Loading...
boa_11 27 2006r LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES NOVEMBER 27, 2006 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the October 30, 2006 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Andrew Francis, Chairman Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman Fletcher Hanson David Wilbourn Open Position Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA NOVEMBER 27, 2006 2:00 P.M. I. OLD BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: A. Z-8076 8223 Baseline Road II. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: 1. Z -4800-A 6000 W. Markham Street 2. Z -6347-A 10901 Rodney Parham Road 3. Z-8125 5130 "P" Street 4. Z-8126 5219 "H" Street 5. Z-8127 317 North Ridge Road 6. Z-8134 9401 Mann Road 7. Z-8135 1730 N. Spruce Street 8. Z-8136 Northwest of the Intersection of Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road 9. Z-8121 -A 6201 West Markham Street 0 0 _— ` V ■ ■■� 3HId — a31ZYd1 I llntlalHl A , eff �,■■■, OpNp — � NYWa3O ■ LUU I`y- NItlW � AtlM0Y0a8 _ H�atl NDlhp = 53143 — a3438O ONIN In i\ � W �RpNSpc 4 mod000M o 3HId `—� 3NId 4. 8; hJyy p,� e atl0 NOITINY 11095 "' s S 7iyAddS Hatld a1V Y�J N LS7 � A11S83AINn w AlISa3AIN0 SONIadS a3A30 53H9 H o y w idd155 SIW 1031143 N � al0Ad353d MO HY8 NHOf 3 u 2� 6 6 3A 13H oaod3lH3YHs o Q siaays °o � oa 31 ds WYHatld A3NOOa m o — � I � NY OO �� how 1 WIl o — — HJ�oJ3SbISo � 3OO18 AWN pRBAA a„ E y Q — a NYAlllOS � latlM31S Q Hsd'b h q- 0 S11WIl A!2�� s � 31VONa33 0 m NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: A 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. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: A 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. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: A 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the September 25, 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: (SEPTEMBER 25, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the November 27, 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: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the December 18, 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. KAPLAN, BREWER, MAXEY & HARALSON, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW PHILIP E. KAPLAN JOANN C. MAXEY REGINA HARALSON OF COUNSEL: SRAS H. BREWER June 7, 2006 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-MAILpkaplan@kbmiaw.net =1 4,-)- � 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; tfie 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 himas 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 r:e. 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 -,,h, e 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. Attadhed 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 N 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 NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z -4800-A Owner: CBL and Associates Properties, Inc. Applicant: Lance Ivy, Park Plaza Address: 6000 W. Markham Street Description: Northwest corner of West Markham Street and University Avenue Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 543 to allow a roof sign. 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: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 6000 W. Markham Street contains the Park Plaza Mall development. The property owner has recently been remodeling portions of the mall facilities. As part of the remodeling project, the owner has installed new signage identifying the "Park Plaza" property. A new canopy structure was constructed over the main mall entrance on the south side of the building, facing West Markham Street. A component of the canopy construction includes a sign which sets on top of the canopy structure at its front edge. The sign is comprised of individual lighted letters, with an overall size of 5 feet -9 inches by 33 feet -4 inches. The sign extends above the NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 1 canopy and the front wall of the mall building. However, there is a center glass roof structure which is taller than the front building fagade and the sign structure. Section 36-543(7) of the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits roof signs or signs not mounted on a vertical surface. The ordinance definition of a roof sign is "any sign erected over or on the roof of a building." Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the sign which is mounted on the roof of the main canopy structure and not on a vertical wall of the building. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Although staff generally does not support variances for roof signs, staff's support in this case is based on the fact that the top of the sign in question does not exceed the overall height of the building. The third story glass and frame roof structure which is set in from the front wall of the building is higher than the top of the proposed sign. Additionally, staff believes the sign in combination with the new canopy structure creates an interesting architectural feature on the existing building. In staff's opinion the proposed roof sign will have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, as filed. If the sign is ever removed, it must be replaced with a sign that complies with ordinance standards, or a new variance application must be filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. omniplan October 23, 2006 Mr. Monte Moore Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Park Plaza - Application for zoning variance. Mr. Moore, 1845 Woodall Rodgers Freeway Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Phone '214 8267080 Fax 214 8267016 _ www,omrlil)lan.com Dallas • Phoenix We are seeking a zoning variance to allow a roof mounted sign to be located at the south main entry of Park Plaza Mall. The current signage design has already been submitted, reviewed and received permitting. The signage was fabricated upon its permit approval and later installed. Upon further review by signage officials the signage was given non -conforming status thus the need for a variance for this type of sign mounting condition. We feel that the current sign design seeks aesthetic beauty and quality, which matches the overall design language found in the rest of the site signage. This creates a cohesive design vision throughout the project through use of color, lighting, and materials. To Create a strong icon of vitality in the heart of a new commercial retail shopping district is key. The extended canopy roof mounted mall identification signage embodies that icon. Scale, contrasting colors, bold lines, and interesting architecture gives the mall an updated look. Park Plaza Mall will be the trendsetter and the shopping destination for central Arkansas. With this in mind, the environmental graphics play a vital part in setting the tone for the entire project. We respectfully request that the signage be considered for said variance. If you have any questions, or require further information, please feel free to contact and let me know how I can be of further assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Jerod Bowers Page 1 of 1 Omniplan 200417.01 M.5 NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -6347-A Owner: Selz Realty Applicant: Jeff Quarles, K -Mart Address: 10901 Rodney Parham Road Description: Southeast corner of Rodney Parham Road and Shackleford Road Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the development provisions of Section 36-301 to allow seasonal outdoor storage of merchandise. 