Loading...
boa_01 31 2005LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JANUARY 31, 2005 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 Meeting The Minutes of the December 20, 2004 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Fred Gray, Chairman Andrew Francis, Vice Chairman David Wilbourn Terry Burruss Debra Harris City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA JANUARY 31, 2005 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEM: A. Z-7747 5804 Scenic Drive B. Z -6957-C Colonel Glenn Road at 1-430 C. Z-7765 923 Broadway D. Z-7766 2923 N. Grant Street II. NEW ITEMS 1. Z -1894-C 301 Natural Resources Drive 2. Z -2227-A 923 Barber Street 3. Z -3812-E 10520 W. Markham Street 4. Z-4041 -D 10710 Vimy Ridge Road 5. Z -4723-B 2601 Kavanaugh Blvd. 6. Z -6120-L Kanis Road at Cooper Orbit Road 7. Z-7661 -A 8 Rosier Court 8. Z-7775 11 Palamino Court 9. Z-7776 43 Wellington Colony Drive 10. Z-7777 46 Edgehill Road 11. Z-7778 5301 Scenic Drive 12. Z-7779 115 Courts Lane LO 0 O T • � 3NId - a31ZVW (y) `- J llnvelHl (�� — LL �y moi/ vy U�� 0oN° NaWa3s N � o ct PS U NIyW � AyMoyoae HDay N01,yp S340 a3H380 o ONIN in s � 0 x o �MON000M S Did N Q 3NId NV 30 NOITIly ll00S No s SpNiyd9 �r o� ittl Nayd r ^ AlISa3mNn F- A11SOAINn S=dds x3.130 53HJnH F- IddISS IYV ? 00 a6 1001HO M088y0 NHOP 3 alOna3S3a yb UQ g 3NNI3H _ o a 31 Oy 5 Oa0331ADYHS g WHYS - ' " RVMVd A3NO08 m < U -> o� NY g c` h � _ S11Wft Alq w MOW AWIn Nphpp3pb1S o � n °P0�1 0 �Q 03 4� a Py � W P� fePP w Nynnlns V J layM3ts Hsdb`r 5 bP SIINIl Allo��,l O ys 3ly0Na3d coi'�1pp 0 JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-7747 Owner: Jenny Smith Address: 5804 Scenic Drive Description: Lot F, Block 3, East Palisades 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 A. Public Works Issues: Single Family Residential Because of the potential for future interference with utility and maintenance operations, Public Works recommends against a zero setback from the right-of-way line. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5804 Scenic Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence with finished basement level. The property slopes downward from front to back (south to north) and side to side (west to east). A circular driveway from Scenic Drive serves as access. The applicant proposes to construct a 9 foot by 14 foot porte-cochere on the front of the house, covering a portion of the circular drive. The proposed porte- cochere will extend to the front property line with a zero front setback. There is a small landscaped area immediately south of the proposed porte-cochere within the street right-of-way. The porte-cochere will be unenclosed on the JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) south, east and west sides. Additionally, this R-2 zoned lot contains a 20 foot front platted building line, which the proposed porte-cochere encroaches upon. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed porte-cochere addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line. Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. Staff does not view the request as reasonable. As noted in paragraph A. of this report, Public Works notes that the proposed zero front setback would result in the potential for future interference with utility and Public Works street maintenance operations. Additionally, staff's inspection of the area resulted in the observation of no similar encroachments on the single family lots on the north side of Scenic Drive east and west of th8is property. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the proposed porte-cochere. 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 front setback and building line variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) The applicant was not present. Staff recommended deferral of the application to the December 20, 2004 Agenda. A motion was made to defer the application to the December 20, 2004 Agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004) Jenny Smith was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Jenny Smith addressed the Board in support of the application. She stated that she would agree to remove the porte-cochere structure if the city or utilities had to work in the area. She noted that there was no other place on the property for covered parking. She explained that the porte-cochere was needed for sheltered parking and security. She referred to other structural encroachments in the area. Chairman Gray expressed concern with the proposed encroachment to the front property line. He stated that he would have a hard time supporting the variances as proposed. He stated that he could possibly support an amended application, moving the structure further back from the front property line. The issue of amending the application was discussed. Ms. Smith noted that she might need additional time to consider possible alternatives. Vice -Chairman Francis also expressed concern with the proposed encroachment. He noted that he would support a five (5) foot front setback and explained. Chris Wilbourn concurred with Gray and Francis. He explained that the proposed porte-cochere structure could be moved back from the front property line, and maintain the same structural appearance. Ms. Smith noted that she wished to defer the application. A motion was made to defer the application to the January 31, 2005 Agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) Jenny Smith was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application, noting that Ms. Smith had indicated that she would like to amend the application. Staff noted that Ms. Smith would need to present the change(s) to the Board. Jenny Smith addressed the Board in support of the application. She noted that she had drawings indicating a five (5) foot front setback, but wished to request a two (2) foot front setback, and explained. She explained that a five (5) foot front setback would not allow her room to open her car door under the porte-cochere. The issue of a two (2) foot front setback was briefly discussed. 3 JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) Vice -Chairman Francis noted that he had a problem with the proposed two (2) foot front setback, with building construction in the Master Street Plan required right-of- way. Chairman Gray concurred with Mr. Francis and explained. The issue was discussed further. Ms. Smith noted that she would be willing to draft an agreement to remove the structure if future work was needed within the future right-of-way area. Chris Wilbourn noted that he could support an overhang into the front five (5) feet of the lot. Terry Burruss concurred with Mr. Wilbourn. The issue of a five (5) foot front setback to the columns, with a one (1) foot overhang into the front five (5) feet was discussed (4 foot front setback to overhang). Mr. Francis asked about the possible future impact on the City if the overhang were allowed within the Master Street Plan required right-of-way. The issue was briefly discussed. Ms. Smith indicated that she wished to defer the application to allow time to explore her options and have a full Board membership present. Staff noted that it could be the May agenda before a full Board would possibly be present. There was a motion to defer the application to the May 23, 2005 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. November 17, 2004 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 RE: Variance request for 5804 Scenic Drive, Little Rock, AR 72207 I am requesting a variance for my property at 5804 Scenic Drive. I would like to extend the existing carport structure from my front door to the other side of the existing driveway. This will only extend the existing carport structure 14 feet. This will allow me to enter my home under cover when the weather is not permitting. I am a widow who lives alone and this would make me feel much safer getting in and out of my car. Thank you for your consideration. Jenny Smith JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z -6957-C Owner: Leonard Boen Applicant: McGetrick and MCGetrick Engineering Address: Colonel Glenn Road at Interstate 430 and Talley Road Description: Colonel Glenn Centre Subdivision Zoned: C-4, C-3, 0-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 555 and 36-553 to allow signs which exceed the maximum height and area and off - premises signs. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Mixed Use STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments — no signs are shown in the right-of-way B. Staff Analysis: The C-4, C-3 and 0-3 zoned property bounded by Colonel Glenn Road, 1-430 and Talley Road (east and south) is occupied by the Colonel Glenn Centre Subdivision. The new Remington College development is located on Lot 14 of the Subdivision, at the end of Remington Drive (the Subdivision's only new street). A car dealership is being developed on Lot 1, at the southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and 1-430 (northwest corner of the Subdivision). The remaining lots are currently undeveloped. The applicant proposes to place one (1) development sign and two (2) off - premise directional -type signs within this subdivision. The development sign is proposed to be placed at the northwest corner of Lot 1, and will advertise the various future businesses within this subdivision. The sign is proposed to have 1. JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) a height of 58 feet and an area of 525 square feet. The two (2) off -premise directional signs are proposed to be located at the northeast corner of Lot 4 (corner of Colonel Glenn and Talley Roads) and the southeast corner of Lot 8 (corner of Talley Road and Remington Drive). The directional sign on Lot 4 will advertise a Holiday Inn which will be located on Lot 19. This sign will have a height of 35 feet and an area of approximately 260 square feet. The directional sign on Lot 8 will advertise Value Place which will be located on Lot 12. This sign will have a height of 10 feet and an area of 20 square feet. The development sign will be located on C-4 zoned property, the Holiday Inn sign will be located on C-3 zoned property, and the Value Place sign will be on 0-3 zoned property. The City's Zoning Ordinance contains no provisions for allowing the type of off - premise directional -type signage as proposed. