boa_07 31 2006I
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
JULY 31, 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 Meetings
The Minutes of the June 15 and June 26, 2006 meetings were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Andrew Francis, Chairman
Fletcher Hanson
David Wilbourn
Open Position
Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman
City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
JULY 31 2006
2:00 P.M.
I. OLD BUSINESS:
ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION:
A. Z -2668-A 209 N. Pierce Street
B. Z -4099-B 1118 West 3rd Street
C. Z -5849-A 5201 Hawthorne Road
D. Z-8060 6404 Geyer Springs Road
II. NEW BUSINESS:
ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION:
1.
Z -2686-B
2804 Kavanaugh Blvd.
2.
Z -7407-A
9203 Chicot Road
3.
Z-8070
9201 Cloverhill Road
4.
Z-8071
7001 Rockwood Road
5.
Z-8072
6402 Pecan Lane
6.
Z-8073
17 Beauregard Drive
7.
Z-8074
2116 N. Cleveland Street
8.
Z-8075
16 Glasgow Court
9.
Z-8076
8223 Baseline Road
f
CD
t-
(/
O
- d31ZVae
O
11nV81Ht
C '
LO
,7y�d�oco
� n
0 a n
NVW830
tz
e
NIM
AVMOVONS
H08V NO1N0
I
1S3HO a3H380
o
_ ONIN IN
e—
4 MOa000M o 3NId
3 Q i n 133�1S
— Nld "
y 8V 0 r) NO1lIWV 11005 —S�Nfdds
C�
ravd ale > a
J yr`�
iO
) AlISa3AINn Allsa3nlN0
SONI8d5 83A30
S3HOnH FF
N
S
I
Iddiss IN
6
_ l001H0
I"7
810na3S38 M088V8 NHOf 0) 3
W yy
b
3NN13H
7
080331N0VHS o SIOaVs
Oa 31 0V S _
o
cs m
o WVHBVd A3Np0a
{.J
ho NV 08
~ slmn A110 a
30018 AWN
d1so�
n,
W
ORg\t
n
co
Vv�`�C� CR,ISSP�
co
� Nvnlllns
lanM3ls
kryy
H-
0
S11WIl Allo22�
_ �
V
.�jOrnJ 31VON83J
O
JULY 31, 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.
JULY 31, 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
site lighting must conform to Section 36-395 of the ordinance. Additionally, any
2
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: A
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.
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.
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: (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
JULY 31, 2006
IIfIt iIIII, [M>W1
Staff Update:
The applicant contacted staff on May 9, 2006 and requested the application be
deferred to the June 26, 2006 Agenda. The applicant continues to work on a
revised site plan for the property. Staff supports the deferral request.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 22, 2006)
Vice Chairman Burruss called the meeting to order. Roll call revealed only two (2)
members present (Burruss and Wilbourn) and lack of quorum. Staff explained that no
meeting could take place without a quorum, and that all applications would be
transferred to the June 26, 2006 Agenda.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2006)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the
July 31, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays
and 1 open position.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 2006)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be withdrawn,
without prejudice. Staff supported the withdrawal request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn, without prejudice, by a
vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position.
0
WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. rr
24 Rahling Circle L t
• 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,
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 Miller — ArKansas �icnooi rlcrares
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: B
File No.:
Owner:
Applicant:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Floors First By Hill's, Inc.
Jim Hill, Jr.
1118 West 3rd Street
East'/ of Lots 4-6, Block 294, Original City Of Little Rock
UU
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the development provisions of
Section 36-342.1 to allow an addition with a corrugated metal exterior. Also, a time
extension is requested for previously approved variances.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Commercial
Proposed Use of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. The cross slope of the driveway at the sidewalk crossing does not comply
with ADA requirements. With the expansion and improvements, the
driveway apron should be constructed with a maximum cross slope of
1:50 at sidewalk crossings across a 3 foot path.
Comment from Original Approval:
1. With building permit, repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that
is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
Comment from Original Approval:
Areas set aside for landscaping meet with Landscape Ordinance requirements
with the reductions allowed within the designated mature area of the City.
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.)
C. Staff Analysis:
The UU zoned property at 1118 West 3rd Street is occupied by a one-story
brick commercial building. The building is located within the west Y2 of the
property, with a non conforming gravel parking lot located within the east 1/2 .
A driveway from West 3rd Street serves as access.
The applicant proposes to construct a one-story, 39 foot by 69 foot addition at
the rear (north) of the existing building. The building addition will be located
six (6) inches from the north and east property lines and five (5) feet from the
west property line. The addition will have a 10 foot wide garage door and a
standard walk through door on its south side, facing West 3rd Street. The
building addition will allow for the use as an office with showroom and
warehouse.
As part of the proposed development, the applicant proposes to pave the
existing gravel parking lot within the east %2 of the lot. The new parking lot will
contain 10 parking spaces. The applicant proposes to landscape the parking
lot as per Landscape Ordinance requirements.
On April 26, 2004, the Board of Adjustment approved variances from the UU
(Urban Use District) development standards for the proposed building addition
and parking lot. Variances were approved to allow less than 60 percent
transparent or window display for the front of the proposed addition, location of
the new parking lot and building setback for the addition. Please see the
attached April 26, 2004 minute record for details on the approved variances.
The front building setback is no longer an issue, as the ordinance has been
changed to require no build -to line.
The applicant is back before the Board of Adjustment requesting an additional
variance for the proposed building addition, and to have the time for the
previously approved variances extended for two (2) years to align with the
newly requested variance. The previously approved variances expired on April
26, 2006.
The new variance requested is also from the Development standards of
Section 36-342.1 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Section 36-342.1(c )(4)
requires that fagade materials be any standard material, except corrugated or
ribbed materials. The applicant is currently requesting to construct the addition
with a corrugated metal exterior, and therefore is requesting a variance to
allow use of this material.
Staff is not supportive of the variance, as requested. Although staff would
have no problem with the side and rear facades being corrugated metal
construction (north, east and west facades), staff feels the front, street facing,
fagade should be constructed of a masonry brick to match the fagade of the
2
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.)
existing commercial building. In addition, the trash receptacle area in front of
the building addition must be screened with an eight (8) foot high masonry wall
to match the front fagade of the building addition. If the applicant were willing
to make this change to the front fagade of the building addition, staff will
support the variance for the other building sides, and the time extension for the
other previously approved variances, subject to the following conditions:
1. The front (south) fagade of the building addition must be masonry
construction to match the existing commercial building.
2. The trash receptacle area in front of the building addition must be
screened with a eight (8) foot high masonry wall to match the fagade of
the building addition.
3. Compliance with the Public Works and Landscape and Buffer comments
as noted in paragraphs A and B of the staff report.