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: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 10901 Rodney Parham Road contains an existing commercial building occupied by K -Mart. There is paved parking on the north and west sides of the building, with access drives from Rodney Parham Road and Shackleford Road. The applicant recently placed two (2) metal, portable storage containers along the west side of the building, between a three (3) foot high masonry wall and the building's loading dock doors, as noted on the attached site plan. When staff became aware of the storage containers, a Courtesy Notice was issued for their removal. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 2 The applicant notes that the two (2) storage containers were placed on the property for use as temporary storage of patio and garden merchandise. The lawn and garden area of the K -Mart store is being used for storage of customer layaways and seasonal Christmas merchandise. The applicant proposes to use the two (2) storage containers from September 6 to January 30 of each year. Section 36-301(b) of the City's Zoning Ordinance states: "All commercial uses shall be restricted to closed buildings, except packing lots, seasonal and temporary sales per section 36-298.4, and the normal pump island services of service station operations." Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow two (2) temporary/seasonal storage containers to be located on the site from September 6 to January 30 of each year. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff believes the request is reasonable. The containers are located within a loading dock area between the building and a short masonry wall. The containers are not located in a parking or vehicular use area. Given the fact that the containers are located close to the building, they are not very noticeable from the adjacent streets or properties. Staff believes the yearly seasonal use of the storage containers will have no adverse impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. There are to be no more than two (2) storage containers on the property. 2. The placement of the storage containers is limited to September 6 through January 30 of each year. 3. The storage containers must not block any fire department connections or fire hydrants. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the December 18, 2006 Agenda due to the fact that the applicant failed to complete the required notification to surrounding property owners as required. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 18, 2006 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. 2- 7 - 7W 4 Kmart Store at 10901 Rodney Parham Rd request approval to have two temporary storage units on site from Sept. 06 — Jan 30 each year. The units will be used for the temporary storage of patio and garden merchandise to allow room for the store to use indoor storage space for customer layaways, and seasonal Christmas merchandise during the holiday season. Wal-Mart stores elimination of layaway has increased usage of Kmart's layaway, with higher than expected volume during this fourth quarter. Your consideration of this request is appreciated. Jeff Quarles Store Coach Kmart 10901 Rodney Parham Little Rock, AR. 72212 NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: File No.: Z-8125 Owner: Todd Wilson George Applicant: Todd Wilson George Address: 5130 "P" Street Description: Lot 17, Block 3, McGehee's Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a carport addition with a reduced side setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located at 5130 "P" Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one car wide driveway from "P" Street at the southwest corner of the property. The driveway extends along the west side of the house. There is a small accessory storage building in the rear yard, with an alley running along the north (rear) property line. The applicant proposes to construct a 10 foot by 25 foot carport structure on the west side of the existing residence, over the existing driveway. The proposed carport addition will be unenclosed on its south, west and a portion of the north sides. The carport structure is proposed to be located one (1) foot from the west side property line, and 42 feet back from the front (south) property line. C NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of five (5) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the reduced side setback. The applicant is also proposing room and deck additions to the rear of the residence. These proposed additions conform to ordinance standards and are in the process of being constructed. Staff does not support the requested side setback variance. It has been staff's past policy to support setbacks of no less than 18 inches for this type of unenclosed structure. Staff views an 18 inch side setback as a minimum area needed to construct and maintain the carport structure without encroaching onto the adjacent property to the est. If the applicant were willing to provide an 18 inch side setback, including overhang, staff could support the application. The application would have to install guttering to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the west. The guttering could be within the 18 inch side setback. With these changes, staff would view the carport structure as having no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested side setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the December 18, 2006 Agenda due to the fact that the applicant failed to complete the required notification to surrounding property owners as required. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 18, 2006 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. 11/13%2606 15:16 r87F12468694 APTO ( PAGE 02 1 Todd George 5130 P Street Little Rock, AR. 72207 November 13, 2006 Mr. Monty Moore Little Rock Planning &. Development Board of Adjustments 723 West Markham Little Rock, A.R. 72201 Re: Request for variance at 5130 P Street, Little Rock, AR. 72207 Dear Members of the Board: This letter is to respectfully request a variance in order to place an open -sided carport within the boundaries pre,,iously established. As mentioned, this open sided carport would have guttering and no sides within the boundary. The neigbbors to the West, Michael & Dina Yates have given thein consent to this project. Should you require any additional information please feet free to contact me at 501-425-2340. Sincerely, Todnoeor e TG.jh 3 NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-8126 Owner: Pearl, LLC Applicant: David Pearlstein Address: 5219 "H" Street Description: Part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 43, Pulaski Heights Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a room addition with a reduced rear setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5219 "H" Street is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of "H" Street and Harrison Street. There is a carport structure located near the southwest corner of the property, with a two -car wide driveway from Harrison Street. There is also a small accessory building at the southeast corner of the property. The applicant proposes to construct a 15 foot by 18 foot addition on the rear (south side) of the existing residence. The proposed addition will be two (2) stories in height,. The addition will be located 18 feet -2 inches to 22 feet -3 inches from the rear (south) property line. There is an existing porch (4.2' by 6.8') and step structure on the rear of the house which will be removed as part of the proposed construction. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) 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 for the proposed addition to have a rear setback ranging from 18 feet -2 inches to 22 feet -3 inches. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as relatively minor. It appears that the applicant has designed the proposed addition to preserve two (2) mature oak trees within the rear yard. Additionally, the proposed addition will maintain adequate separation from the existing carport and accessory storage structures, as well as maximize the usable rear yard area. Staff believes the proposed addition will not be out of character with other structures in the neighborhood, and should have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to the addition being constructed to match the existing principal structure. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. ,3+4 -2- 912�� October 26, 2006 To: City of Little Rock Board of Adjustments From: David Pearlsteinli'earl, LLC RE: 5219 H Street Application for Zoning Variance I am requesting this variance in order to make the necessary improvements to this residence for better function. As it exists sight now, the washing machine is in the kitchen, the dryer is on a back porch and there is no eating area. Also, because the size and layout of the 2"d level is chopped up, the space is not very functional. Our addition will provide the house with a functional eating area and laundry room and improve the layout of the 2nd level. I plan to ensure Haat this addition appears original to the house and the neighborhood. This residence is on a comer lot which makes the rear lot setbacks different than most The rear lot setbacks that will remain ,after building this addition will not deviate much from the setback requirements_ Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, r David Pearlstein NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-8127 Owner: Gloria Lawson and Steve Arnett Applicant: Jennifer Herron Address: 317 North Ridge Road Description: Lot 360, 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 porch 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 317 North Ridge Road is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from North Ridge Road which serves as access. The property contains a 25 foot front platted building line. The existing porch near the center of the structure extends approximately one (1) foot across the platted building line, with steps extending slightly further. The applicant proposes to construct a new 8 foot by 18 foot porch structure to replace the existing porch. The new porch will be unenclosed on the north, south and west sides, and be constructed to match the existing house. The proposed porch will extend across the front platted building line by six (6) feet, for a setback of 19 feet from the front property line. There will be two (2) or NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) three (3) steps on front of the porch structure, extending slightly closer to the front property line. 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. 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 the new front porch and steps with a reduced front setback and which crosses the front platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Although staff observed few similar front encroachments in this area, the requested variances are very minor in nature. The fact that the porch addition will be unenclosed will lessen any possible visual impact on the adjacent properties. Staff believes the proposed porch addition will not be out of character with the neighborhood and will add to the street appeal of the residence. There appears to be no specific uniform setback of the houses from North Ridge Road in this immediate area, as there is some minor variation in front setback depths. Staff feels the proposed front 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 front building line for the new porch/step 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 front setback and building line variances, 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. 3. The steps must remain uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the December 18, 2006 Agenda due to the fact that the applicant failed to complete the required notification to surrounding property owners as required. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 18, 2006 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. October 27, 2006 -�? 9 % 7 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: 317 N. Ridge Road, Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Monte: Enclosed is an application for a zoning variance for the property located at 317 N. Ridge Road, Little Rock, Arkansas. On behalf of our clients, Gloria Lawson and Steve Arnett, we are requesting a variance for the front building 25'-0" setback in order to provide a deeper porch. The existing depth of the porch is 3'-10" and from the survey, encroaches on the 25'-0" building setback. We propose removing the existing porch and building a new porch with the depth of 8'-0". We also propose removing the existing walkway connecting the porch to the driveway and relocating it in order to connect to the new porch. The proposed porch will be open, not enclosed on the sides. Please refer to the attached drawing for location and dimensions to the property lines and building setback. If there are any questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, AWL eerHerron, AIA cc: Gloria Lawson and Steve Arnett file H E R R 0 N H 0 R T O N 300 S. Spring St. Ste. 720 Little Rock, AR 72201 www.hh-architects.com tel. 501-975-0052 fax. 501-978-0078 ARCHITECTS NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-8134 Owner/Applicant: Nickie Smith Address: 9401 Mann Road Description: Southeast corner of Mann Road and Wilderness Road Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Section 32.8 of city code states no obstructions higher than 30 inches shall be located within a triangular area 50 ft. back from the intersecting right-of- way line (or intersecting tangent lines for radial dedications) at intersections. The obstruction resulting from the fence causes drivers to ease the nose of their vehicle out onto Mann Road creating a safety hazard. 2. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (John Barr, 371-4646) for the improvements located in the right-of-way. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 9401 Mann Road contains a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of Mann Road and Wilderness Road. There is a one (1) car wide driveway from Mann Road which leads to a carport on the east end of the house. The applicant recently constructed a six (6) foot high wood fence along the front (north) property line, as noted on the attached site plan. The east end of the fence extends slightly into the Mann Road right-of-way, with the fence's west end also extending into the right-of-way and attaching to a four (4) foot NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) high chain-link fence located within the Wilderness Road right-of-way. The chain link fence is very old and also runs along the south (rear) and east (side) property lines. When staff became aware of the new wood fence construction, a Courtesy Notice was issued to remove the fence or request a variance. Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between building setback lines and street rights-of-way. Other fences may be constructed to a height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot high wood fence along the front (north) property line. Staff does not support the variance as requested. As noted in paragraph A. of the staff report, the wood fence does create a health/safety issue. The placement of the fence requires drivers on Wilderness Road pull the nose of their vehicles onto Mann Road to view oncoming traffic. Public Works notes that the fence would have to be pulled 50 feet from the northwest corner of the property (intersecting tangent lines) in order to comply with Section 32.8 of the city code. If the applicant were willing to move both the wood and chain-link fences to comply with this standard, staff could support the fence height variance for the remainder of the fence located between the front building setback and the Mann Road right-of-way. The applicant would also have to pull the east portion of the fence back to the property line or obtain a franchise to have it slightly into the Mann Road right-of-way. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested fence height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had revised the application to move the fence back as required by Public Works and noted in paragraph A. of the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the revised application, subject to the fences being moved and a franchise obtained within 60 days. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. Dear Neighbor; F13� K2,pGT-S ) I am writing to apologize for any inconvenience you may have suffered as my neighbor, due to my fence. My fence was torte down when someone drove through it. Since the incident, I have checked around and several neighbors informed me, that was a continuous problem with the previous owner/Lester Owens. One neighbor has informed me that if it had not been for the pine tree on the side of my house (9401 Mann Road — Yellow House on the corner), the driver would have driven through the bedroom. Another neighbor informed me, that the fence had to be replaced three times in one month, during the winter. The four foot chain link fence was very difficult to see at nights, I believe that was the main problem and that is why it was repeatedly hit. On 0, of July weekend, I conducted a study of 42 drivers, who were observed over a two-day timeframe. All of the drivers were able to see the 6 -foot wood fence, both day and night therefore, causing them to slow down to a minimum speed. To make the 6 -foot wood fence more visible to the public, I am willing to add reflectors to both sides of the wood fence. To continue to rebuild the fence the same way and height, means getting the same results, all at the expense of the owner. I purchased the house one year ago. Since that time, I have experienced children climbing the 4 -foot chain link fence on one side, causing the fence to break/dip, while someone drove through the 4 -foot chain link fence on the opposite side. Children threw rocks through the 4 -foot fence, at my dog and broke a window; my dog is gone; my home was robbed and the robbers went over the four -foot chain link fence. I have suffered much in this one -year's time due to others. My insurance went up due to the claim filed on the fence, my dog is dead, or missing, my window had to be replaced as well as the fence and all my furniture, jeweler and all of the other things stolen from my house. I am filing for a variance with the Planning Commissioner's office, for the following reasons: • To keep the fence at its new height, which creates a safer corner by being more visible and more safety for my house/family? Since the fence does not block the driver's view, and there is plenty of room to pull up to the corner. • To rezone this single family home to start an Adult Day Care. ® The Adult Day Care Mission is designed to offer the rewarding opportunity of helping the elderly restore a sense of dignity and vibrancy to their lives. The Adult Day Care will become known for providing compassionate, creative care and for its skill in addressing the needs of individuals who would other wise have to be institutionalized. People are living longer and society is becoming more mobile as children are living farther away fiom their parents. While at the same time, an incredible number of elderly people are looking for any means available to avoid going into those nursing homes and retirement centers. They want to remain in their homes. This provides a market for the Adult Day Care, and at the end of the day the client can ret -urn to the comfort of their homes. Please help me to help our elderly, with your support. You will be notified the date and time for the City Planning meeting. I pray for your support. Thanking you in advance for your concern and support. Your Neighbor Nickie V. Smith 9401 Mann Road NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-8135 Owner/Applicant: Larry Burrell Address: 1730 N. Spruce Street Description: Lot 42R, Cliffewood Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Cantrell Road (AR State Hwy 10) is a principal arterial street with high traffic volumes and high traffic speeds. The iron fence on the existing rock wall further deteriorates the intersection visibility for drivers entering Cantrell Road from Spruce St. With this new addition, drivers are forced to ease the fronts of their vehicles onto Cantrell Road creating a safety hazard. Section 32.8 of city code states not obstructions higher than 30 inches shall be located within a triangular area 50 ft. back from the intersecting right-of-way line (or intersecting tangent lines for radial dedications) at intersections. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 1730 N. Spruce Street is occupied by a three-story rock and stucco single family residence which was recently constructed. The property is located at the southwest corner of N. Spruce Street and Cantrell Road. There is a circular driveway from N. Spruce Street which serves as NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.) access. There is a short masonry wall along the north (Cantrell Road) property line. The applicant recently placed a short wrought iron fence on top of the existing masonry wall. The wall/fence ranges in height from 70 inches (72 inches including fence post) at the northwest corner of the property to 72 inches (76 inches including fence post) at the northeast corner of the house. The applicant is proposing a gate from the northeast corner of the house to the fence. The applicant is also proposing a six (6) foot high wood fence along the rear (west) property line. Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between building setback lines and street rights-of-way. Other fences may be constructed to a height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the masonry wall/fence with a height ranging from 70 inches to 72 inches along the north property line, between the five (5) foot side building setback line and the Cantrell Road right-of-way. The applicant is also requesting the variance to include the north five (5) feet of the six (6) foot high wood fence along the rear property line. Staff does not support the variance as requested. As noted in paragraph A. of the staff report, the masonry wall/fence overall height creates a health/safety issue. The placement of the fence requires drivers on N. Spruce Street pull the nose of their vehicles onto Cantrell Road to view oncoming traffic. Public Works notes that the fence would have to be pulled back 50 feet from the northeast corner of the property in order to comply with Section 32.8 of the City code. If the applicant were willing to move the fence back to comply with this standard, staff could support the fence height variance for the remainder of the fence located between the side building setback line and the Cantrell Road right-of-way. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested fence height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the December 18, 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. 7 - F/3,5 The Fence we would like to install is on the Cantrell side of our property. It is foremost for the safety of our four young grandchildren and our dog. It is a beautiful wrought iron fence, which will be installed from the back of our lot to the front corner of our house. Our front yard will not be fenced. This fence in No Way obstructs the visual sight line of traffic. We respectfully request permission to finish this project. Larry Burrell — /O - 2-3 `VV I/P Nancy Burrell NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-8136 Owner: TRPP, LLC Applicant: Gene Ludwig Address: Northwest of the intersection of Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road (approximately 8500 Pinnacle Valley Road). Description: 28.57 Acres within Section 7, T -2-N, R-1 3-W and Section 12, T -2- N, R -14-W, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: AF Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested regarding use of the property as an airport or landing field. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Private, Restricted, Landing Area STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: After receiving a series of complaints regarding the property at approximately 8500 Pinnacle Valley Road, staff made inspections of the property on October 5, 2006 and October 20, 2006. Staff observed what appeared to be a newly constructed road bed on the property, running from Pinnacle Valley Road to near the Little Maumelle River within the west portion of the property. Staff spoke with Gene Ludwig, owner of the property, and he explained that he was constructing a non-commercial landing field on the property. He stated that he received permission from Pulaski County Planning on the construction. With the property being zoned "AF" Agriculture and Forestry District, and an "airport or landing field" not being a permitted use in AF zoning, staff issued a NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) Courtesy Notice on October 20, 2006 requiring that construction on the landing field be ceased and that it be removed within seven (7) days. On March 30, 2006, Mr. Ludwig was issued Development Permit number 315 by the County for the property in question for fill only with no building construction. A letter dated March 30, 2006 from Ashley Pope, Director of Pulaski County Planning, outlined the conditions of the permit approval. The last paragraph of the letter instructs Mr. Ludwig to ensure that the project conformed with the zoning and subdivision regulations of the City of Little Rock. To staff's knowledge, no contact was ever made with the City's Planning Department to seek zoning approval for the landing field. A copy of the letter is attached for Board review. On July 28, 2006, the applicant's engineer, Joe White, Jr., submitted "No Adverse Impact" and "No -Rise" certificates to the County. Additionally, a driveway permit was issued by Pulaski County Road and Bridge Department on July 25, 2006. Copies of these documents are also attached. Mr. Gene Ludwig, the property owner, is appealing staff's determination that an airport or landing field is not a permitted use in AF zoning. Mr. Ludwig contends that his proposed landing field does not meet the definition of "airport or loading field" as found in Section 36-3 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ludwig contends that his landing field is a private recreational use that should be allowed in the AF zoning district. A letter from Mr. Ludwig to the Board of Adjustment dated October 26, 2006 is also attached for Board review. The AF zoning category allows the following as permitted uses: (1) Single-family residences, together with the usual accessory uses. (2) Agriculture and forestry operations, to include the raising of livestock and poultry. (3) Governmental or private recreational uses, including but not limited to golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, play -grounds, day camps and passive recreational open space. (4) Plant nursery. The definition of "airport or landing field" as found in Section 36-3 of The City's Zoning Ordinance is as follows: Airport or landing field means a landing facility for fixed -or rotary -winged aircraft containing a minimum of sixty (60) acres, subject to the federal aviation agency's requirement of safety and applicant's securing air space utilization from the federal aviation agency. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO • 8 (CON'T.) The Board is asked to determine if Mr. Ludwig's proposed use of the property as a non-commercial landing field is a permitted use in the AF zoning district. Should his proposed use of the property be considered a "private recreational use" as is typically allowed in AF zoning? BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Gene Ludwig was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application. Gene Ludwig addressed the Board in support of the application. He made a power point presentation to the Board. Mr. Ludwig gave a brief history of the construction of the Landing field and the City's enforcement of the project. He discussed the City Zoning Ordinance definition of "airport or landing field", and explained how his landing area use did not fall under the definition. He also discussed and explained how his use did not fall under the FAA safety regulations. He presented an arial photo to the Board for review and discussed the FAA's regulations for private landing areas. Chairman Francis asked Mr. Ludwig if the landing area was for his personal use only. Mr. Ludwig explained that it was and would not be used for commercial purposes or for landing other persons aircraft. Mr. Ludwig also noted that he owned additional property to the north, south and northwest. Chairman Francis explained that Mr. Ludwig's use of the property probably did not fall under the zoning ordinance definition of "airport or landing field". He expressed concern as to whether Mr. Ludwig's use of the property was intended to be a private recreational use as typically is allowed in AF zoning. He asked staff if Mr. Ludwig's specific use were not allowed in AF zoning, where would it be allowed. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, explained that the use could be allowed as an ancillary use to a primary use, including a single family residence. He explained that Mr. Ludwig's use of the property as a landing field was the principal use of the property and was not permitted in AF zoning. The issue was briefly discussed. Mr. Carney explained that a PZD zoning is often used to address uses not specifically defined in the ordinance. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked about the Two Rivers Landing Field as shown on the arial photo. Mr. Ludwig explained that it was his landing field, but he had very limited access to it. Debra Weldon, City Attorney, discussed the purpose and intent of the AF zoning district and read specifically from the zoning ordinance. There was additional discussion of the use as a recreational use and whether it met the purpose and intent of the AF zoning district. Chairman Francis explained that he NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) felt Mr. Ludwig's landing area was a private recreational use and not an "airport or landing field" as defined by the code. There was a motion to approve the applicant's appeal, and find that the use of the property does not meet the ordinance definition of "airport or landing field" and should be considered a private recreational use and allowed in the AF zoning. Ths motion included the applicant conforming to "Exhibit 3" as submitted by the applicant, with the condition that the Two Rivers Landing Field be abandoned once the subject landing field is operational. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. The Administrative appeal was approved. Attorneys: Ludwig Law Firm PLC Staff. Gene A. Ludwig 8501 Pinnacle Valley Road Carolyn Ludwig Hayward Battle* Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 Georgia Fletcher Phone (501) 868-7500 Michele Ludwig Fax (501) 868-7501 Ludwig@ludwiglawfirm.com 03� October 26, 2006 �,p ---� ) Hand Delivered To : The City of Little Rock Planning Department For: The Members of The Little Rock Board of Adjustment Dear Board Members: I submit the following pursuant to written instructions for making application for an appeal to the Board of Adjustment of administrative action taken by the Little Rock Planning Department. While this letter should not be read to include all law and facts to be presented to the Board of Adjustment, I provide the following to demonstrate that the appeal is necessary and warranted. On Friday, October 20, 2006, I was served with the "Courtesy Notice" attached hereto as Exhibit A which summarily concludes that the property in question constitutes a "landing field." I am prepared to demonstrate to the Board of Adjustment that this interpretation is: (1) arbitrary and capricious, and (2) unsupported by any facts or evidence. Section 36-3 of the Zoning Ordinance defines landing field or airport to mean "a landing facility for fixed or rotary -winged aircraft containing a minimum of sixty (60) acres, subject to the federal aviation agency's requirement of safety and applicant's securing air space utilization from the federal aviation agency. (Emphasis added.) With the use of the word "and", all three elements of this definition must be in place to meet this definition of airport or landing field. Moreover the introductory paragraph to this sections states: The following definitions and explanatory notes supplement, restrict, and define the meaning and intent of the use regulations in this chapter.... (Emphasis added.) The property in question is in rural Pulaski County within the City's extra -territorial zone. It does not meet M of the three requirements of the definition of airport or landing field. The property is composed of 28.57 acres, not a minimum of 60 acres. See Exhibit B. Moreover, the property is not subject to federal aviation agency requirements of safety or subject to securing airspace utilization from the FAA. The property is zoned AF which permits in part "Governmental or private recreational use." All past and future use of the property has been and will be in conformity with AT zoning. The Little Rock Planning Department cannot present proof of one actual use of the property in question which violates AF zoning. * Of Counsel Moreover, no past use of the property has offended the property's rural neighbors. Should future use do so (and such is not likely), such use might be the subject of nuisance law but is clearly not a violation of the zoning ordinance for reasons previously stated. The laws of the State of Arkansas are more than adequate to protect neighboring property owners should a real issue arise. speciL y ubmitted, Gene Adwig tabbies' m X FD m m T O C) ZZ z O C� m _* D D a O (OD (D ly o Q Q Q (D o Q o cD O Q O0 < cn �. vi" .Q n Q (Q CD D Q O Q OO -a � Qo O O (DD (D 0- c Q cn 0 -+ (D(D o C- 0 c Q � (D (D 7 O 0` 0 10 m .=7 �(D >(T Q (OD �Q O n O Cn �o CT D _<. Q 0 Q O O O D 0 n � o � Q0� ao (To < r (U Q -T m Q D m (Do c --*no O O Q ((D O m +o (D 25 �o � v � Z J D (Dz n O m N cn m 00 3 o o v D -� m a a , (D b s -4 1", 0 N M C 0 m M oii z D Cf) � loom m r m -i D z Z m O D M 0r z Do m m ND ry P'i"1 O Z s -4 A part of the 1NE'/� SW'/, and part of the' F�rya+cLti�onta�lcNW'�i S'WY., Sudan 77�, r-2-N7,�R,-113- W' i llaa l.�}7, Arkansas, � a PeIrt Ui titG ► EV4, Scc&oc 12, T-2-N, n- 14- ifs , i �+b=ld County, Aricnnsag� being morn pa y de3cn'bed as follows. Cousmaoci.r st the NE corner of said NE,(. SVVV'/,, Section 7; Ummec South, 165.12 frail to tflc pmt of thence South, 495.2 feat; thence S 89052' W, 1320.09 Poet; N 004oIM`11" E, 165.11 feet; thence S 725829" W, 3035.32 feet to lhoe FAst-right.of Nvay of a 35.0 foot watwlim cascMcnt int No. 2003014495); fficmc N 22*23'03" W,. Akmg die w6d F_wt line Of Msc:mcnt, 200.88 fbet; thcnco N 22'23'08" W, 200r.99 fncty.,flwngcc N ?zo38'29" E, 3528.84 feat; thcacc N 8949'09" E, 924.59 feet to the -point of Wig,, cocttaining 28.57 aeras, more or less. EXHIBIT D D County P", PUBLIC WORKS 501 W. MARKHAM 911 ADDRESSING PROGRAM PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SUITE A 501.340-8270 March 30, 2006 Mr. Gene Ludwig 8501 Pinnacle Valley Road Little Rock, AR 72223 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-340-8260 CITIES Re: Floodplain Development Permit No. 315 . ALEXANDER CAMMACK VILLAGE JACKSONVILLE. LITTLE ROCK MAUMELLE NORTH LITTLE ROCK Dear Mr. Ludwig, . Enclosed herein is Floodplain Development Permit No. 315 issued to you in accordance with your recent application dated March 14, 2006. The permit is for the placement of approximately 2003000 cubic yards of fill in the floodplain on the properties described in your permit application, as you requested. Pulaski County understands that the filling of the floodplain will most likely occur over a period of two years as opposed to a one time operation. The following are the conditions of the permit approval: SHERWOOD WRIGHTSVILLE 1. Prior to any fill material being placed on the property as described in the enclosed permit, the property owner will supply Pulaski County Planning and Development with a copy of the site's approved Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) stormwater and erosion control permit and accompanying plans and documentation. An approved ADEQ permit may be necessary for each phase of the fill placement. 2. The floodway boundary will be staked by a professional land surveyor prior to any UNINCORPORATED AREA fill material being placed within 300 feet of the floodway on the properties as described in the enclosed permit. The stakes will then be maintained for the duration of the property 600 SQUARE MILES development. 