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow this type of signage. Section 36-553(a)(2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows freestanding signs in office zoning to have maximum heights of six (6) feet and maximum areas of 64 square feet. Section 36-555(a)(2) allows freestanding signs in commercial zones to have maximum heights of 36 feet and maximum areas of 160 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances for increased height and area for the development sign, increased area for the Holiday Inn sign, and increased height for the Value Place sign. Staff is not supportive of the requested sign variances. Given the design of the subdivision, staff does not feel that the request is reasonable. The subdivision is made up primarily of smaller lots which will likely contain individual businesses. Staff believes that each business will likely want their own ground -mounted signage, on their individual lots. This could result in up to four (4) signs along Colonel Glenn Road, with several additional signs along Talley Road and 1-430. Staff recently met with representatives of the car dealership which will be located on Lot 1. It is staff's understanding that the dealership desires to have ground -mounted signage on both the Colonel Glenn and 1-430 Street frontages. One of the purposes of the sign section of the zoning ordinance is to "control and coordinate the type, placement and physical dimensions of signs within the various zoning classifications." Staff believes that a main intent of this purpose is to prohibit visual clutter where commercial signage is concerned. Staff believes that the signage as proposed will add to the possibility of visual clutter along the street frontage of this subdivision, when added to the ground -mounted signs that are allowed by right for each individual lot. Additionally, the two (2) off -premise directional signs proposed are very much beyond the size typically allowed for off -premise directional signs. The ordinance allows directional signs with a maximum area of two (2) square feet and a maximum height of six (6) feet. The signs proposed as off -premise directional signs for Holiday Inn and Value Place 2 JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) have heights, dimensions and designs of primary site signage. Staff feels that the signs proposed will have an adverse visual impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the January 31, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 31, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the February 28, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 28, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 12-08-2mf' 16PM FROM MCGETRICK 15012239293 11 4-6MOCK ' WOEMICK i;1VGiAll 555 - PLANNERS - OURYEY0R6 November 22, 2004 Monte Moore ,Zoning Administrator Dept. of Planning & Development 723 West Markham fit. Little Rock, Alt 72201 Re: Colonel Glenn Centre Sign Easements Dear Mr. Moore, P. 2 'We are herewith asking for a variance on the size and location of three (3) signs for the Colonel Glenn Project. Sign #1 N011 be the sign for the entire commercial property. It will be located as shown and serve several different lots owned by different owners. We feel that the size and location of the sip are necessary for visibility to the overall project. Sign 42 located at the intersection of Talley Rd. and Colonel Glenn w ll be a directional sign to serve Iot 9. It will be located off --site in the sign casement as shown. Sign #3 located at the entrance to Remington Rd. will be a directional sign to serve lot 12. It will be located off-site in the sign easement as shown. If you have any question or problems please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, McGetrick & McGetrick, Inc. Patrick M. McGetrick, P.E. PMM:rm 10 atw Create Court, Sulfa A Littta Roe*, Aricanvars 722'10 101-455-6699 fax 50-455� JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: C File No.: Z-7765 Owner: EZ Financial Management, LLC/Greg Daney Address: 923 Broadway Street Description: Lots 5 and 6, Block 109, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: UU Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the development provisions of Section 36-342.1 in association with construction of a new commercial building. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Office Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. No comments regarding building setbacks. The general site plan for access and circulation is acceptable subject to review of detailed construction drawings during future permit review. 2. The 10th Street right-of-way must be abandoned by the Board of Directors prior to placement of private parking or building in the right-of-way. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The proposed width of the on-site landscape strip along Broadway Street is less than the 6 -feet 9 -inch minimum allowed by the Landscape Ordinance. Additionally, the Landscape Ordinance requires the width of the northern, southern and western perimeters be increased to an average of 6 -feet 9 - inches and at no point less than 5 -feet. A total of 6 -percent of the interior of the vehicular use area must be landscaped with interior islands of at least 112 square feet in area and 5 Y2 feet in width. A variance of these standards will require City Beautiful Commission approval. This review takes into account the reductions allowed within the designated mature area of the City. JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) C. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 923 Broadway Street is occupied by a small one- story commercial/office building located near the center of the property. The property is located at the northeast corner of Broadway Street and Interstate 630. A driveway from Broadway Street serves as access. Paved parking is located on the north, south and west sides of the building. An alley right-of- way is located along the east property line. Undeveloped West 10th Street right-of-way is located along the south property line. All surrounding properties are zoned UU and contain a mixture of office and commercial uses. The applicant proposes to remove the existing small commercial building from the property and construct a new 5,500 square foot commercial building within the east half of the property. The new building will be located 68 feet back from the front (west) property line, 10 feet from the side (north) property line and four (4) feet from the rear (east) property line. The building will extend approximately six (6) feet onto the undeveloped West 10th Street right-of-way which will be petitioned for abandonment in the near future. The existing curb cut on Broadway Street will be the primary access point. The alley along the east property line and West 10th Street will also be used as access. Paved parking will be located on the west and south sides of the proposed building, extending into the undeveloped West 10th Street right-of- way. A drive-thru window will be located on the north side of the building for a food service type use. The applicant is requesting several variances from the Urban Use development standards of Section 36-342.1 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The requested variances are as follows: 1. Section 36-342.1(c )(3) states that no new drive-in or drive-through facilities may be visible or take directed access from a primary street. The proposed drive-through located on the north side of the building will be visible from Broadway Street. 2. Section 36-342.1(c )(10)b. states that surface parking lots must be located behind or adjacent to a structure, never between the building and abutting street. As noted previously, there will be a surface parking lot located between the proposed building and Broadway Street and 1-630. 3. Section 36-342.1(f)(1) requires a zero (0) foot front setback. The proposed building will be located approximately 68 feet from the west (Broadway Street) property line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the proposed redevelopment of the property is reasonable, given the location of the property. The property is located on the fringe of the UU Zoning District, where the uses 2 JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) become less pedestrian -oriented and more vehicular -oriented. Fast food restaurants are located north and northwest (across Broadway Street) of the property. A convenience store is also located to the northwest at the southwest corner of Broadway and West 8th Streets. A drive-thru bank facility is located directly across Broadway Street to the west, with a new branch bank being constructed at the northwest corner of West 8th and Broadway Streets. Staff feels that the proposed redevelopment of the property is a quality one, and will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or this general area along Broadway Street, south of West 6th Street. As noted previously, a small portion of the proposed building is located in the undeveloped West 10th Street right-of-way. Although a petition to abandon this section of West 10th Street will be filed with the Planning Commission in the near future, Staff feels that the Board of Adjustment should not act on this application until the applicant has approval letters from each of the five (5) public utility companies, addressing the proposed building construction. Therefore, staff will recommend that the application be deferred to the January 31, 2005 agenda. The applicant has been notified of this issue and agrees with the suggested deferral. The deferral will also allow the applicant time to adjust the proposed site plan to comply with the minimum landscape requirements as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report. D. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances from the UU Zoning District standards, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of this report. 2. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of this report. 3. Letters from each of the five (5) public utility companies approving of the proposed building placement must be submitted prior to Board of Adjustment review and approval. 4. The West 10th Street right-of-way must be abandoned prior to a building permit being issued. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the January 31, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. 3 JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 31, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a revised site plan, removing the portion of the proposed building located in the West 10th Street right-of-way. Staff also noted that none of the public utilities objected to the abandonment of the portion of West 10th Street, south of the property, which was on the February 3, 2005 Planning Commission Agenda. Staff recommended approval of the revised site plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of this report. 2. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of this report. 3. The West 10th Street right-of-way must be abandoned prior to a building permit being issued. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved, as revised and recommended by staff, by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 19 Broadway and 1-630 Commercial Center (Block 5 and 6, Block 109, Original City of Little Rock) The Owners of the property at the northeast corner of 10th Street and Broadway wish to impme. this prQperty from its existing QQnditiQn an underused, nQn-wrnplying prQperty that is an expanse of asphalt with a 1,000 s.f. structure in the center. The proposed development includes a 5,500 s.f. commercial center with 21 parking spaces, circulation through the property for a drive-thru window and street trees along Broadway and the 1-630 access road to the south. The development hopes to include 2 tenants that could be service or food service related. This proposal will utilize the existing Broadway Street curb cut, will be contingent on the ability to acquire and use the short section of 10"' street to the south and will have access to the alley to the east for traffic ingress and egress as well as access to a proposed drive-thru window. The quantity of traffic on Broadway, the speed of traffic on adjacent 1-630 and the slope of the sidewalk grade along the property frontage, all suggest that placing the proposed building to the rear of the site is more appropriate for this property. The Owner feels that this property, with its proximity to 1-630 and its distance from the City Center is more appropriately designed as a vehicular oriented property rather than the pedestrian oriented property that the "UU" zoning anticipates. There is also the desire, by the Owners to orient the building and the available parking toward the intersection of 1-630 and Broadway. The Owners wish to provide multiple methods of entry to the property as well as adequate stacking space for the proposed drive-thru window. JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: D File No.: Z-7766 Owner: Joseph Graham Address: 2923 N. Grant Street Description: Lot 1 and the North '/2 of Lot 2, Block 11, Park View Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 and the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a garage addition with reduced setbacks and a fence/wall which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: 1. The wall/fence should line up with the existing wall on the property immediately to the east. 2. A franchise agreement must be obtained from Public Works. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 2923 N. Grant Street is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of N. Grant Street and Grandview Road. A two -car wide driveway from Grandview Road serves as access. A detached two -car carport is located along the north property line. Two (2) accessory buildings are located within the rear yard, along the east property line. All surrounding properties are zoned R-3 and contain single family residences. The applicant proposes to remove the existing carport structure and two (2) accessory buildings and construct a one-story garage addition on the east end of the residential structure. The garage addition will be approximately 22 feet by 24 feet in size and located two (2) feet from the rear (east) property line and 11 feet from the side (south) property line, maintaining the same rear setback as the existing house. With construction of the garage addition, the existing JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.) driveway will be removed, with a new driveway constructed at the northeast corner of the property. The applicant is also proposing to construct a short retaining wall with a six (6) foot high picket fence (not opaque) on it along a portion of the side (north) property line. The retaining wall will have a height of 2.5 feet at it's east end, running west approximately 60 feet back to the existing grade. Therefore, the overall height of the wall/fence structure will be approximately 8.5 feet at the east end and six (6) feet at the west end. The wall/fence structure will be located approximately four (4) feet into the Grandview Road right-of-way in order to align with an existing wall on the property to the east. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of eight (8) feet, and Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Additionally, Section 36-516(e)(1)a. allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences/walls located between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements to allow the garage addition with a reduced rear setback and the wall/fence with an increased height. Staff supports the variance for a reduced rear setback associated with the proposed garage addition. Staff feels that the proposed garage addition will not be out of character with the overall neighborhood. Staff believes the garage addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. However, according to ordinance requirements, residential driveways must be located at least five (5) feet from property lines. Therefore, the applicant must relocate the drive to meet the minimum setback from the rear (east) property line. Staff does not support the wall/fence height variance, as requested. Staff does not support the proposed height of the wall/fence structure, nor its location in the right-of-way. Staff believes the proposed location of the fence would result in the potential for future interference with utility and Public Works street maintenance operations. Staff could support a wall/fence with a maximum overall height of six (6) feet located on the side (north) property line. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to the proposed driveway being located at least five (5) feet back from the rear (east) property line. Staff recommends denial of the requested wall/fence height variance, as filed. E JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the January 31, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 31, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) Joseph Graham was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval of the setback variance, and a recommendation of denial of the fence/wall variance. Joseph Graham addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained his proposal for the fence/wall construction. He noted that the proposed fence/wall would align with an existing wall to the east and explained Chairman Gray asked what the purpose was for the fence/wall in the right-of-way. Mr. Graham explained that he was trying to maximize the rear yard area. The issue was briefly discussed. Chairman Gray asked Mr. Graham if he would amend his application to move the proposed driveway 5 feet back from the east property line. Mr. Graham noted that he would amend the application accordingly. Chairman Gray expressed concern with allowing the fence/wall in the right-of-way. Mr. Graham noted that the proposed fence/wall would not be out of character with the neighborhood. He stated that there would probably be no need for the additional right-of-way in the future. The issue was briefly discussed. Mr. Graham amended the application to place the proposed fence/wall on the north property line, with a maximum overall height of six (6) feet. There was a motion to approve the amended application. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The amended application was approved. 3 T�� -7-74( November 15, 2004 Board of Adjustment: The purpose of this letter is to request three property variances for the residence at 2923 N. Grant. Our goal for these projects is to provide green space in our "back / side" yard so that our two small children have a place to run and play. The current green space in our back yard is very limited and primarily not visible as there are no windows along the very back Eastern part of the house. It is our desire to remove the carport and incorporate it into green grass that is fenced and in view of the main part of the house. It is also important to note the property has a sunroom with two walls of arched windows that would overlook the proposed green space and deck rather than the carport and deck. 1. Variance at the back of the property to build a two -car garage with entry from Grandview. This garage would be 22 x 24 feet and would have a second floor with a small room to serve as a playroom or small office. 2. Variance on the Grandview side of the property to build a short retaining wall to level out the back yard. The wall would begin at a height of zero feet at the concrete walkway and grow to approximately 2.5 feet toward the back of the property ending at the proposed driveway. The variance request is to build this wall 4 feet into the easement, which is approximately 8 feet currently. The property has no sidewalk or curb. 3. Variance to build a 6 -foot fence to contain our two small children (ages 3 and 5), rather than the 4 -foot limit current zoning requires. We appreciate your consideration to these matters. Joseph L. Graham JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z -1894-C Owner: John Ostner Address: 301 Natural Resources Drive Description: Lot A, McHowe Subdivision Zoned: O-1 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the undisturbed buffer provisions of Section 36-521 to allow more of a land use buffer to be disturbed than allowed by ordinance. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Office STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The Zoning Ordinance does not allow utility easements to count toward fulfilling land use buffer area requirements. The plan submitted shows a 15 - foot wide utility easement along the eastern perimeter where the minimum 9 - foot wide undisturbed land use buffer is required. However, in addition to the easement, the applicant is offering an 11 -foot wide landscaped area. A 6 -foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the eastern perimeter of the site. C. Staff Analysis: The 0-1 zoned property at 301 Natural Resources Drive is undeveloped and tree covered. The majority of the property is located slightly below the grade JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) of the street. The high point of the property is within the south half of the lot, with the property sloping downward from south to north. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story office building on the site, as noted in the attached site plan. The building will be located within the north half of the property, with paved parking located in the south half. One (1) access drive from Natural Resources Drive is proposed to be located near the center of the property. When this property was platted a number of years ago, a 25 foot land use buffer was platted along the east property line. Section 36-521(f) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that 70% of land use buffers remain undisturbed. The proposed development recognizes the required 25 foot wide buffer area, however, the applicant would like to grade the entire buffer area, install underground drainage and completely replant the buffer area with trees, shrubs and ground cover. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the entire buffer area to be disturbed. The applicant has submitted two cross sections of the property, which are attached. One cross-section shows the buffer area conforming to ordinance requirements. This scenario includes a retaining wall approximately eight (8) feet in height running through the buffer area. The second cross-section shows the buffer area as proposed, with a controlled slope within the buffer area and new landscape plantings. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the proposed buffer treatment will be much less intrusive on the adjacent single family residential property to the east. Staff feels that the construction of a retaining wall within the buffer area will have a more negative visual impact on the adjacent property. Additionally, the applicant has located the proposed building 50 feet back from the rear (east) property line, which will aid in lessening the impact of the development on the adjacent property to the east (25 foot minimum rear setback required). Staff supports the development of this property with the buffer treatment option as offered by the applicant. The 25 foot wide platted buffer is considerably wider than the 9 foot wide land use buffer that would typically be required along the east property line of this lot. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested buffer variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Screening must be installed along the east property line, as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report. 2. The landscaping within the rear 25 foot buffer area must be maintained. 2 JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) 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 absent. 3 DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED December 13, 2004 Monte Moore 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Retirement Advisors Office Building Board of Adjustment Variance Request DCI Project # 03-170 Dear Monte: We are requesting a variance from the undisturbed buffer provisions for land use buffers. The following items are enclosed for your use and review of the above referenced variance request application. 1. Three copies of the current boundary survey. 2. Six copies of the overall site plan. 3. A completed application form. 4. A completed authorization form. 5. Petition signed by affected residents. We are requesting this variance due to limitations of existing grade and drainage conditions which would require a wall, and a ditch along existing platted buffer. A 15 foot utility easement also overlays most of this buffer. The applicant is proposing to pipe drainage and a create slope which allows a less intensive grade transition, less potentially visible wall surface, and more substantial tree plantings around the western part of the buffer. The applicant believes this proposal would be the best solution and has acquired the support of the two adjacent homeowners. Additional plantings are also proposed in the southern part of the buffer, which is already cleared. Please contact my office if you have any questions or require additional information concerning this matter. Sincerely, Development Consultants, Inc. J. Shawn Luther Engineering • Planning Land Surveying Landscape Architecture 2200 North Rodney Parham Road Suite 220 Little Rock, Arkansas 722124155 Telephone 501.221-7880 Fax # 501.221.7882 G:\2003\03-170\planning\03170c.doc Retirement Advisors of Arkansas, Inc. John L. Ostner, CLU Chartered Financial Consultant Mr. Robert Brown Development Consultants, Inc. 2200 N. Rodney Parham Rd. Little Rock AR 72212-4155 RE: Retirement Advisors Office Building December 6, 2004 attached are the signed petitions from the two landowners directly East of the property who are affected by the request for changes in the landscaping plan. Lot 18 is 100% affected, and lot 19 is 50% affected; however, both have agreed to the changes. I am hoping that this agreement will eliminate the proposed wall as we have discussed. Thanks to you and Sean for all your help, and I look forward to a hopefully speedy approval from the city. Best re ards, Jo L. Ostner, CH.FC SECUPHMS OFFEREDTHROUGH LINSCO/PRIVATEUaX,-M MEMBER NASDISIPC 1701 Centerview Dr. Suite 322 - Little Rock, AR 72211 - 501-228-2259 - 1-800-309-2259 Fax: 501-228-5030 - E -Mail: john.ostner@lpl.com PETITION I have reviewed the attached site and landscaping plan created by Development Consultants Inc. for Retirement Advisors of Arkansas and its owner John L. Ostner on September 1, 2004 and revised on November 30, 2004. Following a review of the plans, I have no objections to the proposed alternative plan which would eliminate the construction of a retaining wall as shown and lead to the construction of a filled gradual slope with additional screening trees and shrubs for a natural landscape appearance. OEM �! ADDRESS Zr 1 � Chad J. Cox # 11 Parkhaven Dr. Brandy A. Cox # 11 Parkhaven Dr. Dated: SIGNATURE oe PETITION I have reviewed the attached site and landscaping plan created by Development Consultants Inc. for Retirement Advisors of Arkansas and its owner John L. Ostner on September 1, 2004 and revised on November 30, 2004. Following a review of the plans, I have no objections to the proposed alternative plan which would eliminate the construction of a retaining wall as shown and lead to the construction of a filled gradual slope with additional screening trees and shrubs for a natural landscape appearance. NAME L-11/ Ryan O'Connor ADDRESS # A 1.1'41-khaven I Jennifer O'Connor # 14 Parkhaven I 0 Dated: /a SIGNATURE JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -2227-A Owner: Tomberlin Baptist Church Address: 923 Barber Street Description: Lots 17 and 18 Block 2, Masonic Addition Zoned: O-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-502 to allow a new church building with a reduced number of parking spaces. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Church STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. On -street parking is permitted on these streets. 2. With building permit: Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. Provide new curb as shown on the plans. B. Landscape and buffer Issues: A small amount of building landscaping is required between the public parking area and building. Considerable flexibility with this requirement is allowed. This review takes into account the reductions allowed within the designated mature area of the City. C. Staff Analysis: The 0-3 zoned property at 923 Barber Street is currently vacant and grass covered. The property is located at the northeast corner of Barber and West JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) 10th Streets. The property is relatively flat. There is a paved alley along the east property line. The applicant, Tomberlin Baptist Church, proposes to construct a new one- story church building within the south half of the property, as noted on the attached site plan. Paved parking will be located on the north side of the building, with a paved drive along the east side of the building. A driveway from West 10th Street will be located at the southeast corner of the property. A total of 13 off-street parking spaces will be provided within the parking area on the north side of the proposed church building. Section 36-502(b)(2)d. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 32 off-street parking spaces based on the church's proposed seating capacity of 128 (including choir seating). Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. The applicant has submitted a letter from Long Sales Agency, located in the office building directly across Barber Street to the west, granting the use of their parking area on Wednesday nights and Sundays. The Long Sales Agency paved parking lot will accommodate approximately 20 vehicles. Staff is supportive of the requested parking variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. Staff feels that the proposed church development is a good in- fill project for this neighborhood. There are a number of vacant lots in this general area. In addition to the Long Sales Agency lot, there is on -street parking allowed in this area. Therefore, staff feels that the reduced number of on-site parking spaces associated with the proposed church development will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance, subject to compliance with the Public Works and Landscape and Buffer comments as noted in paragraphs A and B of the staff report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) 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 absent. K TOMBERLIN BAPTIST CHURCH P.O. BOX 420 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203 December 14, 2004 Dana Carney Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-6863 Re: Proposed New Church Facility Tomberlin Baptist Church East 10th at Barber Streets Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Mr. Carney: 4- t- 4--- -�2 -- z -z7--7 - The congregation of the above captioned church request a variance of required number of parking spaces and use of available parking spaces on adjacent property in lieu thereof. "Lots No. 17 and 18 of Block 2, of the Masonic Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, AR." The following variance is requested: 1. Waiver of required number of parking spaces for a congregation of 108 persons from the required 27 to 13 on site with permission from an adjacent property owner to allow access to his parking spaces for regular services. Six copies of a current survey and the proposed site plan are attached as requested. Any assistance you can provide in this endeavor will be greatly appreciated. Very truly, TOMBERLIN BAPTIST CHURCH Reverend Billy fus, stor :M Long Sales Agency 914 Barber Little Rock, AR .72202 501-374-3088 December 8, 2004 Pastor Billy Rufus 923 Barber Little Rock, AR 72202 L -Y- 2 -z -7- I, Dennis Long of Long Sales Agency, gives Pastor Billy Rufus permission to use the parking lot of Long Sales Agen -y-qn Wednesday nights and Sunday services. IA s Long Sales AYcyv l JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z -3812-E Owner: Chi Investments, LLC Address: 10520 W. Markham Street Description: Lot 1, Bixler Commercial Subdivision Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the height regulations of Section 36-301 and the buffer provisions of Section 36-522 in order to permit the construction of a new hotel building. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Restaurant Building Proposed Use of Property: Hotel STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. No comments, regarding building height variance. 2. With building permit: furnish survey showing existing right-of-way widths. Dedicate right-of-way to Master Street Plan width as needed. 3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. Add sidewalk to Markham Center Drive. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The plan submitted falls short of the 15 foot average buffer width requirements along Markham Center Drive by 3 feet and along West Markham Street by 2 feet. Also, it falls short of the 30 foot wide freeway buffer requirements along 1-430. Areas set aside for landscaping meet with Landscape Ordinance requirements with the exception of the 30 foot wide landscape strip along 1-430. Variances from the Landscape Ordinance requirements must be approved by the City Beautiful Commission. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) C. Staff Analysis: The property at the northeast corner of West Markham Street and Interstate 430 is occupied by a vacant restaurant building and associated paved parking areas. There is a mixture of commercial and office uses in this immediate area. There are existing office uses across West Markham Street to the south, with hotel buildings to the north and additional offices to the northeast. A commercial strip center is located across Markham Center Drive to the east. Interstate 430 is located along the property's west boundary. On January 28, 2002 the Board of Adjustment granted building height, parking and buffer variances associated with a proposed hotel development. The variances have since expired. The approval included a 115 room hotel building with a height of 90 feet. The applicant is back before the Board of Adjustment requesting variances associated with a different, smaller hotel development. The applicant is now proposing a four (4) story hotel building with 81 guest rooms. The building will have a height of approximately 45 feet. The building will be located near the center of the property, with parking/vehicular use on all four sides. Access to the property is gained by way of an existing driveway from Markham Center Drive. This driveway is a shared access with the hotel property immediately to the north, with the shared access being utilized since the initial development of this property. The applicant is requesting three (3) variances in association with the planned redevelopment of this property. The variances are the same as previously approved, with the exception of a parking variance. The parking as proposed meets the ordinance requirements for an 81 room hotel. The first is a variance from the height regulations of Section 36-301 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Section 36-301(d) of the ordinance allows a maximum height of 35 feet in C-3 zoning. The proposed hotel building will have a maximum height of 45 feet, measured from the elevation of the lowest finished floor level to the mean level of the sloped roof line. Staff is supportive of the height variance. There are a number of multi -story buildings in this general area. The adjacent 0-2 zoning to the north and south across West Markham Street allows a maximum height of 120 feet. The proposed height for the hotel building will not be out of character with the area. Additionally, there is no adjacent residential property which could be negatively impacted by the building height. F JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) The second variance requested is from the landscape buffer requirements of Section 36-522. The applicant is proposing street buffers along West Markham Street and Markham Center Drive with minimum width of nine (9) feet, and increased depths at the property corners. Section 36-522(b)(3)1. requires landscaping buffers along both of these streets with minimum average widths of 15 feet. The average buffer widths along both of these streets falls slightly below the minimum 15 foot average. Staff is also supportive of this variance request. The existing street buffers along West Markham Street and Markham Center Drive are approximately five (5) feet in width along the majority of these property lines. The street landscape buffers proposed by the applicant are almost double that of the existing buffers. Staff feels that the street landscape buffers as proposed will not be out of character with other properties in this general area. The last variance request is also from the buffer requirements of Section 36- 522. Section 36-522(a)(3) requires that street buffers along expressways be a minimum of thirty (30) feet in width. The applicant is proposing a minimum landscape buffer width along this west property line of nine (9) feet to over 25 feet at the southwest corner of the property. Staff also supports this buffer variance. The difference in elevation of this property and 1-430 is some 20 feet vertically, with an overpass at West Markham Street. Because of the relationship of this property to the interstate, staff feels that a 30 foot wide landscape buffer would serve no real purpose, and have very little visibility from 1-430. The 30 foot buffer requirement along expressways is also a Landscape Ordinance requirement. Therefore, this specific variance will also have to be approved by the City Beautiful Commission. As noted above, staff is supportive of all of the requested variances. Staff feels that the variances as requested are minor in nature and will not be out of character with other commercial and office properties in this general area. Staff feels that the proposed hotel development will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested subject to the following conditions: 1. The landscape buffer variance along the interstate (west) side of the property must also be approved by the City Beautiful Commission. 2. The applicant must provide documentation showing that there is a cross - access easement between this property and the property immediately to the north. 3. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of this report. 3 JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) 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 absent. 9 t E WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. M 24 Rahling Circle 13 Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 December 17, 2004 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Neighborhoods and Planning 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Chi's Candlewood Suites Mr. Moore, -�1 2- --tE Please find attached four copies of the site plan and front elevation for the above referenced project. We would like to request height and street buffering variance for the use of Candlewood Suites. The property is zoned C-3 General Commercial with a height restriction of 35 ft. We would like to request an allowable height of 45 ft. There are several buildings in the general area, which have a height of 60 ft. to 80 ft. Financial Centre III and Embassy Suites are in excess of 90 ft. We believe with this type of use, this is a reasonable request. Also, we would like to request variances for the street buffer requirements. Currently, the old Shoney's Restaurant has street buffers of 5 ft. on the south and east. We would like to increase these street buffers to 7.2 ft. minimum. The average buffer on Markham Center Drive would be 10 ft. with a requirement of 15 ft. The average buffer on West Markham Street would be 11 ft. with a requirement of 14.6 ft. There is more streetscape along West Markham than typical due to the bridge approach over I-430. The average distance from our property line to the sidewalk on Markham Stree 's 32 ft. versus the typical 12 ft. Also, the existing median on Markham Center Drive ovides a buffer between this property and the existing development to the east. In addition, we would like to request a variance from the 30 ft. buffer along I-430. The relationship between this property and the highway is some 20 ft. vertically. The existing hotels to the north have been developed with less than the 30 ft. and are screened quite well from the highway. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. Best regards, Joe te, Jr. CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-4041 -D Owner: Union Bank of Benton Address: 10710 Vimy Ridge Road Description: Lot 1, DIMAC MFG Subdivision Zoned: 1-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the paving provisions of Section 36-508 to allow an unpaved vehicular use area. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Industrial Building Proposed Use of Property: Office and Impound Yard for Metro Towing STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments regarding gravel lot behind building. B. Landscape and buffer Issues: An average 12 -foot wide land use buffer is required along the site's southern perimeter. At no point should the width of this buffer be less than 9 -feet in width. The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum 6 -foot 9 -inch wide landscape strip along the southern perimeter. C. Staff Analysis: The 1-2 zoned property at 10710 Vimy Ridge Road is occupied by a one-story industrial building. There is a one -car wide gravel drive from Vimy Ridge Road. There is an area of gravel parking on the north side of the building. The rear portion of the property is wooded. The property is currently vacant. The applicant proposes to use the property as a towing/auto storage business. As part of the new occupancy, the JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) applicant proposes to pave the entry drive from Vimy Ridge Road and a parking area between the building and the street. The applicant also proposes to gravel the rear portion of the property for use as auto storage. A new privacy fence will be constructed along the south property line and the east side of the gravel area, to block the view of the auto storage area from the church property to the south and from the street. The gravel area is proposed to extend to the north, south and west property lines, and along the south side of the building, as noted on the attached site plan. Section 36-508 of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that vehicular use areas, including vehicle storage areas, be paved. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the gravel vehicular parking/storage area. Staff is not supportive of the variance as requested. Although the property is zoned industrial and located in an area of fairly heavy industrial uses, there is a church located on the R-2 zoned property immediately to the south. Staff feels that in addition to the required 6 foot high screening fence, the applicant should provide the 12 foot wide land use buffer and 6 foot 9 inch wide landscape buffer along the south property line as required by ordinance. Additionally, staff feels that the gravel vehicular use area should not extend along the south side of the building. If the applicant would agree to these conditions, staff could support the variance for a gravel parking/storage area, as it should have no adverse impact on the general area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested paving variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a revised site plan which eliminated the proposed gravel parking on the south side of the building, and allowed for a 20 foot wide landscape buffer along the south property line adjacent to the proposed gravel parking area. Staff recommended approval of the revised application, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance. 2. A protective border must be placed on the south side of the gravel parking area to protect the landscape buffer area. 3. A 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its face side directed outward, must be constructed along the south property line where adjacent to the gravel parking area. 2 JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved, as revised and recommended by staff, by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 FINLEY & COMPANY REAL ESTATE SERVICES December 6, 2004 City of Little Rock Board of Adjustment c/o Dept. of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Zoning Variance Request, 11710 Vimy Ridge Road Mr. Tommy Olive has the above referenced property under contract to purchase and use as his primary location for his company, Metro Towing and Recovery. The enclosed information represents our request for a zoning variance to allow Mr. Olive to gravel, rather than asphalt the impound yardwhich will be located behind the building on this property. As the enclosed drawing will indicate, Mr. Olive will utilize privacy fencing to. screen the impound yard from public view along the front and south property lines. The rear and north property lines have no access to public view and will be enclosed by chain . link fence. On behalf of Mr. Olive and. as agent for the property owner, Union Bank of Benton, I respectively request your approval of this zoning variance for Mr. Olive. Sincerely, Bud Finley 9222 STAGECOACH RD. • LITTLE ROCK, AR 72210 9 (501) 666-1300 • FAX (501) 666-1904 t FINLEY & COMPANY REAL ESTATE SERVICES January 17, 2005 Mr. Monty Moore Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Zoning Variance .117 10 Vimy Ridge Road Dear Monty: I spoke today with the pastor of the church which adjoins the above -referenced property. As you know, it comes before the Board on January 31St for approval as a towing/wre:eker:.. service location (Tommy Olive — applicant). The pastor, George Dudley asked a few questions and generally seemed okay with the use. He was pleased that a wooden privacy fence was being built along the side of the property behind the building. I think he'll be fine with the use. I have not spoken with the other three landowners as they are industrial and should not be concerned. S' e ly, Bud Finley 9222 STAGECOACH RD. • LITTLE ROCK, AR 72210 • (501) 666-1300 • FAX (501) 666-1904 JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z -4723-B Owner: Rodney Thomason Address: 2601 Kavanuagh Blvd. Description: Southwest corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. And Walnut Street Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the commercial district provisions of Section 36-298 associated with a proposed outdoor seating area. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Mixed Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Mixed Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 2601 Kavanaugh Blvd. Is occupied by a two-story commercial building containing mixed commercial uses. There is a paved parking area on the south side of the building and a parking lot across Kavanaugh Blvd. to the north which serve this commercial development. There is a restaurant located within the northeast portion of the building's first floor. There is a small courtyard/patio area at the northeast corner of the building, along the building's east side. The courtyard/patio area is fenced with landscaping along the edges. There are two (2) retractable awnings on the east side of the building over the courtyard/patio area. There are also metal light fixtures on the east side of the building. The courtyard/patio area is located in the Walnut Street right-of-way, between the building and the sidewalk. JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T The applicant proposes to utilize the small courtyard/patio for outdoor restaurant seating. The applicant proposes a total of four (4) tables with two (2) seats per table, for a total of eight (8) outdoor restaurant seats. The applicant notes that the outdoor restaurant seating area will only be used during warm weather. Section 36-298(8) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows outdoor dining in the Commercial Zoning districts under certain conditions. Section 36-298(8)a. states that outdoor dining shall not be located in the public right-of-way. Section 36-298(8)e. notes that outdoor dining shall not be located between the building occupied by the restaurant and adjacent residentially zoned or occupied properties. The outdoor seating area is located between the building containing the restaurant and single family residences (zoned R-5) across Walnut Street to the east. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow outdoor restaurant seating within the existing courtyard/patio area. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the outdoor restaurant seating as proposed will not be out of character with the general area. Staff feels that the outdoor dining area will be a positive addition to the atmosphere of this pedestrian friendly area of Hillcrest. Staff believes that with compliance to the conditions as outlined in the next paragraph ("Staff Recommendation"), the outdoor dining area should have no adverse impact on the adjacent residential property or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with the proposed outdoor dining area, subject to the following conditions: 1. The outdoor dining area will be limited to a maximum of eight (8) seats (4 tables/2 seats per table). 2. The use of the outdoor dining area must cease by 10:00 p.m. daily. 3. There is to be no outdoor speakers, music, etc. 4. There is to be no additional outdoor lighting. 5. A franchise permit must be obtained for the use of this area within the right-of-way. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. 2 JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) 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 absent. 3 7.� 3 2soa J'�+pancu��i.�lma� yel Pi 72205 December 16, 2004 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 To Whom It May Concern: In speaking with Monte Moore we were made aware that our proposed side patio dining area on the corner of Walnut and Kavanaugh Streets does not meet your department's criteria for outdoor dining. We are for this reason requesting a variance from the current zoning ordinance. This side patio has a slight slope and has a small concrete area with awnings that provide shade. Facing Walnut Street there is an elevated area with shrubs and a fence that separates the patio from the sidewalk and thus the street. This patio will be utilized during warm weather, but will only consist of four, two top tables, which should not create a noise problem with the neighbors. In remodeling the restaurant we added an iron fence to block off this small area and can add a screen if necessary. We are requesting this variance because our restaurant hopefully will offer diners the opportunity to sit outside and enjoy the weather and the atmosphere of the Hillcrest area of Little Rock. We would appreciate your help in allowing us to utilize this area and will be willing to make other adjustments if necessary. Thanks for your attention to this matter! Sincerel Leslie Reagor Femeau Office Manager JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z -6120-L Owner: Capitol Hill Limited Partnership Address: Kanis Road at Cooper Orbit Road Description: Northwest corner of Kanis Road and Cooper Orbit Road and South side of Capitol Hill Blvd. At Old Cooper Orbit Road alignment. Zoned: C-1 and R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested to allow off -premise directional signs. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Off -Premise Signs STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Signs should be located outside the public right-of-way. B. Staff Analysis: The property at 15501 Capitol Hill Blvd. Is zoned PDR and occupied by an apartment complex (Capitol Hill Luxury Apartments) which is under development, with Phase I nearing completion. As part of the apartment development, the applicant is requesting approval of the placement of two (2) off -premise directional signs. One sign is located at the northwest corner of Cooper Orbit and Kanis Roads with the second sign located on the southwest corner of Capitol Hill Blvd. and the old alignment of Cooper Orbit Road. Each sign is 6 to 7 feet in height, with an area of approximately 16 square feet. The City's Zoning Ordinance contains no provisions for allowing the type of off - premise directional type signage as proposed. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow this type of signage. JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Although there are some nonconforming off -premise directional signs within the city's jurisdiction (The Oasis Renewal Center, for example), staff feels that it would be detrimental to allow additional signs of this type, and would very likely set a bad precedent for future requests. Staff believes that one intent of the sign section of the Zoning Ordinance is to prohibit visual clutter where commercial signage is concerned. Staff believes that the type of off -premise sign as proposed creates visual clutter along street frontages, especially at intersections. Staff feels that the off -premise signs proposed will have an adverse visual impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow off -premise signs. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the February 28, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 28, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 4 ANDREW V. FRANCIS E-MAB.:AVFPA@SBCGLOBAL.NET December 17, 2004 Mr. Monte Moore ANDREW V. FRANCIS, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 2311 BiSCAYNE DRivE, SurrE 205 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72227 TELEPHONE (501) 954-7390 FAcsIMILE (501) 954-7385 Zoning Administrator City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Hand Delivery RE: Capitol Hill Apartments — Application for Zoning Variance (Signs) Dear Monte: Enclosed please find the following regarding the above -referenced matter: 1. Application for Zoning Variance (Signs) with attached Exhibit (Legal Description); 2. Affidavit of John W. DeHaven, Manager of Limine Trust, LLC, the General Partner of Capitol Hill Limited Partnership authorizing G. Robert Hardin of Hardin & Grace, P.A. to represent the property owner in this application; and 3. My firm's check in the amount of $50 as the filing fee for this application. Per our discussion, I will provide you with the three (3) copies of a survey of the locations for the off -premises signs and graphic information showing the size, height and area of the signs as soon as I receive the same from our engineer. Also, prior to the hearing in this matter I will provide you with either a letter or a lease from the property owners where the two signs are located authorizing the location of the signs on their property. In the meantime, I have enclosed for your reference two drawings showing the approximate location of the signs. Both of the signs in question are off -premises directional signs installed to help direct traffic to Capitol Hill Apartments. The first sign is approximately 32 square feet in area and is located on the southwest corner of the intersections of Kanis Road and Cooper Orbit Road. The second sign is approximately 40 square feet and is located in the northeast portion of Tract D of Capitol Lakes Estates, approximately 20 feet south of the southern curb of Capitol Hill Boulevard. Due to the topography of the area and the on-going construction activities in Capitol Lakes Estates, the owner feels it is would be a hardship to disallow the maintenance of these two off - premises signs. Phase 1-B of Capitol Lakes Estates, directly across Capitol Hill Boulevard from Capitol Hill Apartments, is currently seeing a great deal of construction activity. Furthermore, it is expected that Governor's Manor PRD, also on Capitol Hill Boulevard and further to the east of Capitol Hill Apartments will begin construction soon after approval of its pending plat. The Page 2 Mr. Monte Moore December 17, 2004 construction activity, along with the subdivision landscaping and topography of the terrain make it difficult to locate the apartments. These two directional signs will assist in the location of Capitol Hill Apartments and will help direct traffic to the apartments. Thank you very much and please call me with any questions. Cordially, AND V. FRANCIS, P.A. Andrew