE USE WITH REDUCED A REDUCED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES (Z FILE #7905). I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THAT TO A VARIANCE THAT WILL ALLOW RESTAURANT -TYPE USE WITH OUTDOOR SEATING WITH A REDUCED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. I AM PROPOSING TO ADD A 576 SQ. FT. DECK ONTO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING. THE DECK WILL BE AN "OPEN AIR" DESIGN (NO ROOF OR OVERHEAD STRUCTURAL MEMBERS), CONSTRUCTED OF TREATED LUMBER, SIT APPROXIMATELY 6 FT OFF THE GROUND (LEVEL WITH OUR BACK DOOR), AND HAVE A 36" HANDRAIL ON THE THREE SIDES NOT ADJOINING THE BUILDING. THE DECK WILL SERVE TO PROVIDE AN ESTIMATED ADDITION OF 4 TABLES AND ONE CENTRALLY LOCATED FOUNTAIN. IN KEEPING WITH THE CURRENT THEME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE DECK WILL BE BUILT IN A TRADITIONAL FASHION. IF THE LIGHTING FROM AN OVERHEAD STREETLAMP IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SAFETY AND AMBIENCE, GENTLE LOW LEVEL LIGHTING ATTACHED TO THE HANDRAIL WILL BE ADDED. WE AT THE HILLCREST FOUNTAIN FEEL THAT THIS ADDITION COULD ONLY GO TO FURTHER ENHANCE THE CHARM THAT THE HILLCREST AREA IS KNOWN FOR. ALSO, SHOULD THE DAY COME THAT LITTLE ROCK IS SMOKE FREE THIS ADDITION WILL PROVIDE A PLACE FOR OUR PATRONS WHO SMOKE TO RETREAT TO. SINGER MIC44iAEL D. TREVISONE S- T R U S M MEMBER f01C August 17, 2005 Re: The Hillcrest Fountain 2809 Kavanaugh Blvd. 72205 Landlord: Frank Whitbeck Owners: Daniel Bryant and Brett Smith To whom it may concern: I �, 8 -2- /7oS 4 We at, Delta Trust & Bank located @ 2924 Kavanaugh Blvd., Little Rock, AR has granted The Hillcrest Fountain, which is currently sited at 2809 Kavanaugh Blvd., Little Rock, AR permission to utilize our Parking lot after branch closings. There will be no finite date to this agreement, but Delta Trust & Bank has the authority to revoke this privilege at anytime. Our lot can accommodate sixteen cars if fully utilized. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me by email: rbrown ,delta-trust.com or 501-907-1900. Thank you, Roshelle Brown Assistant Vice President Hillcrest Branch Manager Delta Trust & Bank m 2924 Kavanaugh Blvd. • Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 SOI 907-I900 • Fax: 50I 907-I908 28-21, Ki -.Cts. 1006, Dear. 1 : os� ,of &e NowdafA.4,l: rneut: Vim i for a zap �a�a� or dire I`a tai_ -Bar ad uigb►wd , year w�iereyusiiess assscaec`. f -m a oemed about theges on p�%g t th ; :pexisdi tj fr. :UP lu ort, ert rvre.n�:s at=%cai mow at even Op OVOfflow". 0, 1.4109lef anyex'.001 rax ,sffer Bras ggiu aes. eset,' va iteaa tie uta ) Metvp otxa . icr av arcic parkrc dJAW� #+ mare prudentr:iepPllEit: a .fie P.a�ee to- v®ete,ei ar t timelar f ere, repi$v mtill m n tko a the : c e It c iat is :acid 'eStRe,� ASSIDZia exr a ret o e , ec d,.t re °appT ,mt. oo�: aw, tr-�p x 1c art crept fo r :sa . , a t wee his eoast�axctT�ru. o�omp�ete .this riiayrestore the a w-essary overflow parmng for mxe t. Pati be .toteisetit.d tai ,e- o: -]�Xby e r ger,F juely . �S.111PIt351rilcxest SerehsAssogiaU pLb l i'; .Y 44 President esidentg Ass6c�a��� APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: C File No.: Z-8014 Owner: The Capitol Joint Venture/LDRP Limited Partnership/100 Main Building, LLC Applicant: Kent Taylor, Cromwell Architects Engineers Address: 100 Main Street Description: East Y2 of Block 78, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: UU Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the parking, buffer and sidewalk paving provisions of Sections 36-342.1, 36-511 and 36-522 to allow construction of a new surface parking lot. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Office Building Proposed Use of Property: Parking Lot STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (John Barr, 371-4646) for the improvements located in the right-of-way. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. The UU district requires street trees a minimum of 3 inches in caliper to be placed 30 feet on center with a water source provided. A minimum six foot and nine inch (6'-9") perimeter landscaping strip is required along the northern, southern and eastern perimeters of the site. This area is to be located out of the public right-of-way. This is a requirement of both the landscape ordinance and the buffer ordinance. A variance from this requirement will require approval from both the City Beautiful Commission and the Board of Adjustment. APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) The landscape ordinance requires a tree every thirty (30) feet in the perimeter landscaping strip. The plan submitted does not reflect his minimum. The proposed plan doesn't reflect interior landscaping minimums. Eight percent of the paved surface area should be green space. Interior islands should be evenly distributed throughout the site. It appears that the parking lot maneuvering area could be reduced allowing for more greenspace along the perimeters of the site. A franchise agreement must be obtained for any/all landscaping to be located within the public right-of-way. An automatic irrigation system is required. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to submit a landscape plan with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. C. Staff Analysis: The U zoned property at 100 Main Street is occupied by a multi -story office building which previously housed the Trailways Bus Station. There is a paved alley along the rear (west side) of the building running between West Markham and West 2nd Streets. There is parking under the existing building. The property owners propose to remove the existing building from the site and construct a new valet parking lot for the Capitol Hotel which is located within the west half of the block. The proposed valet parking lot will contain 173 parking spaces, with access drives from West Markham Street and West 2nd Street. Portions of the proposed parking lot will allow for double and triple stacked parking, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed parking lot will be enclosed with an ornamental brick and steel fence, with landscaping. The applicant is requesting several variances with the proposed development plan. The first requested variance is from Section 36-342.1(c )(10)b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance. This section states that surface parking is to be located behind or adjacent to a structure, never between the building and abutting street. The proposed parking lot will be located between the Capitol Hotel and Main Street. The second variance is from Section 36-522(b)(3)b.which requires a minimum street buffer width of 6 feet -9 inches along the Main street, West Markham Street and West 2nd Street frontages. The West Markham Street and West 2nd Street buffer widths exceed ordinance standards, but the street buffer along Main Street is 4.5 feet in width (inside the property line). There is an additional 10 feet of landscaped area proposed in the Main Street right- of-way. 2 APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) The next requested variance is from the parking design provisions of Section 36-511. This section requires that right angle parking spaces be a minimum of 9 feet wide and 20 feet deep, with 20 feet of maneuvering area. As noted previously, some of the parking spaces within this proposed lot are double and triple stacked. Additionally, the depths of the spaces range from 16 to 16.5 feet (center stacked spaces) to 18 feet (perimeter spaces). The next requested variance is from the sidewalk paving provisions of Section 36-342.1(c )(6)a. This section states that sidewalks in the UU district consist of a minimum five (5) foot concrete walk, excluding the first two (2) feet from the curb. The applicant proposes to construct stone and brick sidewalks and curbs. The applicant proposes to have stone curbs along the West Markham Street frontage, with flagstone paving, with brick paving and concrete curbs on the Main and West 2nd Street frontages. The last requested variance is from the landscape provisions of Section 36-342.1(c )(5)b., which requires street trees in the UU zoning district. The applicant requests to plant no street trees in conjunction with this project. The applicant notes that street trees around the perimeter of this site could conflict with the River Rail overhead power lines. The applicant is proposing to plant trees within the landscape/buffer strips along all three (3) street frontages. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff believes the applicant has submitted a quality redevelopment plan for the property. The applicant has noted that the proposed valet parking lot could be a temporary use for the property, with a possible high-rise condominium development in the future. With the parking lot being for valet parking, the design should work given the fact that the applicant will have flexibility in determining where various sizes of vehicles will be parked within the lot. The applicant is also requesting variances from the Landscape Ordinance requirements which will have to be approved by the City Beautiful Commission at an upcoming meeting. Staff does recommend that two (2) trees be planted in each of the two (2) interior landscape islands as shown on the proposed plan. Otherwise, staff believes the proposed valet parking lot with variances will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with the proposed parking lot, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works and Landscape/Buffer requirements as noted in paragraphs A and B of the staff report. 