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