V. Francis /avf Enclosures cc: Capitol Hill Limited Partnership Mr. Dan Tharp Maintenance Supervisor, Capitol Hill Apartments G. Robert Hardin JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-7661 -A Owner: Kent and Amy Bryant Address: 8 Rosier Court Description: Lot 825, St. Charles Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a covered deck 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 8 Rosier court is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence. A two -car wide driveway from Rosier court serves as access. The property slopes downward from west to east. A new room and covered deck addition were recently constructed on the rear of the house. On June 28, 2004, the Board of Adjustment approved rear and side setback variances for the new addition, subject to a good neighbor screening fence being constructed along the rear property line. The approved site plan is attached and labeled "Previously Approved." When the addition was constructed, the deck portion was built slightly larger than was approved, with the roof covering a different portion of the deck. The step structure also extends further into the yard. Additionally, a partial screen wall has been constructed along the north wall of the new deck structure. The good neighbor screening fence along the rear property line has also been constructed. Since the deck structure is larger and the roof structure covers a JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T. different, larger section of the deck than previously approved, the applicant is back before the Board of Adjustment requesting approval of the revised plan. The revised plan is attached and labeled "Proposed As Revised." Staff is supportive of the revised site plan. Staff feels that the revised plan has no greater impact on the adjacent property than the previously approved plan. In addition to the roof structure over the deck being moved closer to the rear property line, the net result is five (5) additional feet of deck parallel to the rear property line. Staff views this as a relatively minor revision. Staff therefore supports an additional variance from Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow the additional deck area with a reduced rear setback. Staff supports the construction as completed, including the partial screen wall along the north side of the deck structure. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance associated with the revised site plan, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) 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 absent. 2 - -7� (-✓4 December 14, 2004 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Monte: On behalf of our clients, Kent and Amy Bryant, we are filing for a second variance for an addition to a deck located at the rear yard at #8 Rosier Court. Enclosed are six copies of a recent survey showing a covered 16'-0" x 16'-0" wood deck with stair access located to the cast. There is 14'- 10 1/2" from the northwest corner of the wood deck to the rear property line; 16'-0" distance from the northeast corner of the deck to the rear property line and 28'- 0" from the east edge of the deck to the side (east) property line. We are also asking that the variance include approval of the privacy enclosure that can be seen in the attached photos. As you will recall, the Bryants received their initial variance on June 28, 2004, after agreeing to construct a privacy fence between their property and that of their rear neighbor, Mr. Karl Liss. The Bryants were happy to comply with this request. While the Bryants constructed what they in good faith believed to be a deck, fence and home addition that comply with the initial variance (Z-7661), a courtesy notice from the Department of Planning & Development (#1541) alerted them that, while the fence does match the fences of homes in the surrounding area and any deviations they made to the deck construction was done so with written approval of the City staff, the deck and fence are different from the approved plan. The Bryants are more than happy to make a correction to the fence's construction and are actively trying to contact Mr. Liss to gain his written approval to access his property and complete the construction of the fence. It is their intent to have the fence completed before the January 31' commission meeting. Please feel free to contact either Jeff Horton or myself if there are any questions. Sincerely, Pennifer Herron, AIA H_E R R O_N H 0 R T O N Soo S. Spring St. Ste. 720 Little Rock, AR 72201 www.hh-architects.com _ tel. 501-975-0052 _ ... _. Fax. 501-978-0078 ARCHITECTS J 4-�. 7 2— -7 6 i ---- January 12, 2005 Mr. Karl Lass 808 LaSalle Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Dear Kari: I a -m writing this letter in folba-wr up to our conversations of Monday, December 27h and Thursday, December 30, 2004, and to confirm what I understand tom these conversations is a satisfactory resolution of the complaints you recently filed with the City of Little Rock. With your permission and to your expressed satisfaefion, during the week of December 27* Amy and I completed construction of the privacy fence that separates our two yards in the rear. Once we learned ofyour continued dissatisfaction with the £ ice originally constructed, Amy and I were happy to make the erection. I only wish you had alened us to your concerns sooner so that you co€ld have saved yomelf the time and effort of contacting the City of Little Rock staff Furthermore, it is our understanding that with the correction of the fence you have no further issues with our construction project. Please feet free to contact either Array or myself direedy with any further eonc.°ms or questions you may have regarding our consMic6on. Sincerely, IZA-�- �� Kent & Amy Bryant 8 Rosier Court Little Rock, AR 72211 cc: Monte Moore RECEIVE JAN 1 3 2D05 BY: JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7775 Owner: JCS Construction, LLC Address: 11 Palamino Court Description: Lot 44, Perry Place Subdivision Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a deck 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 11 Palamino Court is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence which was recently constructed. There is a two -car wide drive from Palamino court which serves as access. As part of the new construction, an 8 foot by 8 foot wood deck was constructed on the rear of the house. The deck is uncovered and unenclosed, and is located 17 feet from the rear (east) property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet for principal structures in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the deck with a rear setback of 17 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the variance is very minor. The single family lot being located at the end of a cul-de-sac has JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) an unusual shape and is relatively shallow (79 feet deep along the north property line). The lot has a 25 foot front platted building line. Given these circumstances, it would be difficult to place even a modest size house, as the one constructed (approximately 1300 square feet), on the lot and conform with the minimum front and rear yard setbacks. As long as the deck structure remains uncovered and unenclosed, staff feels that the deck will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The single family residences located on the lots to the east are located 25 feet or more back from the rear property line. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance, subject to the deck structure remaining uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) 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 absent. E JCS Construction, L.L.C. 29 Stoneledge Dr. Maurnelle, AR. 72113 John Scott - President (501) 425-3185 The Little Rock Board of Adjustment Re: Application for zoning variance To Whom It May Concern: 1 J --k' 4 ? - ~7775 David Scott - Vice President (501) 425-1209 12/16/04 We at JCS Construction, LLC are filing this application in regards to Lot 44, Perry Place Addition, Phase 2-B, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. The property in question is a narrow pie shape lot. It is set back 27 ft to the first corner because of the easement line. This only allows 25 ft. off the property in the back yard. The back yard drops off into a ditch; therefore, the deck is necessary to have any use of this area. Without this deck the backyard is useless. The deck is only 8 ft. x 8 ft., pressure treated wood & built to city codes. We also have already spoken to the neighbors about this deck & there are no complaints. Thank you for considering this a necessary adjustment. Sincerely, John L. Scott JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7776 Owner: Florence Flis Address: 43 Wellington Colony Drive Description: Lot 13, Block 13, Villages of Wellington Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the easement provisions of Section 36-11 to allow a deck with a reduced side setback and which encroaches into a utility easement. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 43 Wellington Colony Drive is occupied by a one- story brick single family residence which was recently constructed. There is a two -car wide shared drive along the west property line. An 8 foot by 20 foot wood deck was constructed along the east side of the house, as noted on the attached site plan. The deck is 5 to 6 feet above grade. The deck is also uncovered and unenclosed and is located 1.3 to 2.3 feet from the side (east) property line. The deck also extends into a 5 foot wide utility easement (sanitary sewer easement) which runs along the east property line. There is a platted greenbelt (Tract A, villages of Wellington Phase 9) which runs along the east property line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-11(f) requires that encroachments into utility easements be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.) ordinance standards to allow the deck structure with a reduced side setback and encroaching into a utility easement. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staffs support of the reduced setback is based on the fact that a platted greenbelt tract is located along the east property line. The greenbelt ranges in width from 75 feet to 150 feet where adjacent to this lot. Additionally, all of the public utility companies consent to the proposed encroachment. The applicant has completed a contract with the Little Rock Wastewater Utility/Sanitary Sewer Committee addressing the deck's encroachment. Staff feels that the deck as constructed will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with the deck construction, subject to the deck remaining uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) 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 absent. 2 2--7-27( Graham Smith Construction LLC 2020 West 3rd Street Suite lA Little Rock, AR 72205 501-375-5209 Fax 501-375-2770 ........................................................................... December 13, 2004 Dear C of LR, Florence Flis is requesting a variance of the required easement on her house located at 43 Wellington Colony. We have spoken with all utilities and they have signed off on a copy of the plot plan (enclosed). There is green space on the side of her house where she is requesting the variance. Therefore, it will have no effect on any neighbors. I have spoken with Doug McNeil (Winrock Development) and they have no objections. Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, R. Graha4Smith JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Z-7777 Owner: Brian and Tiffany Reddick Address: 46 Edgehill Road Description: Lot 52, Edgehill Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence/wall provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a masonry wall which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 46 Edgehill Road is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence which is currently being remodeled. There is a one -car wide drive at the southeast corner of the property which serves as access. As part of the remodeling project, a new masonry wall has been constructed along a portion of the west property line. The new wall section runs for approximately 86 feet on the property line along the side of the house. The wall ranges in height from seven (7) to eight (8) feet above grade. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence/wall height of six (6) feet for fences along property lines in residential zoning. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the 7 to 8 foot high masonry wall. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as relatively minor. The wall as constructed is not out of character with other fences/walls in this general area. Staff typically supports fence/wall heights in JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 10 (CON'T.) single family zoning up to eight (8) feet, as long as there are no unusual circumstances associated with them. This is the case with this proposed wall. The 7 to 8 foot height is as measured from the inside of the wall. The grade of the neighboring property on the west side of the wall is slightly higher than the grade inside the wall. Staff feels that the masonry wall will have no negative impact on the adjacent property or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested wall height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) 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 absent. 2 MEMO TO: Mr. Monty Moore Little Rock Planning and Development FROM: Dave Roberts DATE: December 16, 2004 RE: Residential Zoning Variance for 46 Edgehill Road R \'M^ L A N D 5 G A P E A R G H I T E G T 5 ROBERT5 4 WILLIAM5 A550CI AT E5 The owner of 46 Edgehill Road in Little Rock r� a reszoning requests residential in variance 1501 N. UNIVERSITY g g SUITE 430 to allow for two additional feet of fencing/wall along the western property line. We LITTLE ROCK, AR understand that a six foot side fence/wall is permitted by ordinance. This variance is *7220-1 requested to give the owner two additional feet of fence/wall height to screen their (501) 250-012 3 kitchen window from the neighbors side yard storage area. Enclosed please find a layout plan for the fence/wall. If you have any questions concerning this variance application please feel free to contact me at (501) 280-0123. JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 11 File No.: Z-7778 Owner: Winifred Watkins Revocable Trust Address: 5301 Scenic Drive Description: Lot 3, Grandview Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence/wall provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a retaining wall which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. The proposed maximum wall height of 14.33 feet as shown on the plans is less than the 15' maximum allowed under the land alteration ordinance. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5301 Scenic Drive is currently undeveloped. Foundation work for a new single family residence has been started. Scenic Drive is located along the north property line with an alley access along the south property line. The homes along this section of Scenic Drive use the alley for vehicular access. The property drops off sharply from the south property line, with a severe slope from south to north. The proposed residence will conform to the minimum setback requirements for R-2 zoning. Associated with the proposed construction will be a retaining wall just inside the east property line. The retaining wall will be located at grade near the southeast corner of the property and run to a height of 14.33 feet above grade at the 30 foot building line, as noted on the attached site plan. The retaining wall will support a walkway/driveway along the east side of the home and a patio area at the northeast corner of the structure. JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 11 (CON'T.) The applicant notes that the proposed retaining wall will be constructed of rough -faced segmented block that slopes inward at 3/4" per course, or 9" at the tallest point. The wall will have a texture and color that will match the house's foundation walls. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence/wall height of six (6) feet in residential zones. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed retaining wall with a maximum height of 14.33 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the proposed retaining wall will not be out of character with other elevated walls, decks, driveways, etc. in this general area. Staff recognizes the fact that this property is difficult to develop given the extreme slope. The single family homes along the south side of Scenic Drive have varying setbacks and building heights. Therefore, staff feels that the proposed retaining wall associated with the new residence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent residences or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested wall height variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The wall must not exceed a maximum height of 14.33 feet. 2. The wall must match the texture and color of the house's foundation walls. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) 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 absent. 2 Stephen M. Rousseau, AIA ^ December 13, 2004 Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Request for Variance Fence and wall provisions, Section 36-516 5301 Scenic Drive Grandview Addition Dear Sir: The appiicant is building a new single family residence on a steeply sipping site in the Grandview Addition. The accompanying site plan and elevation indicate a proposed retaining wall on the east side of the property that lies within the sideyard setback and varies in height from one to fourteen feet, thus exceeding the maximum wall height permitted by City ordinance. The applicant requests a variance of the Fence and Wall Provision, Section 36-516, to allow the construction of the proposed retaining wall. Within the dimension of the two story house, the site falls approximately twenty- four feet from south to north. This results in the lower level and its vehicular access being approximately fourteen feet above grade at the northernmost point. The driveway to the lower level is only possible from the higher, south side of the site, and the site's width requires that the access drive extend into the sideyard setback. The proposed retaining wall is to be a rough -faced segmenter) block that slopes inward at 3/" per course, or 9" at its tallest point. The texture and color of the retaining wall blocks are intended to match the house's concrete block foundation walls. I hope this information is sufficient for your purposes and that you grant the applicants request for variance. SiiStt cerely, s hn M. Rousseau, AIA Applicant's agent 11 River Oaks Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 666-1738 JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 12 File No.: Z-7779 Owner: Mike Kuhn Address: 115 Courts Lane Description: Lot 32, Block 123, Chenal Valley 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 new house 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 115 Courts Lane is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence which was recently constructed. There is a two -car wide driveway from courts Lane which serves as access. The property has a slight slope from side to side (downward from east to west). There is a small step structure (3 steps) extending from the front porch toward the front property line. After construction of the single family residence, the applicant had an as -built survey done which revealed a small sliver of the house and the step structure extending across the front 25 foot platted building line. As noted on the attached site plan sketch, a small sliver of the front of the house, at its northeast corner, extends across the platted building line by 1.7 feet (23.3 foot front setback). Additionally, the entire step structure extends across the platted building line, resulting in a front setback of approximately 20 feet. The steps are uncovered and unenclosed. JANUARY 31, 2005 ITEM NO.: 12 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12(c ) of the subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed step structure and small sliver of the front of the home with a reduced front setback and which cross a platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances associated with the proposed new residential structure. Staff views the request as reasonable. Although adequate space (depth) exists to locate the house on the lot with no variances, a mistake was obviously made when the house was laid out resulting in the existing encroachment. Staff feels that the mistake is relatively minor, and that the proposed encroachment should 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 proposed residential structure. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, associated with the new residential structure, 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 portion of the step structure extending past the front platted building line must remain uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred to the February 28, 2005 Agenda, based on the fact that the applicant failed to complete the notification to surrounding property owners as required. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 28, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 6 92:17 AM MIKE. 221 3183 %:f G NTS x; Board ofAd}ustments 7 / ,om; Mike and Jamie Kuhn abject: 11 s Courts Lane re are asking the committee to approve a variance for our residence located at1 S ourts Lane (lot 32 of Chenal), The original site pian showed our home correc�t�y on the ont building line. When laying the house out it was slightly over the front building line ad was not known until the final survey. Because of this we are asking for a variance. hank You, tike Kuhn acme Kuhn / . f 0 w w F- 0 0 I- Z UJ ✓� � v Q LL a 0 m (VI 0 a a) z CO m Q H z w m ¢ w Q z Is O w w r ° ° w ry o o Q r° m w Z U) cn LL ° ¢ z z E O Q Q DE m PLL m _ 111■ 1 11 11 �1 I 'll1 a a) z CO m Q H z w m ¢ w Q z Is O w w r ° ° w ry o o Q r° m w Z U) cn LL ° ¢ z z E O Q Q DE m PLL m _ January 31, 2005 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. Date: V-4-05 Chairman Secretary