4. Compliance with all Building and Fire Codes.
5. A building permit must be obtained for all construction.
6. Compliance with all other Urban Use development standards.
7. The new variance and previously approved variances will expire on May
22, 2008.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 22, 2006)
Vice Chairman Burruss called the meeting to order. Roll call revealed only two (2)
members present (Burruss and Wilbourn) and lack of quorum. Staff explained that no
meeting could take place without a quorum, and that all applications would be
transferred to the June 26, 2006 Agenda.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2006)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the
July 31, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays
and 1 open position.
3
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 2006)
Jim Hill was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item, with a recommendation of denial, as filed.
Jim Hill addressed the Board in support of the application. Mr. Hill noted that he could
do a mixture of wood siding and brick on the front fagade of the proposed addition to
match the front fagade of the existing building. He amended the application
accordingly.
There was a brief discussion of the amendment. Staff supported the application as
amended, noting that the dumpster enclosure could be brick and wood.
There was a motion to approve the application, subject to the conditions noted by staff
in paragraph C. of the agenda report. Staff noted that the new and previously approved
variances would expire on July 31, 2008. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0
nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. The application was approved as amended.
10
ST
V
TMFLOORS FIRST by Hill's, Inc Jim Hill Jr. -President
1118 West aro Street
Little Rock, Mansas 72201
Phone (501) 375-9300
Fax(501)375-1630
floorsfirsMsbcgfobal.net
Apri121, 2006
Department of Planning & Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham St.
Little Rock, AR. 72201
RE: Zoning Variance
Gentlemen,
Two years ago I carne before you requesting approval to build a warehouse on my property. At that time
there were issues to overcome regarding: 1. the amount of windows required, 2. parking between the
building and the street and, 3. the building is to be built with 0' setback. These items were approved at
that time (see attachments) and I now wish to be granted an extension of time as I have not constructed
this warehouse.
Today, my primary request is to be allowed to fabricate this building as a corrugated metal structure.
After the last meeting, cost were determined for building with various materials (namely concrete block
as it was the least costly) which were cost prolubitive and visually unappealing from my standpoint.
This metal building would be from colors that would be pleasing to the eye.... likely soft tans or grays
with possibly a black or charcoal roof, and after the final color for the metal building is determined we
would then paint the exterior of the existing building to match, and then, accent both buildings by
painting the exposed clay tile roof (that shows) black/charcoal to match the awning and perhaps have a
black garage and regular entrance door to the warehouse or black awnings over the warehouse doors... all
of which would make this a visually appealing addition to the neighborhood in light of the previous
additions (paved parking and landscaping). Please keep in mind that this structure will setback 110'
from the front property line and that this property is on the outskirts/border of.Zone UU,
We strive to keep our property tidy and I'm reasonably sure my neighbors would welcome this addition
as it could only enhance their property values.
I do not want to move from this location.....
neighbors will not be sorry!
cerely
Jim ill Jr.
President
.please, give this every possible consideration .... you and my
April 26, 260.4:
ITEM NO.: 1�>
File No.: Z-4099-A��� (6�
Owner: Floors First By Hills
Address: 1118 W. 3rd Street
Description: East % of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 294,
Original City of Little Rock
Zoned: UU
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the
development provisions of Section 36-
342.1 associated with building and parking
lot additions.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
0
Public Works Issues:
The applicant's justification is presented
in an attached letter.
Commercial with office
Office/showroom with warehouse
1. With building permit, repair or replace any curb and gutter or
sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
Landscape and Buffer Issues:
Areas set aside for landscaping meet with Landscape Ordinance .
requirements with the reductions allowed within the designated mature
area of the City.
C. Staff Analysis:
The UU zoned property at 1118 W. 3`d Street is occupied by a one-story
brick commercial building. The building is located within the west'/ of the
April 26, 200.4
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
property, with a non conforming gravel parking lot located within the east
'/. A driveway from W. 3`d Street serves as access.
The applicant proposes to construct a one-story, 39 foot by 69 foot
addition at the rear (north) of the existing building. The building addition
will be located six (6) inches from the north and east property lines and
five (5) feet from the west property line. The addition will be located 110
feet back from the front property line. The addition will have a 10 foot
wide garage door and a standard walk through door on its south side,
facing W. 3`d Street. The building addition Will allow for the use as an
office with showroom and warehouse.
As part of the proposed development, the applicant proposes to pave -the
existing gravel parking lot within the east % of the lot. The new parking lot
will contain 10 parking spaces. The applicant proposes to landscape the
parking lot as per Landscape Ordinance requirements.
The applicant is requesting three (3) variances from the development
standards of Section 36-342.1 (urban use development standards) for the
proposed building addition and parking lot. Section 36-342.1(c)(8)
requires that the ground -level (street fronting) floor of non residential
structures have a minimum surface area of sixty (60) percent transparent
on window display. As noted previously the south side of the building
addition, facing W. 3rd Street, will have only a garage door and walk-
through door and no windows.
Section 36-342.1(c)(10)b. requires that surface parking lots be located
behind or adjacent to a structure, never between the building and abutting
street. Although the parking lot is located adjacent to the existing building,
it will be located between the building addition and the street. Therefore,
staff feels that a variance needs to be requested.
Section 36-342.1(f)(1) requires that buildings within the UU zoning district
be constructed to the front property line with a 0 foot setback. As noted
earlier, the building addition will be located 110 feet back from the front
(south) property line.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the
applicant's plan represents a quality redevelopment of the property. Staff
feels that the new parking lot is needed, based on the fact that there is no
on -street parking on W. 3rd Street. Given the narrowness of the lot, the
building additions could not be constructed along the front property line
with parking to the rear, because it would be impossible to gain vehicular
access to the lot. Staff feels that with compliance to the landscape,
E
April 26, 2004 (�
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
buffer, building and fire codes, the proposed redevelopment of the site will
have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area.
D. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works and Landscape and Buffer
comments as noted in paragraphs A & B of the staff report.
2. Compliance with all Building and Fire Codes.
3. A building permit must be obtained for all construction.
4. Compliance with all other Urban Use development standards.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: . (APRIL 26, 2004)
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
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: C
File No.: Z -5849-A
Owner: Chuck Hamilton Construction
Applicant: Chuck Hamilton
Address: 5201 Hawthorne Road
Description: Lot 1, Block 11, Newton's Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section
36-254 to allow a new house with reduced setbacks.
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:
Little Rock Code prohibits encroachments in the right-of-way. The
proposed fence shows to be built at the back of curb and encroaches in
the right-of-way creating unsafe driving conditions.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5201 Hawthorne Road is occupied by a one-story
brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the
southwest corner of Hawthorne Road and Newton Street. There is a one-story
frame carport/storage structure within the south portion of the property. The
property sits approximately 3 to 4 feet above the grade of the streets. There is
a two (2) foot high rock wall along the curb line of Newton Street.