2. Any variances from the Landscape Ordinance must be approved by the City Beautiful Commission 3. Two (2) trees (size and type to conform to the Landscape Ordinance) must be planted within each of the two (2) interior landscaped islands shown on the proposed site plan. APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the April 24, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 24, 2006 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. Capital Hotel Variance Request Variance Request Description Jan 30, 2006 The surface parking provisions of Section 36-342.1 (c)(10)b of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit 'New surface parking to be located between the building (Capital Hotel) and the street (Main between Markham & Second)'. Requested parking to be a valet -only parking lot for the Capital Hotel, well landscaped. The lot will be enclosed by an ornamental brick and steel fence similar to that around the rear of the Hotel. 2. The street buffer provisions of Section 36-522 (b)(3) AND the Landscape Ordinance of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit `The reduction in width of street buffers along Main Street'. In this case, a buffer of 8_0 feet is required. A total buffer width of 14.5 feet is proposed, but only 4.5 feet of the buffer will actually be within the property line. The remaining 10 feet of the buffer along Main is being requested as a franchise use, of a part of the existing 20 feet plus wide sidewalk. (Note for items 1 & 2 — the parking lot south of the hotel— this parking lot is existing, along with its ornamental brick & steel fence. We are proposing to create a 6.5 foot landscape strip along Second Street, but this vehicular use area has been in use for many years without landscaping, first as a drive-in bank then for hotel parking. As an existing, continuing use, no variance is specifically requested for this area) 3. The parking design provisions of Section 36-511 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit 'Double and triple car stacking and a variance in parking space size, for the proposed valet parking lot'. A double stack row against the Hotel, and a triple stack row in the center of the lot, between aisles, is proposed. This is possible as all parking will be by valet. Further, a variance is requested to reduce the depth of the double & triple stack spaces. The standard 60 foot depth (actually drawn as 18' car, 24' aisle, 18' car) is proposed for the access aisle & adjacent parking spaces, but the `inner' stack spaces are requested to be reduced to 16 feet to 16.5 feet long. Hotel management has determined that the typical guest vehicle mix will accommodate this change, and it will be enhanced by the flexibility of valet parking. 4. The sidewalk paving provisions of Section 36-341(c)(6) of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit 'Stone & brick paving and curbs'. This section allows only concrete paving of walks and curbs, while other sections allow or require at least partial brick paving. Budget allowing, it is desired to use stone curbs along Markham Street with flagstone paving, with brick paving and concrete curbs on the rest of the block. 5. The sidewalk paving provisions of Section 36-341(c)(5) of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit 'Omission of street trees in the right of way of Markham, Main & Second Streets'. Street trees along Markham and Second Streets are a potential conflict with River Rail overhead power lines. Further, the design concept for this project is lush, healthy vegetation, with good-sized initial plantings. It is challenging to develop large shade trees in 3'x 3' sidewalk planters, especially without the trees damaging the walks as they mature. We prefer to plant larger trees in a substantial planting bed alongside the sidewalk, where they will beautify and offer shade without blocking the walk. Justification Item1: Strict enforcement of the requirement for no parking between a building and the street will eliminate the majority of the Capital Hotel's on-site parking. The proposed parking lot is intended to replace the existing parking, currently on upper levels of the obsolete former Trailways station, which is almost vacant and in need of substantial repair. Items 2 & 3: Strict enforcement of buffer and parking space sizes will eliminate almost 24% of available parking space on the former bus station property, not including internal landscaping requirements. This will mean the loss of up to 43 parking spaces from the proposed concept. This may leave the Hotel with insufficient parking space for proposed additional meeting and banquet rooms. The proposed concept still provides a substantial landscaped buffer. Parking space requirements are of a less - critical nature in an all -valet parking situation. Item 4: Strict enforcement of the requirement for concrete -only sidewalk and curb paving will prevent the Hotel from extending the brick paving adopted by the City from Main eastward, and from installing paving in keeping with the Hotel's heritage along Markham. Item 5: Strict enforcement of the requirement for street trees within the public right of way may lead to conflicts with the River Rail overhead wiring. It will also discourage the growth of trees of the quality and size desired for this project. APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: D File No.: Z-8016 Owner: Allied Food Industries Applicant: Mark Rickett Address: 4015 West Markham Street Description: Block 4, Plateau Addition Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the buffer provisions of Section 36-522 to allow redevelopment of property with reduced buffers. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Restaurant Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Obtain a franchise agreement form Public Works (John Barr, 371-4646) for the improvements and parking located in the right-of-way. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. Eight percent (8%) of the paved surface area must be allocated for landscaped area, per the city landscape ordinance. These interior islands are to be evenly distributed throughout the site. A minimum six foot and nine inch (6-9") perimeter landscaping strip is required along the northern, southern, eastern and western perimeters of the site. This area is to be located out of the public right-of-way. This is a requirement of both the landscape ordinance and the APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.) buffer ordinance. A variance from this requirement will require approval from both the City Beautiful Commission and the Board of Adjustment. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Staff Note: On March 14, 2006 the applicant contacted staff and requested the application be deferred to the April 24, 2006 Agenda. The applicant noted that a revised development plan for the property was being worked out and would be submitted to staff. Staff supports the deferral request. Staff Update: The applicant contacted staff on April 10, 2006 and requested this application be deferred to the May 22, 2006 Agenda. The applicant is continuing to work on an alternative site design. Staff supports the deferral request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the April 24, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 24, 2006 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the May 22, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was places on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the May 22, 2006 Agenda by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 2 OU 7_4_,� D 2-901(l February 23, 2006 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Planning Department 723 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Burger King — 4015 W. Markham Request for Variances Dear Mr. Moore, Pleased find enclosed the following information: 1. Three (3) copies of proposed improvements to the Burger King site. 2. Application for Variances 3. Filing fee. To satisfy the master street plan requirements, the appropriate right of way will be dedicated along the abutting streets. The following is a brief description of the requested variances and justification for the requests: 1. Variance from the 6'9" landscape buffers along Markham and Cedar Streets. The required right of way dedication along these frontages encroaches into the existing parking lot. All proposed perimeter landscaping will be installed in the public right of way. 2. Variance from the 8% interior landscape requirement. Three additional islands will be added to increase the interior landscaping. The total interior landscaping is approximately 5%. 