3. The property owner must receive a driveway permit from the Pulaski County Road and Bridge' Department if any new driveway access is proposed to the properties from a county road. MILITARY 4. The property -owner must receive. a hauling permit from the Pulaski County Road and BASES Bridge Department for any phase of the fill material placement in which 60 cubic yards or more are placed on the subject properties. LRAFB CAMP ROBINSON 5. A drainage. and grading plan along with an engineering certification that the fill material will not'raise the base flood elevation -or adversely impact surrounding properties (i.e. No-Rise/No Adverse Impact Certification) will be subnutted to Pulaski County Planning and Development when the total fill material placed on any portion of the subject properties exceeds 5,000 cubic yards. Gene Ludwig Floodplain Development.Permit No. 315 Page 2 Lastly, in addition to satisfying the conditions of the permit approval, please ensure that all activities on-site are consistent with the rules and regulations of the City of Little Rock which maintains zoning and subdivision authority in the area in which the properties are located. If you have any questions, please contact Sherman Smith at 501-340-6800 or me. at 501- 340-8260. Sincerely, Ashley E. Pope, AICP. Director Cc: Dana Carney, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, City of Little Rock FROM : PLANNING FAX NO. : 3408274 Jul. 31 2006 O7:53AM P2 PULASKI COUNTY ENGINEERING "NQ ADVERSE IMPACT" CERTIFICATE This Is to cettfy that t am a duty qualified engineer ficensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. It!* to furl/hercertifythat the attached technical data supports the fact that proposed pk)< (Name of Development) will have "no adverse impact" on the elevations and floodway Width on AN1.5kl- � /'kat published sections (Name of Communi ) in the "flood Insurance" study for $ 0% '7— D z S dated and Will have "no adversa impact" on the 100 - year flood elevafion, floodway elevation, and floodway Widths in the vicinity of the proposed development. l- L —- (Date) = c., '• , `..:..,_. �y $xis�t 4. tz"0E 881INr)N k1, j :7 E N G DIM ": Ift �5 , A No. 7094 Pt,P%e G�►9�n e (Address z -1z /4/ �aaa3 419 FROM : PLANNING FAX N0. : 34©8274 1 . Jul. 31 2006 07:54AM P3 Engineer "No -Rise" Certification for projects located in a ma ed fioodwa This is to certify that 1 am a duly qualified engineer licensed to practice in the State of �✓ !�a�SaS (Name of State) This further certifies that the attached data supports the fact that the proposed �`�w'` �Q`"��1�x will not increase (Name of Development) the 100 -year flood elevations, floodway elevations and floodway widths on f�r� G� �� �c�,� ,��e�at published sections in the Flood Insurance Study for `�u113 ` e- /I'1-�— { �'/� dated At L!S (Name of Commurnty) i � < and will not increase the 100 -year flood elevations, floodway elevations, and floodway widths at unpublished cross-sections in the vicinity of the proposed development. -zR_o� (Date REGISTERED ENG INEElt tt-Q V,714 '/— /Z XIE PULASKI COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT DRIVEWAY PERMIT . PERMIT NO: 68 DATE ISSUED: 7/25/2006 APPLICANT: QC D NAME: GENE LUDWIG PHONE: 501-681-1900 ADDRESS: 8501 PINNACLE VALLEY ROAD CITY: LITTLE ROCK STATE: AR ZIP CODE: 72223 DESCRIPTION: 15" ARCH X 20' - 40' SPECIAL CONDITIONS: WHEN YOU BUY THE PIPE AND GET IT TO THE JOB SITE, CALL US AND WE WILL INSTALL. 'PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE COUNTY WILL NOT INSTALL PLASTIC CULVERTS LOCATION: BECK ROAD APPROXIMATE CONSTRUCTION START DATE: 7/25/2006 APPROXIMATE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE: 8/25/2006 APPROVED BY: LATISHA HAILE INSPECTED BY: JOHN ROBINSON DATE: 7124/06 PERMIT EXPIRES: 9/25/2006 THIS COPY OF THE PERMIT MUST BE PHYSICALLY KEPT ON THE WORK SITE DURING ALL CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS FOR INSPECTION PURPOSES. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-8121 -A Owner: J.C. Halsell Applicant: Todd Rogers, PBS & J Address: 6201 W. Markham Street Description: Lot 2, Ruebel's Second Subdivision Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-390 (Midtown Overlay) to permit parking in the front setback and to permit more parking spaces than the maximum number allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Commercial Building Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 6201 W. Markham Street is occupied by a one-story commercial building within the south half of the property. There are two (2) driveways from West Markham Street which serve as access. There is paved parking and drives on all sides of the building. There is also a 40 foot front platted building line along the West Markham Street frontage. The property is located within the City's Midtown Overlay District. The property owner is planning to remove the existing commercial building from the property and construct a new Chick-Fil-A restaurant. The new restaurant NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.) building will be located within the north half of the property with one (1) entry drive at the northeast corner of the property. Paved parking will be located along the east, west and south sides of the proposed building. With the proposed restaurant development, one (1) main ground -mounted sign (106 square feet) will be located within a landscaped area along the front (north) property line. There will be three (3) 33.68 square foot wall signs on the building. These wall signs will be located on the north, east and west sides of the building, as noted on the attached site plan. There will also be a 72 square foot wall sign at the northwest corner of the building, along the top band of the building. This sign is located on the north side of the building, wrapping around to a portion of the west fagade. On October 30, 2006, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to allow wall signs without direct street frontage on the east and west facades of the proposed restaurant building. The applicant is back before the Board of Adjustment requesting two (2) variances from Section 36-390 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the Midtown Overlay District regulations. Ordinance No. 19,004 passed by the City Board on December 2, 2003, established the Midtown Overlay District requirements. The overlay regulates development and redevelopment in an area bounded by 1-630 on the south, Father Tribou to the north, McKinley Street on the west and University Avenue on the east; and an area bounded by Lee Avenue on the north, West Markham Street on the south, University Avenue on the west to Filmore Street on the east. The first variance requested is from Section 36-390(a). This section allows the maximum number of parking spaces to be the minimum number required by Section 36-502 of the Code. The minimum number of parking spaces required for the proposed restaurant is 37. The applicant is proposing 52 spaces for the restaurant. Therefore, the applicant is requesting the variance to allow an increased number of parking spaces. The second variance is from Section 36-390(c). This section requires that surface parking be limited to the side and rear of structures, and that no parking be allowed in the front yard setback. As noted earlier, there is a 40 foot front platted building line for this property. The site plan submitted shows one (1) parking space