The applicant proposes to remove the existing structures from the property
and construct a new single family residence (two-story), as noted on the
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.)
attached site plan. The proposed structure will be located 25 feet back from
the front (north) property line, five (5) feet back from the west side property
line, zero (0) setback from the east side property line (portion of the structure),
and five (5) feet from the rear (south) property line. The applicant is also
proposing improvements to extend across the east side property line and into
the Newton Street right-of-way, also noted on the attached plan. A new patio
area, wall/fence, steps and the fireplace chimney are proposed to cross the
east property line into the right-of-way.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum side
setbacks of five (5) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a
minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
variances to allow reduced side and rear setbacks for the proposed residential
structure, and improvements to extend into the Newton Street right-of-way.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. It is very clear to staff that
the applicant is proposing to overbuild the residential lot. Given the overall
mass (footprint and height) of the proposed structure, staff cannot support
either setback variance. Staff will also support no encroachments into the
Newton Street right-of-way. Staff feels a two-story structure at this location
should provide the minimum five (5) foot east side setback. Staff could
support a rear setback of 10 feet if the side setback were provided and no
improvements were proposed to extend into the right-of-way. Variances for
large single family homes have been granted in this general area in the past.
However, those variances have not included zero (0) setbacks and
improvements into rights-of-way. Staff believes this type of extreme structural
massing would have an adverse impact on the adjacent properties and the
general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variances, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2006)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the
July 31, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays
and 1 open position.
iJ
JULY 31, 2006
M NO.: C ICON'T.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item
and a recommendation of approval.
Staff noted that the applicant revised the site plan providing a 10 foot rear yard setback
and a 5 foot side (east) setback for the proposed house. Staff supported the revised
application subject to the following conditions:
1. The patio slab on the east side of the house must not exceed 12 inches above
grade.
2. A franchise permit must be obtained from the Public Works Department for the
fence/wall and landscaping improvements in the Newton Street right-of-way.
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, 1 absent and 1 open position.
3
Chuck Hamilton Construction
823 West Markham Street, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201 -Z _�`7
May 26, 2006
Mr. Monte Moore
Department of Neighborhoods and Planning
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Zoning Variance Application for
Dawson Residence, 5201 Hawthorn
Monte,
We are requesting a zoning variance concerning the following items in regard to the new
home we plan to construct on this site. It is our opinion that these encroachments on the
building lines are not out of character with other new homes and additions to existing
homes in the area.
• The north building line will be encroached upon by the fireplace and the
front planter which will also include the front steps.
• The west side of the house will meet the 5' building line set back.
• The east side of the house will have a 5'x19' section of the southeast
corner extending 5' past the building line. We would also like construct an
open air arbor to help block the east sun. We also plan to heavily
landscape this side of house to soften it from the street.
• The south elevation which includes a two car garage would be constructed
5' from the rear property line. This has been approved on several homes in
the Heights, it is our opinion that it would not adversely affect any
adjoining properties.
It is our opinion that these encroachments can be achieved within the scale and character
of the neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Chuck Hamilton
P r�
JULY 31, 2006
HMO
File No.: Z-8060
Owner: Charles W. Calver
Applicant: Mark Winstead
Address: 6404 Geyer Springs Road
Description: Lot 1, Yates Subdivision
Zoned: 1-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
320 to allow a building addition with a reduced side setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Vacant Industrial Building
Proposed Use of Property: Light Industrial
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. A future public street project shows acquiring additional right-of-way on the
west side of Geyer Springs Road for an overpass. The proposed addition
appears to be west of the proposed new right-of-way.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
The landscape ordinance requires an eighty percent (80%) upgrade in the
landscape and buffer ordinance. Credit can be given for large trees shown to
be preserved. This upgrade must include the removal of concrete along Geyer
Spring Road and the southern property line.
An automatic irrigation system is required for all new landscaped areas.
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.)
Parking is not shown on the plan; however, additional interior landscaping may
be required.
The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of three foot (3'-0") landscaped
area to be located between the parking and the building.
C. Staff Analysis:
The 1-2 zoned property at 6404 Geyer Springs Road is occupied by a one-
story metal building near the northeast corner of the property. There are two
(2) access drives from Geyer Springs Road which serve as access to the
property. There is concrete parking on the south side of the building and
asphalt parking (in poor condition) on the east side of the building. There is an
roof sign on top of the existing building. The rear (west) portion of the property
is fenced and occupied by a wrecker service.
The applicant is proposing to construct additional building space on the west
end of the existing building, as noted on the attached site plan. The additional
building area will be one-story in height and 4, 000 square feet in area. The
proposed building will be located 8.62 to 8.71 feet back from the north side
property line.
Section 36-320(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
setback of 15 feet for this 1-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
a variance to allow the new building construction with a reduced side (north)
setback.
Staff is supportive of the requested side setback variance, under certain
conditions. The State Highway Department, in conjunction with Metroplan, has
plans to construct an overpass for Geyer Springs Road over the existing
railroad tracks just north of this site. There are three (3) options for the
overpass construction. Two (2) of the options include acquiring right-of-way
which goes into the existing building on the site. Therefore, staff can only
support the additional building area if it is constructed as a separate building,
so the new building would not be included in future right-of-way acquisition.
Staff believes the requested side setback variance will have no adverse impact
on the adjacent properties or the general area.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in
paragraph B. of the staff report.
2
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.)
2. The additional building area must be constructed as a separate building,
including separate foundation, roof, east wall and utilities.
3. The existing roof sign, including support structures, must be removed from
the existing building.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2006)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the
July 31, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays
and 1 open position.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 2006)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the
August 28, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays,
1 absent and 1 open position.
3
Lasiter Construction, Inc. • 505 West Dixon Rd. • Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 • 501.374.1557 FAX 374.8314 • WATS 1.800.264.1557
May 24, 2006
Mr. Monte Moore
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
501.371.4826
RE: Requesting a variance on the set back line at 6404 Geyer Springs Little Rock, AR
Dear Sir:
On behalf of Arkansas Sling, the owner of the property at 6404 Geyer Springs Road, Lasiter
Construction, Inc. is requesting a zoning variance to the set back line on the north side of the property.
Arkansas Sling, is desiring to build a warehouse that will be an add on to an existing building already
located on the property. The existing building is approximately 9' off the property line. The proposed
building addition is drawn with the foundation matching the north line. This is not in code with the
current 15' set back requirement.
The Warehouse will be used for commercial use.
Should you require additional information please call me at 501.539.0805
Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Lasiter Construction, Inc.
Mark Winstead
Vice President
General Construction • Asphalt Paving • Concrete Construction • Seal Coating • Crack Sealing
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: Z -2686-B
Owner: Metropolitan National Bank
Applicant: Richard Powell, WD & D Architects
Address: 2804 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Description: Lots 4 and 5, Block 52, Pulaski Heights Addition
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of
Section 36-301 to allow a new bank building with reduced setbacks.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Commercial
Proposed Use of Property: Branch Bank
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
The site plan submitted complies with the City's minimum landscape
and buffer requirements.
C. Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned property at 2804 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by a one
story commercial building. The property is located at the northwest
corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. and Beechwood Street. There is an alley
right-of-way along the west property line. In addition to the alley, there
are two (2) access drives from Kavanaugh Blvd., with paved parking on
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.)
the east, west and south sides of the building. There is a retaining wall
along the north and east property lines.
The applicant proposes to remove the existing commercial building and
redevelop the property for a branch bank facility. The proposed branch
bank building will be located near the southwest corner of the property.
The front wall of the building will be located 10 feet back from the front
(south) property line, with a covered entrance having a 7 foot front
setback. The proposed building will be one-story in height with
approximately 1,760 square feet of floor space. A covered drive-thru
canopy will be located on the north side of the building with two (2) drive-
thru lanes. Paved parking will be located on the east and west sides of
the building, with large landscaped areas at all corners of the property.
There will be one (1) entry drive from Kavanaugh Blvd., with an exit drive
onto the alley along the west property line.
Section 36-301(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
front setback of 25 feet for this C-3 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow the proposed bank building to have a
reduced front setback.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels the applicant has
submitted a quality redevelopment plan for this property, and that the
requested front setback variance is reasonable. Most of the commercial
buildings located along Kavanaugh Blvd., between Walnut and Monroe
Streets, have been constructed on or near the front property lines.
Therefore, the proposed reduced front setback will not be out of character
with the area and will add to the pedestrian nature of this commercial
district. Staff believes the proposed redevelopment of this property,
including reduced front building setback, will have no adverse impact on
the adjacent properties or the general area.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
2. Any signage must comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance.
2
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 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, 1 absent and 1 open position.
3
WI rTENBERG DELONY & DAVIDSON ARCHITECTS
June 21, 2006 a
Board of Adjustment
City of Little Rock -�
% Planning and Development Department - 2-&4� -
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Re: Metropolitan National Bank branch
Kavanaugh and Beechwood
Little Rock, Arkansas
WD&D Project No. 05-046
Mr. Andrew Francis, Chairman,
We are proposing a branch bank to be constructed on Lots 4 and
at the northwest corner of Kavanaugh and Beechwood streets.
We received staff level approval for this site from the City Planning office
this past February. We feel we have addressed issues of exterior lighting and
sound buffering with respect to the adjacent property owner to the north. We are
also tearing down the old crumbling retaining walls that separate the two properties
and building a new single wall that will continue south along Beechwood.
In the intervening months, the Hillcrest Residence Association has requested changes
in the site plan which, if included, will violate the City's set back requirements. (See
attached HRA letter dated June 20, 2001.)
We are therefore seeking a variance in the set back ordinance to allow us to include
these changes that move all the parking and the drive thru to the back of the site
and move the building closer to Kavanaugh street (Refer to site plan.)
Sincerely,
WITTENBERG, DELONY AND DAVIDSON, INC.
Richard W. P well
Agent for the Owner
Copy: Ms. Susie Smith, Metropolitan Bank
Mr. Tom Adams, WD&D Architects
400 W. CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1800
LITTLE ROCK AR 72201-4806
501/376-6681
501/376-0231 FAX ltrboa.doc
Hillcrest Residents Association
Hillcrest Station
PO Box 251121
Little Rock, AR 72225
June 20, 2006
Tony Bozynski
Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Metropolitan Bank Branch, Kavanaugh at Beechwood
Mr. Bozynski,
Representatives of the Metropolitan National Bank, accompanied by their architects, met
with the Hillcrest Residents Association (HRA) Board on two occasions to discuss their
plans for the proposed branch in Hillcrest. During the initial meeting, the HRA Board
expressed the desire for the building to be closer to Kavanaugh Blvd, and the drive-
through screened from the street, preferably at the rear of the building. The architects
indicated that such a plan would encroach into the 25' front yard setback along
Kavanaugh and that a variance would be required. HRA Board agreed to support this
variance, conditional on review of the revised site plan and elevations.
At our recent June meeting, the bank representatives and architects presented revised
drawings that are consistent with our request. The building would be set back
approximately 10' from the Kavanaugh property line, and the drive-through would be on
the rear of the building.
I am writing on behalf of the HRA Board to express support for the front yard setback
variance. We feel that having the building closer to the sidewalk reinforces the
pedestrian nature along this part of Kavanaugh Blvd.
Cordially,
ScottAA.mNith, President
Hillcrest Residents Association
Cc: Debbie Knight, Metropolitan National Bank
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.: Z -7407-A
Owner: Kil Kim
Applicant: Tim Dowty, Andrew Hicks Architects
Address: 9203 Chicot Road
Description: Northeast corner of Chicot Road and Preston Drive
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of
Section 36-301 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a new
commercial building with reduced setbacks and which crosses a platted building
line.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Convenience Store
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
The site plan submitted complies with the City's minimum landscape
and buffer requirements.
C. Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned property at 9203 Chicot Road is currently undeveloped.
The site is located at the northeast corner of Chicot Road and Preston
Drive. Some site work has taken place in preparation of new building
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
construction. There is a 40 foot platted building line along both street
frontages (west and south property lines).
The applicant proposes to construct a new convenience store with gas
pumps on the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The new
convenience store building is proposed at the northeast corner of the
property maintaining the 40 foot setback from the front (west) property
line, with 10 foot setbacks from the side (north) and rear (east) property
lines. A canopy covering four (4) fuel pump islands will be located at the
southwest corner of the property. The proposed canopy will cross the 40
foot platted building lines, with corner relations to the west and south
property lines. The corners of the canopy will be located 18 feet back
from the front (west) property line and 21'-5" from the street side (south)
property line. A covered walkway will connect the canopy and the main
convenience store building. An entry drive will be located from Chicot
Road at the northwest corner of the property, with a second drive from
Preston Drive at the southeast corner of the property. Paved parking will
be located on the south side of the store building. A dumpster area will
be located at the southeast corner of the building.
Section 36-301(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
front setback of 25 feet for C-3 zoned lots. Section 36-301(e)(2) requires
a minimum 15 foot interior side setback and a 25 foot street side setback.
Section 36-301(e)(3) requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet.
Additionally, 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
to allow reduced side and rear setbacks for the convenience store
building, reduced front and exterior street side setbacks for the canopy
structure, and the canopy structure to extend across the front and side
platted building lines.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels the request is
reasonable, and the proposed convenience store will be a quality
development for the property. With respect to the reduced side and rear
setbacks for the convenience store building, the property abuts
commercial developments to the north and east which are still zoned R-2.
If the adjacent property were zoned commercial to recognize the existing
use, no side setback would be required. Therefore, staff views these
requested variances as very minor issues. Staff also views the reduced
setbacks for the canopy structure as relatively minor. The ordinance
would typically require 25 foot setbacks along both street frontages. The
40 foot platted building lines reflect older, outdated ordinance setback
requirements for commercial property. The corners of the canopy
structure are located 18 feet and 21'-5" from the front and street side
2
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
property lines. Only a small portion of the canopy structure will be located
within the typical zoning setbacks.