3. Variance to allow parking in the public right of way. This is necessary because of the additional dedication requirement. The existing parking will be in the public right of way after dedication. 4. A franchise agreement to allow parking and landscaping in the public right of way. The ownership of this Burger King store desires to simply raze the existing building and construct a new one in its place with very.little work proposed on the site. The replacement of the existing facility will vastly improve the appearance of the site along with the proposed addition of landscape materials. Leaving the site as -is will allow Burger King to retain most of its existing parking and function of the site. The justification for these variance requests is simply that the proposed improvement to the site will substantially improve the site over the existing site conditions and improving the site to meet code will create a hardship for the Burger King ownership. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this project and the requested variances. Sincerely, Rickett Engineering, Inc. 1 Mark E. Rickett, PE Rickett Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 242862 • Little Rock, Arkansas, 72223. 501.868.6302 • fax 501.868.6296 • mobile 501.690.6068 mark. rickett@rickettengineering.com ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z -6615-A Owner: Paul Page Dwellings, LLC Applicant: William Page Wilson Address: 1520 Rock Street Description: Lot 7, Block 50, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: R-4 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the design provisions of Section 36-370 to allow construction of a new single family residence which does not conform to all CCRC design standards. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Lot Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are recommended to be installed in accordance with Sec. 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. Access ramps located at the intersection and at alley are suggested. B. Staff Analysis: The R-4 zoned property at 1520 Rock Street is currently undeveloped. The property is at the northwest corner of East 16th and Rock Streets. Some site work has taken place in preparation for construction of a new single family residence on this lot and the two (2) lots immediately to the north. The property is located within the Central City Redevelopment Corridor —Design Overlay District, which was adopted by the Board of Directors in 1999 after a tornado struck the area. The Design Overlay District sets forth some design regulations which apply to all new construction in the district. APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) The applicant proposes to construct a new one-story single family residence on the lot, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed structure conforms to all of the area requirements of Section 36-256 of the City's Zoning Ordinance (minimum building setbacks, maximum height, etc.). The applicant is proposing the structure to have a flat roof, as noted on the attached building elevations. The majority of the exterior building finish will be brick, masonry construction, with a smaller portion of the exterior having corrugated metal siding, also shown on the elevations provided. Section 36-370(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that roof pitches of less than 4:12 be prohibited in the CCRC Design Overlay District. Section 36- 370(2) requires the materials of the exterior building shell be wood, brick or a material that resembles wood. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the new single family residence to have a flat roof and a building exterior partially with corrugated metal siding. Staff does not support the requested variances. To staff's knowledge, this is the first variance application from the design standards of the Central City Re - Development Corridor -Design Review District. The standards were enacted to assure that any new structures in the area devastated by the 1999 tornado be constructed with design similar to a majority of the structures in the area. The vast majority of the structures within this area have sloped roofs, with exterior treatments of wood siding or brick. There are a few structures in the area which vary from these design standards. These structures are mostly non - single family residential structures and have existed for a number of years. Although staff typically supports infill development, staff feels that the building design as proposed could be detrimental to the area. Staff supports the efforts of this developer in providing new housing stock to the area, but feels a building design which conforms to the design overlay district would be most appropriate. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances from the Central City Re - Development corridor -Design Overlay District. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) William Page Wilson was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. 2 APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006 CON'T.) William Page Wilson addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented a packet of photos and other information to the Board and explained why his building design would be appropriate for the area. He sited examples of flat roof construction and metal roofing/siding in the area. He gave a detailed description of the proposed building design. It was noted that the masonry construction of the fagade would be Norman Brick. Chairman Francis noted that it was encouraging to see the applicant doing in -fill development in the area. He explained that he had no concerns with the partial metal exterior, but was concerned with the flat roof. In response to a question from vice-chairman Burruss, Mr. Wilson briefly described the design of the two (2) structures he was going to construct immediately to the north. There was additional discussion of the proposed building design. Mr. Wilson noted that the homes he constructed would be sold and not rented. He explained why he desired the flat roof construction. Chris Wilbourne noted that he could support the flat roof. Vice-Chiarman Burruss noted that he also supported the flat roof, noting that there are other flat roofs in the area. There was additional discussion of the variance issue. There was a motion to approve the application, as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent. The application was automatically deferred to the May 22, 2006 Agenda due to a lack of three (3) votes on either side. PaulPage Dwellings, LLC proposes to build three single-family houses on Rock Street, an area devastated by the 1997 tornado. PaulPage Dwellings defines itself as an urban - infill company, which uses existing infrastructure to create and promote mixed income, mixed use, single and multi -family housing that builds upon the success of Downtown Little Rock. PaulPage Dwellings is asking for a variance to the Central City Redevelopment Corridor, for a flat roof and a strip of exterior along the top edge of one single-family home. We are asking for the roof variance, because of the three -lots we own, the topography of this first home, located in the southeastern corner, oriented to the sun at the lowest elevation, would allow light and air to filter into the next two lots, which will include outdoor areas like the corner lot The flat white -reflective roof combined with low -e glass windows, caulking, cellulose, energy-saving appliances, lighting fixtures, framing techniques and concrete floors will maximize energy savings to the city utilities and the homeowner and are a design element of PaulPage Dwellings. PaulPage Dwellings is also asking for a variance for an exterior product, galvalume or corrugated steel to a portion of the top edge, that blends in well with the look of the home and neighborhood where metal roofs and porches are used on existing homes. The product is a very durable and maintenance -free product that will out last vinyl or wood for the homeowner. The home's main exterior product is Norman brick, all other materials, orientation, entrances, parking and set backs will comply with the Central City Redevelopment Corridor. It's PaulPage Dwellings desire to help create a energized area between MacArthur Park and South Main Street. Respectively submitted, Ccujtri^ William Page Wilson PaulPage Dwellings, LLC APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -6732-C Owner: John Chandler Applicant: Shirley Iriana Address: 201 East Markham Street Description: Southeast corner of East Markham and Scott Streets Zoned: UU Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Sections 36-553 and 36-557 to allow an awning sign and a sign without street frontage. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Mixed Office/Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 210 East Markham Street is occupied by a four- story mixed office/commercial building. The property is located at the southeast corner of East Markham Street and Scott Street. There is a paved parking lot on the east side of the building with an access drive from East Markham Street. One of the building's main entrances is on the east side of the building from the parking lot. Iriana's Pizza is planning to move its restaurant to 201 East Markham Street, into the existing four-story building. The restaurant will be located on the first floor of the building, at it's northeast corner. As part of the restaurant APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) relocation, the applicant is proposing to place a sign on one (1) of the existing first floor awnings on the east side of the building. The individual awning is four (4) feet by 14 feet in size. The proposed sign will be approximately three (3) feet by 13 feet, and located on the angled face of the awning. The applicant recently had awning and projecting signage approved for the north side of the building through the franchise process. Section 36-342.1(11) of the City's Zoning Ordinance (UU District development criteria) allows signage, except ground -mounted signs, as permitted in Section 36-553 of the Code. Section 36-553 (sign permitted in office and institutional uses) does not list awning signs as permitted signs. Section 36-557 requires that all signs face an adjacent street. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow an awning sign in the UU zoning district and the sign to have no direct street frontage. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as very minor. The proposed awning sign will occupy only one (1) of multiple awnings on the building's east side. Staff feels the awning sign will aid in identifying the building's side entrance to persons parking in the adjacent parking lot. Staff believes the awning sign will not be out of character with other signs in the UU zoning district and should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. There is to be no additional signage on the building's east fagade. 2. A sign permit must be obtained for the awning sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 2 FIVOOV�s •4 IF , FtM4. March 23,-2006 Little Rock Planning and Board of Adjustment Dear Sirs: This letter is to I hanging awning Markham, down This awning iscing a parkin€ is facing an efi rance into the re lettered sign with a gentle light on the northeast corner of the,,,b sign would make it possible (Rivermarket District) to3 "".- visibility difficult fro�� Thank you for 3 Z -673Z -G at our name on an existing West Building, at 201 E. customers will be parking and @Wd like to also hang a red of it on the brick wall A'S PIZZA. This ;tr+ the building eEt building makes 103 W. Markham / Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 374-3656 APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z -6980-A Owner: Nancy Bartlett, Bartlett Family Trust Applicant: Chuck Hamilton Address: 5036 West Crestwood Description: Lot 30, Prospect Terrace Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow an addition with reduced front and side setbacks, 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: STAFF REPORT Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5036 West Crestwood Drive is occupied by a one- story brick and rock single family residence which is currently being remodeled. There is a circular driveway from West Crestwood Drive and a single car driveway at the southwest corner of the property. There is a 30 foot platted building line along the north and west street frontages. As part of the remodeling project, the applicant proposes to construct a seven (7) foot wide covered porch on the front of the house and a single car carport at the southwest corner of the structure, as noted on the attached site plan. APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) The northwest corner of the proposed porch will be located 17 feet back from the front (west) property line, with the southwest corner of the proposed carport structure being 18 feet back from the front property line. The carport will be located 4 feet to 11 feet back from the south side property line. The proposed porch and carport construction will also cross the 30 foot platted front building line. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a minimum side setback of eight (8) feet. Section 31-12(c ) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed porch and carport additions with reduced front and side setbacks, and to cross the front platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels the request is reasonable. The proposed additions will not be out of character with other building additions which have been made in this neighborhood over the past few years. Given the curvature of West Crestwood Drive and the fact that the proposed structures are not enclosed, they should have no negative visual impact on the adjacent properties. Additionally, staff believes adequate separation will exist between the proposed carport structure and the residence immediately to the south. Staff feels the proposed additions will have no adverse impact on the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the proposed porch and carport additions. 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 variances, associated with the proposed additions, 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 porch structure must remain unenclosed on the north, south and west sides. 3. The carport structure must remain unenclosed on the south, east and west sides. 4. The porch and carport additions must be constructed to match the existing principal structure. 2 APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 3 Chuck Hamilton Construction 823 West Markham Street, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 March 24, 2006 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Neighborhoods and Planning 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Zoning Variance Application for Dawson Residence, 5408 Centerwood Road Monte, -*�3 80 4 We are requesting a zoning variance concerning the following two improvements at 5036 West Centerwood Road. -- To enhance the front of the residence to the street, the Owner wishes to construct a more usable covered front porch. 7 feet of depth is desired in order to allow for the porch furniture and the column supports. To achieve this, an encroachment of 7 feet into the front yard setback of 30 feet is required. The addition of a single car carport to the south side of the house would also encroach into the 30 feet front yard building line. It will butt to the side yard easement. This will allow for covered parking that this house does not have. It is our opinion that these improvements can be achieved within the scale and character of the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, L.� Chuck Hamilton APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 4 Owner/Applicant: Larry Dorn Address: 22 Carriage Creek Drive Description: Lots 107 and 108, Phase II, Carriage Creek Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence/wall provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a masonry wall 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 22 Carriage Creek Drive is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence. There is a two -car wide concrete driveway from Carriage Creek Drive which serves as access. The residence occupies two (2) platted lots. The house is located within the west lot, with the driveway and accessory garage building being located on the east lot. As part of the driveway construction, the applicant recently constructed masonry walls along the sides of the driveway and along the east property line as noted on the attached site plan. On February 27, 2006 the Board of Adjustment approved a variance to allow the increased wall height for the masonry wall near the front property line, between the 25 foot front platted building line and Carriage Creek Drive. The approval was conditioned on the masonry wall along the east property line being lowered to a height not exceeding six (6) feet or applying for a variance for that wall. APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T. The applicant has filed a second application and is requesting a height variance for the masonry wall along the east property line. The wall has a height of 14 feet at its north end, as measured from the low side (east side). The wall tapers back to heights of 9.8 feet and 8 feet, and ties into an existing 6 foot high wood fence near the southeast corner of the property. Three (3) sections at the north end of the wall have been notched out to have wrought iron fence sections inserted. The masonry wall runs for approximately 75 linear feet along the east property line. Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence/wall height of six (6) feet for fences/walls along interior property lines, and not between a building setback lines and street rights-of-way. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the existing masonry wall along the east property line with heights ranging from 14 feet to 8 feet. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance, as filed. Staff views the request as unreasonable. Staff feels the overall height of the masonry wall is not in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood. Staff believes the 14 foot height at the front corner of the wall presents a negative visual impact on the property immediately to the east. However, it is typically staff's policy to support fence/wall heights in residential up to eight (8) feet. Staff feels that an overall height of eight (8) feet would be acceptable in this situation, and could support a variance to allow the wall to be reduced to eight (8) feet in height. The applicant has submitted letters of support from the property owners at 20, 21 and 26 Carriage Creek Drive, which are attached for Board review. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested fence/wall height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) Larry Dorn was present, representing the application. There were several persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial, as filed. Larry Dorn addressed the Board in support of the application. He gave a description of the existing wall along the east property line. He noted that when he purchased the property he did not agree to be in a neighborhood association and explained. He stated that his immediate neighbors were in support of the application. Chairman Francis explained that the City does not enforce Bills of Assurance. 2 APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006 CON'T.) Robert McFarlane addressed the Board in opposition. He noted that the wall in question was a structural wall and not a decorative wall, and questioned the structural integrity of the wall. He explained that he would like to see engineered drawings of the wall. He also noted that the driveway was too wide. L.K. Moore, of the Carriage Creek Homeowners' Board, addressed the Board in opposition. He presented the Board with 52 letters from neighborhood residents. Forty- eight of the letters opposed the variance for increased wall height and four (4) of the letters did not oppose the wall construction. He stated that the Dorns had paid property owners association dues. Phyllis Moore also addressed the Board in opposition. She noted that she was a 14 year resident of Carriage Creek. She explained that her main concern was property values. She noted that efforts had been made in the past to uphold the neighborhood's bill of assurance and City codes. She also explained that the walls were not needed when the house was constructed. Mr. Dorn noted that he could move the wall back eight (8) feet to meet the minimum side setback for structures, and construct the wall to a height up to 35 feet. The issue of lowering the wall height was discussed at length. Mr. McFarlane and Mr. Moore made additional comments against the application. Chairman Francis explained that he could support a maximum height of 8'-9". Staff suggested a condition to include updating the building permit with accurate valuation of the construction, and an updated survey to include correct wall heights and grading notes. There was a brief discussion as to the time which should be allowed for the wall to be lowered. Mr. Dorn noted that he could do it within 60 days. There was a motion to approve the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. The maximum overall height of the wall (or wall/fence) shall not exceed 8'- 9", as measured from the low side of the wall (east side). 2. The building permit must be updated to include the following: a. Correct valuation of the wall construction. b. Updated survey to include correct wall heights (overall property). c. Grading information/cross sections. 3. The wall height must be lowered within 60 days. The motion passed with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The revised application was approved. 3 c 1 — - :�9_jca -'ll, #AL 7,17 A a q. i eArle . ryt e ce re:51we ed L8a'rc�e free,(' ✓.�r�. ��vr1 �C'S�r�YIWl�� L'r!}'I�'2r`I (;V llle lCl✓(pL�p�iy�(�,j YPC'�Y!'Tlu� Ord 5-4-()ek a -t- Aq- Carr(, 0 J9 'T Clow— lyr. arld�l�CIO, (�dyiS�r"UC�p� to �� ��� 4Y1�1 Y1��-62/1ei a✓1 � adds APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-8024 Owner: Randall and Carolyn Prickett Applicant: Randall Prickett Address: 124 North Woodrow Street Description: Lot 8, Block 5, Midland Hills Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 255 to allow a carport 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. Staff Update: The applicant contacted staff on April 7, 2006 and requested this application. be deferred to the May 22, 2006 Agenda. Staff supports the deferral request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the May 22, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the May 22, 2006 Agenda by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. PA T --5 ko z4 (-zn- -Y - 2.--) Department of Planning and Development February 14, 2006 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Request for Zoning Variance at 124 N. Woodrow Dear Sir:, Thank you in advance for your consideration of our zoning variance request. We have recently purchased the property at 124 North Woodrow in Hillcrest after residing a few blocks away at 321 Ridgeway for 28 years. It is our plan for this to be our retirement home. As such, we are proposing to add a sunroom and carport to the rear of the house, which will be handicap accessible. The driveway is proposed to enter from the paved alley at the rear of the property. It is our understanding that a zoning variance is required for construction within 5 feet of the property line on the side of the lot. We are requesting to be allowed to build the carport three feet into this five foot perimeter, to a point two feet from the property line. Per your request, we have tried to list some of the reasons for this zoning variance request below: 1) We are nearing retirement and want to have level access from the proposed carport to the house. The present driveway/carport at the front of the house is ten feet below house level, with access via steep front steps. Based on the slope of the back yard (from north to south), the location of the proposed carport (which will be attached to the house) needs to be as far north as possible, in order to provide level access to the house. The farther south the carport goes, the more it "falls off' from the level of the first floor of the house. 2) Along the same line as 1) above, both of our Mothers are on walkers and wheelchairs, so we would like to be able to provide them with level access to our house, 3) The present roof architecture prevents some challenges for adding on, while still maintaining the period architecture of the house. This is very important to us, as we have been avid supporters of the Hillcrest community for over thirty years and want to do whatever we can to minimize the architectural impact of these changes. If the carport is moved over to the five foot line, the roof eave of the carport would be three feet closer to the roof eave of the sunroom, creating an architectural imbalance to the design. In addition, this move would cause the roofline of the carport to intersect with the current roofline of the original house (above the dining room) at RANDY & CAROLYN PRICKETr r N. WOODROW STREET, LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72205 (501) 661-9039 HOME; (501) 240-9039 MOBILE (RANDY); (501) 240-9040 MOBILE (CAROLYN) the northwest corner of the house, thus causing more negative impact to the design (please refer to enclosed sketch). The northern wall of the sunroom cannot be moved any further south, because of the entrance door from the kitchen. 4) The proposed plan allows for a rear porch (between carport and sunroom) that is thirteen feet wide by eight feet deep. If the carport is moved over to the five foot line, it would reduce the width of the rear porch by 23% to ten feet, making it less ideal for use as an outdoor room. 5) The proposed design minimizes the impact of the carport on the present view from the dining room into the backyard. 6) The proposed driveway lies just outside the canopy of an oak tree that we wish to preserve. If the carport is moved over to the five foot line, the driveway would pass three feet under the canopy and could very likely harm the oak tree permanently. 7) The proposed plan centers the old oak tree in the landscaping area, presenting a more balanced landscape pian. 8) If the carport is moved over to the five foot line, it would reduce the size of the already small yard that would be available for landscaping. We hope that the above information is what you need. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Randy on his mobile phone anytime at 240-9039. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Randy and Carolyn Prickett Encl: Application for Zoning Variance Survey of 124 N. Woodrow (6) Check #7003-$80.00 Filing Fee Check #7004-$5.00 Sign Fee P. S. The nearest structure on the neighbor's property at the point of requested variance is approximately twenty-five feet from the nearest edge of the proposed carport. This is primarily due to the neighbor's property being a lot and a half (75 feet wide). RANDY & CAROLYN PRICKETT 1,24N. WOODROW STREET, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72205 (501) 661-9039 HOME; (501) 240-9039 MOBILE (RANDY); (501) 240-9040 MOBILE (CAROLYN) APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-8025 Owner: Trudy and Dr. Jerry Jacobson Applicant: Dr. J.H. Jacobson Address: 24 Patricia Lane Description: West end of Patricia Lane; West of North Mississippi Avenue Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested to allow a business to be operated from a single family residence. 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 With Home Occupation STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 24 Patricia Lane. is occupied by a one-story rock and frame single family residence., Patricia Lane is a cul-de-sac street, running west off of North Mississippi Avenue. There is a two -car wide driveway which serves as access to the property. The property owner, Dr. Jerry H. Jacobson, is a Clinical Hypnotherapist who closed his office of 18 years at 2723 Foxcroft on December 31, 2005. Dr. Jacobson's plan was to semi -retire and continue to see a few clients and friends in an office located in his home at 24 Patricia Lane. Dr. Jacobson applied for a Home Occupation License which was denied based on the fact that the home office would generate additional traffic into the neighborhood. APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) Section 36-253(b)(6) of the City's Zoning Ordinance provides the following criteria for Home Occupations: (6) Home Occupation. i. Home occupations shall be permitted that will not: 1. Change the outside appearance of the dwelling or provide product display visible form the street. 2. Generate traffic, parking, sewage or water use in excess of what is normal in the residential neighborhood. 3. Create a hazard to persons, or property, result in electric interference or become a nuisance. 4. Result in outside storage or display of any material or product. 5. Involve accessory buildings. 6. Result in signage beyond that which may be required by other government agencies. 7. Limited to five hundred (500) square feet in area, but in no case more than forty-nine (49) percent of the floor area in a dwelling. 8. Stock in trade shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the floor area of the accessory use. 9. Require the construction of, or the addition to, the residence of duplicate kitchens. 10. Requirement or cause the use or consumption on the premises of any food product produced thereon. 11. Provide medical treatment, thereapeutic massage or similar activities. Dr. Jacobson notes that he will schedule two (2) clients per week who will come to his home office. He also noted that all of the surrounding neighbors support his proposed home occupation. Dr. Jacobson submitted two (2) letters from adjacent property owners who support the home occupation request. The Board is asked to determine if the applicant's plan to have a home occupation with clients coming to the residence is acceptable under the above listed Home Occupation criteria as found in Section 36-253. 2 APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) Dr. J. H. Jacobson was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application. Dr. Jacobson addressed the Board in support of the application. Chairman Francis noted that home occupations were required not to create traffic in excess of what is normal for a residential neighborhood. Dr. Jacobson noted that he would have a maximum of two (2) clients per week, and some weeks he might have none. In response to questions from the Board, Dr. Jacobson noted that he would have no signage, would require his clients not park on the street, and did not sell any products at the residence. There was a motion to approve the application for administrative appeal, subject to the following conditions: 1. There will be a maximum of two (2) clients per week coming to the residence. 2. There will be no parking on the street. 3. There will be no signage. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The administrative appeal was approved. '43 March 6, 2006 Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Ladies and Gentlemen: I am a Clinical Hypnotherapist and for 18 years have helped thousands of clients improve their lives by changing unwanted habits. I closed my office located at 2723 Foxcroft December 31, 2005. I plan to semi -retire and continue to see a few of my former clients or their friends who might require my help from time to time in an office located in my home at 24 Patricia Lane, in mid -town Little Rock. When I applied to renew my business license, I was surprised to learn that I would need a waiver to see clients in my home. My home is located on a secluded circle on a one block street., I have spoken with all of my surrounding neighbors and they all approve. In fact my two next door neighbors have furnished me with letters of approval, without my request, which I have enclosed. I will schedule two clients a week. I ask. that you grant me a waiver so that I might be of service to those few people who might ask for my help. Thank you. Sincerely, Dr. Je H. a obson, Ph.D. February 21,2006 Dear Jerry, Please allow this letter to confirm both your notification for a waiver to conduct your practice out of your home and our unqualified support of that request. Sincerely, APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 7 Owner: James T. Dyke and Helen Parker Applicant: Jack Hartsell Address: 4800 Hawthorne Road Description: Lots 1, 2, 9 and 10 and parts of Lots 3 and 8, Block 8, Cantrells Resubdivision of Country Club Heights Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence/wall provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a masonry wall 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 4800 Hawthorne Road is occupied by a new two- story brick single family residence which is in the final stages of construction. The property is located at the northwest corner of Hawthorne Road and Spruce Street. There will be a circular driveway from Hawthorne Road. As part of the new home construction, the applicant is proposing a masonry wall to enclose a patio area on the north side of the house along the rear (north) property line. The majority of the masonry wall will be 8 feet -6 inches tall as viewed from its south side, within the patio area. The property APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.) immediately north is approximately two (2) feet above the grade of the rear yard at 4800 Hawthorne Road. Therefore, the new masonry wall will have a height of approximately six (6) feet as viewed from the adjacent property to the north. The proposed wall will be located just inside an existing two (2) foot high rock retaining wall. There will also be a fountain/water feature near the center of the proposed wall, within the patio area. Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence/wall height of six (6) feet for fence/walls located along interior lot lines. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the increased wall height to 8 feet -6 inches. Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff views the request as relatively minor. As noted earlier, the 8 foot -6 inch wall height will be viewed from inside the patio area of the property in question. The wall will have a height of approximately 6 to 6.5 feet as viewed from the adjacent single family property to the north. Additionally, the proposed wall will not be out of character with other fences and walls in the general area. Staff believes the proposed masonry wall will have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested wall height variance, subject to a building permit being obtained for the construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 2 309 CENTER STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2921 FAX (501) 376-0015 James T. Dyke, Chairman of the Board March 23, 2006 re: 4800 Hawthorne Road Little Rock, Arkansas To the Board of Adjustment City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Members: We are in the process of constructing a brick wall behind our house, at the above referenced address, running along our common property line with Mr. and Mrs. Frank Whitbeck. Their existing property line fence extends approximately 10' above grade on our side. The new brick wall is intended to maintain existing privacy and natural features, including some structural stabilization of old retaining wall. We appreciate your consideration. Yours truly, ti Ja es T. Dyke JTD/sg Serving the Building Industry Since 1866 IJ, -2---9'02-6 P. ALLEN SMITH & ASSOCIATES Landscape V Ga-rden Design - Horticultural Corrsuhat.iort 1722 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-376-1894 Fax: 501-376-1896 17 March 2006 Jinn Dyke/Helen Porter Residence 4800 Hawthorne Street Little Rock, AR 72207 GARDEN WALL ON NORTH PROPERTY LINE 2-4,4- 7 -2-ff02-(, ''1 bra • The tallest portion of the proposed garden wall on the north property line of the new Dyke/Porter residence will be approximately 8-12" below the existing wooden fence. • The