and portions of two (2) other parking spaces located between the platted building line and front (north) property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow these three (3) spaces to remain. Staff does not support the requested variances from the Midtown Overlay District requirements. Staff believes the proposed development does not completely comply with the purpose and intent of the newly established Midtown Overlay District Ordinance. The site should be designed to compliment and encourage pedestrian use. Staff believes the overall number of parking spaces should be NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.) reduced, including elimination of the spaces within the front building setback area. Staff believes the areas of additional parking could be used for additional landscaping or an area of outdoor dining. Staff feels the proposed parking plan as proposed could have an adverse impact on future redevelopments in the Midtown Overlay area. If the site plan is revised to comply with the parking standards, all other requirements of the overlay must be met, including utilities (underground) and lighting. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances from the Midtown Overlay District requirements. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Blake Goodman, Adam Carr, Jeff Yates, J.C. Halsell, John Flake and Hank Kelley were present, representing the application. There were two (2) objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Jeff Yates addressed the Board in support of the application and explained the property ownership. Blake Goodman addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented a revised site plan to the Board. He explained that the revised site plan eliminated the three (3) parking spaces between the front building line and the front property line, reducing the total number of parking spaces to 49. He explained that the revised plan eliminated one of the variances and reduced the other. He also explained that the elevation of the property would make it very difficult to combine the property with adjacent property for future development. Craig Berry, Chairman of the Midtown Advisory Board, addressed the Board in opposition. He discussed and quoted from the purpose and intent section of the Midtown Overlay District Ordinance. He discussed the proposed use and the parking needs in an urban setting. He explained that the overlay ordinance was use neutral and addressed design issues. Chairman Francis explained that there was a problem with the topography of the property and connectivity with adjacent property. He asked what could be done to preserve the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Berry explained that there were problems with this specific property and the design issues of the ordinance. City Director Stacy Hurst also addressed the Board in opposition. She explained that there was a great amount of effort involved in the passage of the Midtown NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.) Overlay District Ordinance. She explained how the overlay encouraged pedestrian use and connectivity between the properties in the district. She encouraged the Board to support the Midtown Board's efforts. Chairman Francis explained that some of the parking spaces could be removed with space left for future connectivity between the adjacent properties. The issue of connectivity was further discussed. Vice -Chairman Burruss noted that the proposed plan for the property greatly increased the percentage of the property which would be landscaped. He asked if the applicant would be willing to further reduce the total number of parking spaces. Mr. Goodman stated that the parking could not be reduced any further. He explained that the proposed driveway was aligned with the Park Plaza driveway to the north. He explained that the proposed building was designed to meet the overlay requirements. Fletcher Hanson asked how a reduction in parking helped the overlay design issues. Mr. Berry explained that if the applicant were willing to reduce the number of parking spaces, they should meet with the Planning Staff to redesign the site plan. Chairman Francis asked if there was some middle ground with respect to the number of parking spaces. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, noted that the plan should be redesigned to meet all ordinance requirements and explained making reference to the River Market and Highway 10 Overlay Districts. John Flake addressed the Board in support. He explained that the elevation of the properties to the east and west prohibited a joint development. Director Hurst explained how the proposed redevelopment did not meet the design standards of the overlay ordinance. There was a motion to approve the application as revised by the applicant at the public hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 open position. The revised application was approved. M�Afvv An employee -owned company November 2, 2006 Board of Adjustment City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: West Markham Chick-fil-A, Little Rock, AR Dear Sir or Madam, - r 2- Chick-fil-A is respectfully requesting two variances from the Overlay District zoning code. The first variance requested is to increase the maximum allowable parking spaces to.fifty-two (52). The current Overlay District zoning code restricts the maximum number of parking spaces to thirty-seven (37). Providing thirty-seven (37) spaces would be a hardship on Chick-fil-A due to the expected volume of business (based on historical data from other sites). The proposed Chick-fil-A building is 3,776 sf, has 100 seats, and averages 12 employees per shift. This leaves only twenty-five (25) available parking spaces for customers. Without approval for an increase in allowable parking the restaurant will not be able to reach capacity; which will result in a loss of business and profitability. The second variance requested is to allow five parking spaces to encroach into the front -yard setback. Overlay District zoning code requires that parking be limited to the side and rear of structures. The front -yard setback is based on the location of the building. The Chick-fil-A building is setback fifty-seven (57) feet from the right-of-way. The proposed five spaces will encroach a maximum of thirty (30) feet into the front -yard setback; leaving a twenty-five (25) foot landscape buffer between the parking and West Markham Street. Chick-fil-A is excited about joining the West Markham/Little Rock community. The approval of the two requested variances will provide Chick-fil-A adequate parking. This will aid in the success of the Chick-fil-A restaurant which will be a beneficial addition to the community. Sincerely, ,�� ,eo Todd M. Rogers, P.E. TMR/fk GAChick-fil-A\Arkansas\Little Rock - Markham St\BoardofAdjustmentsLetterl 1-2.doc 5665 New Northside Drive 9 Suite 400 • Atlanta, Georgia 30328 • Telephone: 770.933.0280 • www.pbsj.com W F- 0 O H z w r- F- ❑ Q LL O ❑ Q O m R c J W. 2— a� c 0 Q c 0 m z Q CO ED Q z LU CO m Q w z wwW�-=o � Q z Z Q fl- -j o w `L v) U) z 0 0 Q w z ry z m W ���Q�� F - o W = o o�IU-Qp Q Fes- U- ZCo � cl U) 0 m U zcr- DCL 0 cnmz 0 �< rrz�w LL m i o a� c 0 Q c 0 m z Q CO ED Q z LU CO m Q w z wwW�-=o � Q z Z Q fl- -j o w `L v) U) z 0 0 Q w z ry z m W ���Q�� F - o November 27, 2006 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. pa,a iz/�s 106 Chairman