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 and
street side building lines for the convenience store development. The
applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office
to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, associated with
the proposed convenience store development, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front and
side platted building lines as approved by the Board.
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
3. Any signage must conform with the Zoning Ordinance requirements
4. The dumpster area must be screened as per ordinance
requirements.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 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, 1 absent and 1 open position.
W
SON
ANDREW HICKS / ARCHITECT
3200 S. Shackleford
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
501.219.1614
501.219.1613 FAX
www.andrewhicksarchitect.com
June 21, 2006
MR. Monte Moore
City of Little Rock
Dept. of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
RE: 9203 Chicot Road (at Preston Drive)
Zoning Variance - Non- Residential
Dear Monte,
Please find enclosed the enclosed plans in relation to our
variance request.
The property currently has a "deep" building line of 40 feet on
the Chicot Road and Preston Drive which would limit the development
of this property.
This problem combines with an already narrow site (front to
back), The property is only 120 feet deep. The site has an area of
approximately '-:� Acre. In order to have a workable vehicular design
on the site for a fuel canopy and convenience store, I respectfully
request the following:
1. Reduction of the front street setback (adjacent to Chicot Road)
to 18 feet instead of 40 feet as indicated on the survey. This
would be in relation to the fueling canopy overhead with no
encumbrances above ground level. This allows room for adequate
drive areas before and after the fueling of vehicles. The
building proper is within the 40' front setback.
2. Reduction of the street side setback (adjacent to Preston Drive)
to 21 feet 5 inches from the current 40 feet for the fuel canopy
only.
3. Reduction of the rear yard and side yard setbacks to 10 feet
from 15 feet. This would allow further decompression of the
vehicular traffic on the site as described above.
I have enclosed 2 photos showing the 2 adjacent neighbor
properties are non - residential. One is an auto sales lot and the
other is a mini - storage facility.
MR. Kil Kim is the owner of this property. He is developing this
convenience store to better serve the residents of this area. Retail
space is lagging in this area of Chicot Road and the benefit to Little
Rock citizens local to this development is obvious. Mr. Kil Kim is
interested in making an investment in this part of the city where he
can be a dynamic and successful part of the community.
If I may facilitate your review in any way, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Thanks for your cooperation,
Sincerely,
)im Dowty
Andrew Hicks Architect
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.: Z-8070
Owner/Applicant: Jeffrey Lindsey
Address: 9201 Cloverhill Road
Description: Lot 2, Clover Hill Place Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the building line provisions of
Section 31-12 to allow a building addition which crosses a platted building line.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 9201 Cloverhill Road is occupied by a one-story
brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the
southwest corner of Cloverhill Road and Nebling Road. The single family lot
contains a 25 foot platted building line along the north and east property lines.
There is a new 12 foot wide concrete driveway from Cloverhill Road at the
northeast corner of the residential structure. A one -car wide driveway from
Nebling Road was recently removed from the property. The applicant is
currently in the process of enclosing a carport at the southeast corner of the
residence.
As part of the remodeling project, the applicant proposes to construct a 14 foot
wide, one-story addition at the east end of the residence. The addition will be
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.)
used as garage and storage space. The addition will cross the 25 foot platted
building line (along the east property line), and be located 16 feet to 25 feet
back from the east property line.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a side setback of
eight (8) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. 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 a variance to allow the building line encroachment.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as
relatively minor. Only approximately 147 square feet of the proposed addition
will cross the east side platted building line. Staff believes the proposed
addition will not be out of character with the neighborhood. Staff feels the
encroachment will have no adverse impact on the adjacent structures 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 proposed addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the
Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line variance, associated
with the proposed addition, subject to the following conditions:
Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the side platted
building line as approved by the Board.
2. The garage addition must be constructed to match the existing single family
structure.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 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, 1 absent and 1 open position.
2
9201 Clover Hill Rd.
Little Rock, AR 82205
(Yo 7 Q
Dear friends, neighbors, and property owners:
On July 31, 2006 the Board of Adjustment will vote on a proposed variance to our property on Clover Hill Rd.
We hope you will have no objection to this change, which will allow us to enclose a garage around our existing
carport. If you have.no objections, you don't have to do anything. I will explain in detail our plans below.
Since our house on the corner of Nebling and Clover Hill is a corner lot, the building lines are 25 feet inside the
property lines. Our property lines run approximately 5 feet from the street on both sides, which puts the porches
30 or more feet off the street. We have previously had a driveway running from the end of the house to Nebling
Street, but we have relocated that driveway toward Clover Hill and are trying to dress -up the front face of the
property.
After ordering a survey, to get a permit from the city to enclose our carport, we found out the building line on
the Nebling (east) side of our house came within 2 feet of our previous carport at one corner. It runs parallel
to Nebling street, so that by the time it reaches the front of the house it is about 14 feet from the front corner.
Although this triangle space might be room enough for a small garage, it would be odd shaped and a roofing
nightmare. However, under current building requirements this is our building space. The oddity is, we are
allowed to build a carport beyond this space, but just not enclose the carport with a roof.
What we propose is to alter our building lines by approximately 12 feet on the southeast side (back corner
nearest Nebling), so we can extend the house 12 feet (plus the eaves) and enclose a garage. Basically, when you .
drive by, where the new driveway and carport are, we want to make the house longer by 12 feet. We want to
brick the exterior (similar to how it was before) and make it look as much as possible like it was originally built
this way. We are currently investigating places to purchase antique brick, like that currently on our house, if you
have any resources in that direction please let us know.
We spoke during the planning to our neighbors on that side of our property. They support our proposal. We
have also shared our plans with "Miss Molly" Irvin, president of the Pennbrook/Clover Hill Neighborhood
Association, and received encouragement. Our hope is that our neighbors will all benefit from this improvement
as home values continue to increase in the neighborhood.
All of this has come about in part because my wife and I are expecting a baby in October. We need a bit more
space, but don't want to move or build-up. Enclosing the carport, which is currently under construction, and
building a garage, will make our house more livable and increase it's value. For us this is a win-win.
We hope you agree.
Please stop by if you have any questions about the project. We are happy to meet more of our neighbors
Sincerely,
Jeff and Angela Lindsey
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM
File No.: Z-8071
Owner: Todd and Hayley Armstrong
Applicant: Todd Armstrong
Address: 7001 Rockwood Road
Description: Lot 263, Kingwood Place Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section
36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a building addition with
reduced 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: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 7001 Rockwood Road is occupied by a one-story
brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway
from Rockwood Road which serves as access. The residential lot contains a
30 foot front platted building line.