wall will stop in line with the east end of the new residence. • The proposed wall will be 8'-6" above the Dyke/Porter garden patio and approximately 6'-0" tall on the Whitbeck property to the north. • The lower portion of this wall will serve as a retaining wall, reinforcing the existing stone wall. APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 8 61=2� • �:�i>± rl Owner: Phil and Annette Herrrington Applicant: Jim Yeary Address: 8 Valley Club Circle Description: Lot 1 R, Block 20-A Pleasant Valley Subdivision (unrecorded) Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a garage 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: STAFF REPORT Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 8 Valley Club Circle is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence. There is a circular driveway from Valley Club Circle, with a portion of the drive extending along the north side of the house to a garage on the north side of the structure. The property backs up to the Pleasant Valley Country Club golf course. The applicant proposes to enclose the existing garage space for additional living space, and add new garage space at the northwest corner of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed garage addition will be located 10.5 feet to 14 feet back from the rear (west) property line. The APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) garage addition will be two stories in height, with an area of 24 feet by 29.2 feet. The existing driveway along the north side of the house will be extended to serve the proposed garage addition. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the reduced rear setback for the proposed garage addition. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The proposed addition backs up to the Pleasant Valley Country Club golf course and will be more than 70 feet from the nearest adjacent structure. The applicant submitted letters of approval from the Pleasant Valley Property Owners' Association (dated March 24, 2006) and the Pleasant Valley Country Club (dated April 11, 2006), which are attached for Board review. Staff believes the proposed garage addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, subject to the proposed garage addition being constructed to match the existing residence. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 2 Yeary Lindsey Architects March 24, 2006 —2— — 00 L 7 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Neighborhoods and Planning 723 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Zoning Variance Application for Herrington Residence, 8 Valley Club Circle Monte, On the behalf of Phil and Annette Herrington, we are requesting a zoning variance to enable them the ability to enhance the living spaces in their home. The improvements to their house include converting their existing garage into a family room and adding a new two -car garage to the rear of their residence. The remodeling and new construction is designed in context to the scale and character of the original home and neighborhood. The garage location is dictated by the existing easements on the property and Phil and Annette's wish to diminish the impact of the new garage from the street and their neighbor to the north. Due to these concerns and the placement of the existing house,. the limited area available requires that the garage be directly attached to the home. To provide maneuvering space for their vehicles to access the new garage, our client is in the process of purchasing a portion of the adjacent neighbor's property to the north. Since the garage is as mentioned attached to the house, our request to you and The Board of Adjustment is to allow the new structure to encroacfi 14.5 feet into the 25 foot rear yard setback. The adjacent neighbor to the west of this property is the golf course of Pleasant Valley Country Club. We have distributed plans to The Pleasant Valley Country Club and The Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association for their review and approval. The Pleasant Valley P.O.A. voted last night to approve this plan. Once received, we will forward to you their letter of support. We have also met with the Country Club Board. They see no problem with the addition, but ask that we modify the landscape plan so that the turning space out of the garage is located further away from the back property line. We are currently revising the design in this area and will stake it out for their approval. I will keep you updated on our progress with the Board. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, Jim Yeary, AIA Attachment 319 President Clinton Ave., Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-5940 FX: 501-707-0118 PLY_.ASANT VALLEY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION 2300 Arkansas Valley Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 March 24, 2006 Annette and Phil Herrington #8 Valley Club Circle Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Herrington; a z (501) 225-0481 Fax (501) 225-8800 Thank you for submitting your requests to the Architectural Committee. The Board has reviewed and approved your plans for the renovation and expansion of your home located at 8 Valley Club Circle, as were submitted. In addition, the committee has also approved your landscape plans, as submitted. The Committee is granting a variance of the rear set back requirements of the PVPOA, in order to construct your new garage, as requested in your plans. Please notify us if there will be any changes to the original plans that you submitted. We appreciate and our pleased to know that you are also discussing your plans with your neighbors and the Pleasant Valley Country Club. Would you be so kind as to send us a copy of their approval so that we may keep it in your file? It is also good to see that you are having the work done by such a fine and professional company as Cone Construction. I am certain that you will be very pleased with their work. Please be sure that you obtain all permits as required by the City of Little Rock. Please call me if I can be of assistance in any way. I hope you enjoy your new additions. I am sure it will be a fun and exciting process. From the plans, it looks like it will be a wonderful addition to your home! Yours very truly, Shannon Quinn Executive Director Apr 12 as 08:05a Market Row 501 '707 0118 Apr, i 1. LJU-©1 ): 7Drr e / PLEASANT MALL' COUNTRY NJN-,66P CNE PLEASANT `JAL.EY DANE - L171LE RGCW ARKkN3AS 72272 U`B PHONE EOI-2225.5622 - Fa# 501.225.5025 April 11, 2006 City of Little Rock Depamnent of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear sirs, Please accept this Letter of Support as our recommendation that the zoning variance at 8 'Halley Club Circle, L ittle Rock, AR 72212 be approved. •TheTequested variance is from the.lrea provisions of Section 36-254 of the Little Rock Godo of Ordinances to permit a garW addition within tate rear yard setback. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincertly, PLEASANT' VALLEY COUNTRY CLUB ,!�' IPoug� President DE/cr p.2 1 44K 2 - Yv 2--77 APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: File No.: Owner: Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Arvest Bank Margaret Stevens, Colliers Dickson Flake Partners 500 Broadway Southwest Corner of Broadway and West Capitol Avenue W Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 342.1 to allow a ground -mounted sign in the UU Zoning District. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Office/Bank Proposed Use of Property: Office/Bank STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 500 Broadway is occupied by a multi -story office building, containing the offices of Arvest Bank. The building is located at the southwest corner of Broadway and Capitol Avenue. There is a small parking lot within the southwest portion of the block. There is also an existing four- sided, ground -mounted sign within a landscaped area at the northeast corner of the property. The existing sign is 15'-4" tall, with a 4 foot wide base. The applicant proposes to remove the existing ground -mounted sign and replace it with a new sign for Arvest Bank and the remaining tenants within the building. The new sign will be 14'-8" in height and 5 feet wide at the base. APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.) The overall sign area for each side will be approximately 53 square feet (Arvest Bank sign and tenant signs). Section 36-342.1(c )(11) of the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits the construction of ground -mounted signs in the UU (Urban Use) zoning district. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the existing ground -mounted sign to be replaced. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The proposed ground -mounted sign will be located along Broadway in a more vehicular oriented area of Downtown Little Rock. There are a number of other ground -mounted signs along Broadway identifying banks, fast food restaurants, etc. The building at 500 Broadway does have a drive-thru bank facility. Staff believes the requested ground -mounted sign will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed sign must be set back at least five (5) feet from any property line (to closest edge of sign). 