The applicant proposes to construct a 26 foot by 33 foot garage addition at the
northeast corner of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The
proposed addition will be located approximately 14 feet back from the front
(north) property line, crossing the front platted building line by approximately
JULY $1, 2006
ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.)
16 feet. The applicant notes that the addition will be tied into the existing
house by a hip -type roof, and will be constructed to match the existing house.
Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front
setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision
Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and
approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
variances from these ordinance standards to allow the garage addition with a
reduced front setback and to cross the front platted building line.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. Staff's non-support is based
primarily on the fact that staff views the proposed garage addition as being out
of character with the neighborhood. Although the houses on the north side of
Rockwood Road are located closer to the street than the houses on the south
side, the structures on the south side maintain a fairly uniform setback from the
street. There are no similar encroachments located on the properties along
the south side of Rockwood Road. Therefore, staff believes the proposed
addition could have an adverse visual impact on the neighboring properties
along the south side of Rockwood Road.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to
complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for
the garage addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the
Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested setback and building line variances.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 2006)
Todd Armstrong was present, representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Todd Armstrong addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that
there were structures on the north and south sides of Rockwood Road which were
closer to the street than the proposed garage. He also explained the type of
construction and how it would blend in with the other structures in the area.
Chairman Francis expressed concern with the proposed front setback being out of
character with other structures along the street. He stated that he was not concerned
2
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.)
with the quality of construction. Fletcher Hanson and Chris Wilbourn concurred with
Chairman Francis.
There was a brief discussion of other possibilities for the garage construction
There was a motion to approve the requested variances. The motion failed by a vote of
0 ayes, 3 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. The application was denied.
W
Todd Armstrong
7001 Rockwood Rd.�-�,
Little Rock, AR 72207
501-626-6102
City of Little Rock Planning & Development
Monte Moore
723 W Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
501-371-4792
RE: Variances from Ordinance
Please review our proposed addition of a three garage to our home at 7001
Rockwood.
The garage will be tied into our existing homes roofline via a hip -roof. The
proposed garage will be constructed of matching brick and roof. Wooden
Garage doors will be stained to match our current front door. We will
maintain the structural integrity of our home and the integrity of the
neighborhood.
There are several homes on Rockwood Road and throughout the Kingwood
subdivision that are over the 40'buildline. _t
e -e Iii eU3 OWA �/Z 5
Regards,
Todd Armstrong
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.: Z-8072
Owner: Bobby and Barbara Mosely
Applicant: Bobby Mosely
Address: 6402 Pecan Lane
Description: Lot 35, Block 5, Richland Subdivision
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section
36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a deck addition with a
reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 6402 Pecan Lane is occupied by a one-story brick
and frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from
Pecan Lane which serves as access, The residential lot contains a 25 foot
front platted building line.
The applicant recently constructed a 14 foot by 16 foot deck on front of the
house, as noted on the attached site plan. The deck is uncovered and
unenclosed, and constructed approximately two (2) feet above grade. The
deck structure crosses the front platted building line by 13 feet, resulting in a
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.)
12 foot front setback. The deck is approximately 15 feet back from the west
side property line.
Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front
setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision
Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and
approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
variances from these ordinance standards to allow the deck addition with a
reduced front setback and to cross the front platted building line.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances associated with the proposed
carport addition. Although staff typically does not support building line
encroachments of this type, staff feels that it is justified in this particular
instance. Staff surveyed this entire subdivision and found at least nine (9)
similar structures with reduced setbacks and building line encroachments.
Therefore, staff feels that the proposed deck addition will not be out of
character with the neighborhood. There is a similar nonconforming deck
structure on front of the house immediately to the east. Additionally, staff
views this deck structure as very non -imposing, as it is only approximately two
(2) feet above grade and is uncovered and unenclosed. Staff believes the
proposed deck addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties
or the general area.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to
complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for
the deck addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the
Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the variances associated with the deck addition,
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 deck structure must remain uncovered and unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item
and a recommendation of approval.
K
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:( Con't.) (JULY 31, 2006)
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, 1 absent and 1 open position.
3
Bobby T. & Barbara A. Mosely
6402 Pecan Lane
Little Rock, AR 72206
We have built a deck on the front of our home abutting the front porch going 16' west
and 14' south of the front. The purpose of which is so we can enjoy the front yard which
we couldn't because of the large Ash tree and the exposed root that cover nearly every
foot making it very hard to just set in a lawn chair or to find level ground to do so. With
the deck we can use it as a place for company and family that we weren't before. There
isn't enough room inside our small home for our 2 kids and their family (5 grand kids and
spouses).
Our next door neighbors have a deck on the front of their house very close to the same
size as ours and have had for more than 3 or 4 years so we didn't know there had to be a
permit or variance to do so as we never signed anything for them but would have if
asked.
I had my third heart attack 2 years ago and had to have 4 bypasses as a results and during
the recovery discovered my front yard for the first time in 35 years as a pleasant place for
fresh air and relaxation and it was then I saw how much good a deck such as my
neighbors could be for me and mine.
The cover that was mentioned in the Courtesy Notice is a portable 10'X10' tent awning
that is collapsible and is attached with strings, the purpose of which is to shade the west
end of the deck in the evening sun. This can be taken down and placed in a bag and put in
the trunk of a car anywhere it may be needed.
Thank You!
Bobby T. & Barbara A. Mosely
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.: Z-8073
Owner: Jimmy and Shirley Talley
Applicant: Jimmy Talley
Address: 17 Beauregard Drive
Description: Lot 20, Hermitage Home Sites Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section
36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a carport addition with
a reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property
STAFF REPORT
Single Family Residential
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 17 Beauregard Drive is occupied by a one-story
brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway
from Beauregard Drive which serves as access. There is a metal carport
structure which was recently constructed over a portion of the driveway. This
single family lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line.
The new carport structure is attached to the house and is approximately 18'-7"
by 20 feet in size. The carport structure is unenclosed and painted to match
the residence. The carport is located approximately 7.5 feet from the front
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.)
(west) property line, extending across the front platted building line by 17.5
feet.
Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum front
setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision
Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and
approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
variances from these ordinance standards to allow the carport addition with a
reduced front setback and to cross the front platted building line.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. Upon surveying the
neighborhood staff did find one (1) similar carport structure at 5 Beauregard
Drive. However, staff noticed no other similar encroachments in this
neighborhood. Therefore, staff feels that the requested carport addition with
encroachment into the front setback is out of character with the neighborhood.
Staff believes the carport structure has an adverse visual impact on the
adjacent properties along Beaurgard Drive which have a uniform setback from
the street.
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 carport addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the
Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variances associated with the
carport addition.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 2006)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the
August 28, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays,
1 absent and 1 open position.
2
We, Jimmy R. Talley and Shirley A. Talley, do request a variance from the
requirements of the zoning ordinance. This is needed for the following reasons: We
needed more space in our home, and our carport area was enclosed for additional
space. The carport area served as protective shelter for 32 years from inclement
weather, for not only our vehicles, but also members of our family, going and
coming. We needed another covering for the same purpose in years to come. The
carport that has been extended from the house was installed properly by the
contractor. Two other houses in the community have the same type carport, which
in fact was installed several years ago. Our contractor was responsible for all
permits and meeting all codes set by the city of Little Rock. We have spent
$30,000.00 on our home. We have always tried to keep our home as beautiful as
possible from the outside. The carport has richly beautified our home as well as
served us for the same reason it was installed. We ask you to please grant our
request.
Thanks In Advance,
1
e
GL
Jimmy and Shirle alley
jt
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.: Z-8074
Owner: Harry and Marlene Ware
Applicant: Carolyn Lindsey, Yeary Lindsey Architects
Address: 2116 N. Cleveland Street
Description: Lot 10, Block 4, Altheimer's Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 to allow a building addition with a reduced front setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 2116 N. Cleveland Street is occupied by a one-
story frame single family residence. A one -car wide driveway from Cleveland
Street serves as access. There is also a one-story frame garage structure
along the north property line within the rear yard. An alley right-of-way exists
along the rear (west) property line.
The applicant proposes to construct an 8 foot wide porch (8 feet by 20'-4") on
front of the house, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed porch will
be unenclosed and located 16.9 feet back from the front (east) property line.
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.)
Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front
setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
a variance to allow the porch addition with a reduced front setback.
Staff is supportive of the requested front setback variance. Staff views the
request as relatively minor. There are several other homes along both sides of
Cleveland Street (between Beacon Street and Kavanaugh Blvd.) which have
similar encroachments into front setbacks for front porches. These porch
structures have nonconforming front setbacks, with one of the porches having
been previously approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, staff feels
the proposed porch addition will not be out of character with the neighborhood.
Staff believes the proposed porch addition will have no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties or the general area. The applicant is also proposing an
addition to the rear of the house which conforms to ordinance standards.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested front setback variance, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The porch structure must be constructed to match the existing house.
2. The porch must remain unenclosed on its north, south and east sides.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 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, 1 absent and 1 open position.
2
Bary Lindsey Archite�_ .
June 14, 2006
Mr. Monte Moore
Dept. of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Re: Zoning Variance Application
Ware Residence, 2116 N. Cleveland
Dear Monte,
We are requesting a zoning variance at 2116 N. Cleveland to allow an encroachment
into the front setback to allow the construction of a front porch that will reduce the
setback to 16.9 feet.
The current house projects .1 feet into the setback with a stoop that projects
approximately 4 additional feet into the setback. Out of 10 houses on the west side of
the street where this house is located, 3 have porches that project into the front setback.
These porches appear to be original to the houses. We feel this porch addition will
blend well with the current architectural context and will enhance the streetscape.
Our proposed plan also includes a one-story addition to the rear that maintains a 6 -foot
clearance from the existing garage structure.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
r �4
Carolyn Lin y, AIA
319 President Clinton Ave., Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-5940 FX: 501-707-0118
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 8
File No.: Z-8075
Owner: David and Susan Conrad
Applicant: Jud McDaniel, J -McDaniel Construction Co.
Address: 16 Glasgow Court
Description: Lot 7, Block 21, Villages of Wellington
Zoned: R-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section
36-255 to allow a residence with reduced 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:
104[.1FORT,i�11W
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-3 zoned property at 16 Glasgow Court is occupied by a one-story brick
and frame single family residence which was recently constructed. There is a
two -car wide driveway from Glasgow Court which serves as access. The
residential lot slopes downward from front to back (east to west).
With the new home construction, the applicant constructed a 12 foot wide deck
on the rear of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The deck
runs for approximately 35 feet along the rear wall of the residence. The deck
is approximately seven (7) feet above the finished grade of the rear yard, and
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.)
is uncovered and unenclosed. The deck structure is located approximately 17
feet back from the rear (west) property line.
Section 36-255(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear
setback of 25 feet for this R-3 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
a variance to allow the deck structure with a reduced rear setback.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as
reasonable. The house is set back five (5) feet further on the lot than required
by the 20 foot front platted building line. If the house were pulled up to the
front building line, the deck setback could have been approved
administratively. The proposed deck with reduced setback will not be out of
character with the neighborhood. Similar decks with reduced setbacks have
been approved throughout the Villages of Wellington Subdivision. Staff
believes the deck 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
deck structure remaining uncovered and unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 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, 1 absent and 1 open position.
N
June 15, 2006
2-ffD75
To: Little Rock Board of Adjustments
From: J -McDaniel Construction Co., Inc., Jud McDaniel, V.P.
Re: Variance request, 16 Glasgow Court
We are requesting a residential variance at 16 Glasgow Court in
the Villages of Wellington subdivision to the city of Little Rock.
The deck constructed on the back of the residence extends into the
25 foot setback. In order to give the buyer room for table and
chairs and usable space on this deck area, we did extend into the
setback. This was not done intentionally, but was rather an
oversight.
We respectfully request that a variance be granted.
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.:
File No.: Z-8076
Owner: R.S. Keathley, JR.
Applicant: Regina Haralson, Kaplan, Brewer, Maxey and Haralson, P.A.
Address: 8223 Baseline Road
Description: South side of Baseline Road, between Production and Distribution
Drives.
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested to determine that a
nonconforming use/status of the property (mobile home park) is valid.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 8223 Baseline Road is currently vacant. For a
number of years the site was used as a mobile home park. Evidence of its
previous use still exists in the form of concrete/asphalt pads, utility stub -outs,
etc. There are two (2) asphalt drives on the property. There is a main access
drive from Baseline Road down the center of the property. This drive connects
to a drive along the west property line which accesses Victoria Street to the
west. There is one (1) unoccupied mobile home at the northeast corner of the
property.
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 9 (,CON'T.)
This R-2 zoned property had a nonconforming R-7 status for many years
during its use as a mobile home park. However, on July 20, 2004 the property
ceased being used as a mobile home park. Water to the property was cut-off
on July 19, 2004.
The City's Zoning Ordinance does not permit the operation of a mobile home
park as a by right use in R-2 zoning. The mobile home park which previously
existed on this property was in existence before the property became part of
the City, and was allowed to continue as a nonconforming use. Such a use
can continue as long as the use is not ceased for a period of one (1) year,
according to the following Section 36-153( c) of the City's Zoning Ordinance:
"( c) Abandonment or discontinuance. When a
nonconforming use has been discontinued or abandoned,
and the appearance of which [such use] does not depict
the identity of an ongoing use, and further if said situation
exists for a period of one (1) year, such use shall not
thereafter be reestablished or resumed. Any subsequent
use or occupancy of such land or structure shall comply with
the regulations of the zoning district in which such land or
structure is located."