2. A sign permit must be obtained for the sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent: 2 7-k March 22, 2006 Board of Adjustment Department 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Chairman: 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1200 Post Office Box 3546 Little Rock,AR 72203 Phone 501.372.6161 FAX 501.372.0671 http://www.colliersdfp.com This transmittal is a request for a variance to the City Ordinance provisions relevant to replacing existing signage for a commercial building in the Central Business District of Little Rock. Arvest Bank has an existing pole sign at the southwest corner of Broadway and Capitol Avenue which does not conform to the prototypical signage of Arvest Bank. Consistent signage is a necessary requirement for product and corporate identity. Arvest request that a variance be granted to replace the existing pole sign with a new pole sign as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" showing the proposed replacement sign to be installed. Exhibit "B" is attached showing full measurements of the proposed sign. Refer to Exhibit "C" for a view and dimensions of the current sign in place. We appreciate your consideration and approval of this request. Sincerely, Margaret Stevens Property Manager r �1 Enclosures (5) 1 L. Dickson Flake, CRE, CCIM, SIOR Melanie Gibson, CCIM, CPM Brad Runsick INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE MEMBERSHIPS Mark A. Bentley, SIOR *Phyllis Laser Glaze, CPM -Nolan L Rushing Building Owners and Managers Association Gaines Bonner Dana Gray Thomas J. Rystrom, CPM, CCIM Counselor of Real Estate Denise Bowers, RPA -Kevin H. Huchingson, CCIM, SIOR Leah M. Sears Commercial Investment Institute David B. Carpenter -Gary L. Jones, CPM C. Isaac Smith Institute of Real Estate Management Karen Carrillo Karen Keathley Margaret Stevens, CPM International Council of Shopping Centers Marolyn Dorman Diana G. Lacy Deann Voss Little Rock Board of Realtors, Inc. Dru E. English, CPM Margaret M. Maher -PRINCIPALS National Association of Realtors Karen Fleming Page McDonald Society of Industrial and Office Realtors APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Z-8029 Owner: Kevin and Molly Dalke Applicant: Horton Builders, Inc. Address: 62 Epernay Circle Description: Lot 24, Block 79, Chenal Valley Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a new residence which crosses a side platted building line. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential -New Construction Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 62 Epernay Circle is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence which was recently constructed. The property is located on the northeast corner of Epernay Circle and Epernay Place. There is a three -car wide driveway from Epernay Place which serves the garage on the south side of the residence. There is a 25 foot platted building line along both street frontages (south and west property lines). Because of a mistake that was made in locating the house on the property, the structure has a slight encroachment across the 25 foot platted side building line (south side of structure). The mistake was made because of a slight curve APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 10 (CON'T.) in the south street side property line and platted building line which was not compensated for. The new house crosses the south street side building line by 0.8 foot to 2.5 feet, as noted on the attached site plan. Section 31-12(c ) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the building line encroachment. Staff supports the requested building line variance. Staff views the request as very minor. Given the slight curvature in the Epernay Place right-of-way along the south property line, the house has the appearance of aligning with the residence immediately to the east. Staff believes the slight building line encroachment will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted side building line for the residential structure. 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, associated with the new residential structure, subject to the completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the side platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 03/24/2006 00:25 5015132547 HORTON BUILDERS PAGE 01 HORTONBUILDEIX � CONFIDENT P.O. BOX 1708 - Conway, AR 72033 WWW.HORi'ONBUILDERS.COM City of Little Rock Department of .Planning & Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 To the Board of Adjustments, QfficalFax. (501) 513-2547 Mobile: (501) 519--374.1 We, Horton Builders, Inc., would like to propose the said variance on Lot 24 Block 79 Epernay Place, 62 Eley Circle. When we received the final inspection and plat we found that there was a sway in the property line that was not visible on the original plat. We found that there is an i S inch variance on the right side of the home when facing it. It is where the driveway is and is not joined to any other structures on the side with it being on the comer lot. Initially, there is a sway an the property line that was rot visible on the original plat and themfore was overlooked. We have obtained all signatures for the propfrty owners within a 250 feet range of the home. They are attached to the application. If you as the board have any other questions pinsae do not hesitate to reach one of us with Horton Builders, Inc. Eric Morton, Pres. 501-519- 3741; Jeani Day Horton, Secretary Treasurer & ,Bookkeeper 501-519-3740; Justin Bennett, superintendent 501-428-3941. Thatak you foryour tithe Aith this matter_ Jcani Day Horton Horton Builder, Inc. APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 11 File No.: Z-8030 Owner/Applicant: Demetria J. Manning Address: 6704 Heather Lane Description: Lot 19, Block 9, Richland Subdivision Section B Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12, the area provisions of Section 36-156 and the easement provisions of Section 36-11 to allow an accessory building with a reduced street side setback and which crosses a side platted building line and encroaches into a utility easement. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Update: After looking into this issue further, staff has determined that the accessory building in question should be considered a nonconforming structure. The structure was constructed three (3) to four (4) years ago and replaced a structure which was on the property when the current owners purchased the property 14 years ago. Therefore, staff recommends this application be withdrawn. APRIL 24, 2006 ITEM NO.: 11 (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be withdrawn, based on the fact that staff had classified the accessory structure as non -conforming. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 2 City of Little Rock Department of Planning/Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 March 20, 2006 To the Board of Planning/Development; T,�,--4 // This letter is in reference to the citation I received concerning the placement of my storage building. It has come to my attention that it is too close to the property line according to zoning guidelines. When I purchased the property in the Richland Subdivision in 1991there was an existing storage building on the property, due to it being in deteriorating condition I had a new one constructed in the exact same area. I was unaware that the previous building had been built in the wrong location according to zoning guidelines. The new building was constructed larger and sturdier than the previous building. I am unable to move the storage unit myself, and due to financial restraints nor am I able to afford to hire someone to move it. There are two reasons contributing to my decision to rebuild in the same area: 1.) I have a dog that I felt would be unsafe to house close to the street where children are passing each day. I have children and I know how playful they are. I would not want one of them to playfully put their fingers through the fence and take the chance of being bitten. 2.) This area allows more yard space for my wife to do gardening, for me to grill and my children and extended family to run about the yard during family gatherings. Prior to your notification, I'd received no complaints or concerns from any of my neighbors in regards to my storage unit. I do hope that you as well as my neighbor will understand the hardship it would cause for me to attempt to have the building moved. Sincerely, '4v Demetria Manning Property Owner 11 0- 0 U W w W H O H z LU U) ❑ Q LL O ❑ Q O m a_ a� c L 2_ Q C� G z Q C0 m Q z w U) m Q w Q z O w Q LU W ryC)Q>Q F-oWwM0 Z< w w w z w UO w m v Q W z rr J F- LL C13 IIL I A tP� W}= r��o<> ¢ W �mo C6 z OW(6 z mU z (j) W O co Of O �Q�Z�,j LU LL m 2 = m �5 a_ a� c L 2_ Q C� G z Q C0 m Q z w U) m Q w Q z O w Q LU W ryC)Q>Q F-oWwM0 Z< w w w z w UO w m v Q W z rr J F- LL C13 April 24, 2006 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Date: v 12-6 /0� Chairman