Shortly before July 20, 2005 the mobile home which exists near the northeast
corner of the property was placed on the site. There was no evidence that the
mobile home was inhabited by July 20, 2005. Therefore, the City determined
that the nonconforming status of the property has been lost. According to a
letter dated February 8, 2006 from City Attorney Tom Carpenter to Phillip
Kaplan, the property owner's attorney:
"The City considers this property abandoned as a mobile home park and
will not permit any owner to engage in such a use. The ordinance clearly
notes that abandonment or discontinued use includes situations in which
"the appearance... does not depict the identity of an ongoing use." Little
Rock, Ark., Rev. Code §36-153( c) (1988). Arkansas law does not require
the City to prove an intent to abandon a use, merely that there has been a
discontinuance of such use."
The property owner is appealing the City's determination that the
nonconforming status of the property has been lost. The property owner is
asking the Board to determine that he has not abandoned the nonconforming
mobile home park use of the property and that he be allowed to continue said
use. A separate packet of information, including letters from the City
Attorney's office, has been provided by the applicant and will be given to the
Board members for review. A member of the City Attorney's office will be
present at the public hearing to provide additional information.
0
JULY 31, 2006
ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 2006)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the
August 28, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays,
1 absent and 1 open position.
9
KAPLAN,
PHILIP E. KAPLAN
JOANN C. MAXEY
REGINA HARALSON
OF COUNSEL:
SILAs H. BREWER
June 7, 2006
BREWER, MAXEY & HARALSON, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
City of Little Rock Board of Adjustment
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: 8223 Baseline Road
Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment:
415 MAIN STREET
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
(501) 372-0400
FAX (501) 376-3612
SENDER'S E-MAIL pkaplan@kbmiaw.net
( 3 jvo�,)
HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Raymond Keathley owned and operated a mobile home park on the property at issue
from the early 1990s until he sold it in 2000. Under Mr. Keathley's ownership, the park
was clean and maintained; it contained nice homes and housed decent tenants. Attached
and marked as Exhibit A are pictures showing the condition of the park under Mr.
Keathley's ownership.
Steve and Lisa Thompson entered into a real estate contract to purchase the property from
Mr. Keathley on October 17, 2000 and took possession at that time. Mr. Keathley financed
the purchase; the Thompsons made monthly payments. The Thompsons, however, did
not maintain the park, and it eventually deteriorated to the point that the City became
involved. Mr. Keathley was not aware at the time and is not currently aware of
communication between the City and the Thompsons. Mr. Keathley first became aware
of the issues when Ms. Barbara Hyatt contacted him as lien holder and notified him of
problems. Mr. Keathley agreed to talk with Mr. Thompson, which he did, and was assured
that Mr. Thompson would move the worst of the homes out of the park and repair and
restore the ones remaining. Mr. Keathley offered to assist further and advised Ms. Hyatt
to contact him if needed. When he had no further contact from Ms. Hyatt, Mr. Keathley
assumed the problems were resolved.
Unbeknownst to Mr. Keathley, water to the facility was cut off on July 19, 2004, and the
City shut the park down on July 20, 2004. By this time, the park was in deplorable
condition, as tenants abandoned the homes, vandals stripped all the metal from the mobile
homes, and four loads of tires were dumped in the park. Attached and marked as Exhibit
B are pictures showing the mess. Thompson became delinquent on his payments to Mr.
Keathley and deeded the property back to Mr. Keathley on September 24, 2004. Although
he believed some homes were salvageable, Mr. Keathley cleared everything from the
property, expending between $40,000 and $50,000 to do so. Attached as Exhibit C are
pictures of the park after the cleanup.
Parties contacted Mr. Keathley about purchasing the property from him, but reported that
they were told by the City that the property could no longer be used for a mobile home
park. Mr. Keathley, through this office, inquired about the zoning status of the property.
The City Attorney responded and advised that the property could continue its use as a
mobile home park if it renewed operation prior to July 20, 2005. Attached as Exhibit D is
a copy of the letter for your convenience. Mr. Keathley placed a new sign at the entrance.
He obtained water and sewer service on June 23, 2005, purchased a new mobile home
for the property on July 8, 2005, had it transported and set up at the park on July 11, 2005,
and began advertising it and spaces for rent on July 13, 2005. Attached as Exhibit E are
receipts from Central Arkansas Water, Arkansas Liquidators, and Henley Mobile Home
Service, and a copy of Mr. Keathley's record with copy of advertising as evidence of these
efforts. Attached as Exhibit F are pictures of the mobile home.
In September 2005, the City determined that the property's use as a mobile home park had
been abandoned and advised him to remove the "abandoned" mobile home unit from the
premises. Mr. Keathley, through this office, responded and advised that operations had
resumed timely. The City Attorney responded and opined that since no one had rented the
mobile home, the City would consider the property abandoned as a mobile home park.
Attached as Exhibit G are copies of those letters for your convenience. Mr. Keathley
disputes this finding.
Mr. Keathley understands, however, that the property must meet the code requirements,
and he is committed to ensuring that it does. Moreover, he is committed to improving the
entire area, as the elements surrounding the mobile home park are less than ideal.
Attached as Exhibit H are pictures showing property that joins the park on the east, the
west, across Baseline, and as you enter the park from Baseline. As you can see, the
surrounding conditions are less than desirable. A similar situation existed in Conway at
Mr. Keathley's Brookside Village Mobile Home Park until Mr. Keathley donated a mobile
home for a Conway Police Department substation. As a result, undesirables moved away,
speeders slowed down, and the police department has a visible presence, which has
resulted in developing relationships with nearby families and businesses. Attached as
Exhibit I is a newspaper article printed recently lauding its success.
Mr. Keathley had no problems with the property during his previous ownership. He then
went to great expense to clean the property when it was abandoned by the Thompsons.
He purchased a new home, installed it, obtained utility services, and advertised it and
spaces for rent. He offers to provide the Little Rock Police Department with a mobile home
and space if it would like to open a substation there, as he did at the Brookside Village
Mobile Home Park in Conway. This can be a positive space for the neighborhood, the
surrounding area, and the City. Mr. Keathley would like to see the park with nice homes,
nice families, maintained, with a police presence, and a welcome addition to the area. He
2
asks that the Board of Adjustment find that he has not abandoned the property and give
him an opportunity to realize that vision.
Sincerely,
Philip E. Kaplan
PEK:nm
cc: Client
0
V
W
0:
W
F-
0 0
H
Z
uj
U)
'7
LL
0
0
Q
0
co
a:
c�
N
a�
c
0
Q
c
a�
Z_
Q
H
CO
m
Q
Z
W
co
Co]
Q
W
Q
D
O W 0
w W > _
Q LLJ LU
h Q zO
Z Q F- —i W
Z U
zU)U)zcr-D Q
�)DOOC
�
W Q of z Co w
u-m=�0
July 31, 2006
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.
Date: 1 -VZ? v /
Chairman Secretary