boa_02 28 2005LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being three (3) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The Minutes of the January 31, 2005 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present
Members Absent
City Attorney Present
Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman
Fletcher Hanson
David Wilbourn
Andrew Francis, Chairman
Debra Harris
Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
2:00 P.M.
OLD BUSINESS:
A.
Z -6120-L
Kanis Road at Cooper Orbit Road
B.
Z -6957-C
Colonel Glenn Road at 1-430
C.
Z-7779
115 Courts Lane
NEW BUSINESS:
1.
Z -4064-A
3 Longfellow Lane
2.
Z -4469-C
8800 Stagecoach Road
3.
Z-5591 -C
10609 Interstate 30
4.
Z-7637
1319 Kavanaugh Blvd.
5.
Z-7792
5125 Lee Avenue
6.
Z-7793
2624 Crouchwood Road
7.
Z-7794
5205 Hawthorne Street
8.
Z-7795
2725 S. Arch Street
9.
Z-7796
2319 N. Taylor Street
10.
Z-7797
9 Sunset Circle
11.
Z-7798
11516 Happy Valley Drive
41,
A3NOON
umn ao
le
NW
simn Allo
6%,
N31zvw
OKI
r
LO
0
Q
N
N
CQ
i
Q)
LL
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: A
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.
ssues:
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.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Although there are some
nonconforming off -premise directional signs within the city's jurisdiction (The
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.)
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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(FEBRUARY 28, 2005)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the
March 28, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 28, 2005
Agenda by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
2
ANDREW V. FRANCIS
E-MAIL:AV FPA@SBCGLOBAL.NET
December 17, 2004
Mr. Monte Moore
ANDREW V. FRANCIS, P.A.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2311 BISCAYNE DRIVE, SUITE 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
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.
c,
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
FEBRUARY 28, 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.
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.
The sign is proposed to have 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.
Pa
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.)
The signs proposed as off -premise directional signs for Holiday Inn and Value
Place 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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the
March 28, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 28, 2005
Agenda by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
191
12-08-20( 16PM FROM MCGETRICK 15012239293 P.2
Mo6EMICK W&El?:IGK
ENG1NMR5 - PLANNEW SlfRMORb �w-
;-6g5-7-c-
November 22, 2004
Monte Moore
Zoning Administrator
Dept. of Planning & Development
723 West Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Colonel Glenn Centre
Sign Easements
Dear Mr. Moore,
We are herewith asking for a variance on the size and location of three (3) signs
for the Colonel Glenn Project. Sign # 1 will 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 sign are necessary for visibility to the
overall project. Sign #2 located at the intersection of Talley Rd. and Colonel Glenn w�.A
be a directional sign to serve lot 9. It will. be located off-site in the sign easement as
shown. Sign #3 located as 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 00wr Crwk Court, Sults A
Litho Rock. Arkansew 72210
5501-465--9 fox 501-455-6&96
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: C
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
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.)
platted building line, resulting in a front setback of approximately 20 feet. The
steps are uncovered and unenclosed.
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.
2
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 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 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
W
92:17 AM MIKE. 221 3183 ( P.@1
/1"9pdiC Je
a,� Board of Adjustments
2-7��
rom: Mike and Jatnie Kuhn
object; 115 Courts Lane
Je are asking the committee to approve a variance for our residence located atl5
ourts Lane (lot 32 of Chenal), The original site pian showed our home corre't.y on the
ont building line, Wher= laying the house out it was slightly over the front building line
rid was not known until the final survey. Because of this we are asking for a variance.
'hank You,
Mike Kuhn
ramie Kuhn �:
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: Z -4064-A
Owner/Applicant: James Goodwin
Address: 3 Longfellow Lane
Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Forbesplace Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 to allow a garage addition with a reduced front setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 3 Longfellow Lane is occupied by a one-story brick
and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from
Beverly Place which serves as access. The property is located at the
southeast corner of Longfellow Lane and Beverly Place.
The applicant proposes to construct a 23 foot by 22 foot garage addition' on the
west end of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The addition
will have a heated/cooled connection to the residence. The proposed addition
will be located 18 feet from the front (west) property line and five (5) feet from
the south (side) property line. Access to the proposed garage structure will be
gained by utilizing the existing driveway from Beverly Place.
Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front
setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the garage addition with a reduced front setback. Although
the house faces north, the lot is platted west to east (front to back).
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.)
Staff is supportive of the requested front setback variance. Although the
proposed addition will be located slightly closer to the Beverly Place right-of-
way than the houses to the south, staff feels that the encroachment is
relatively minor. Additionally, the lot is located near the end of Beverly Place,
with the house to the north (across Longfellow Lane) being approximately 8
feet closer to the Beverly Place right-of-way than the existing house at 3
Longfellow Lane. The applicant has noted that the entire width of the
proposed garage cannot be attached to the residence because it would
eliminate several large windows. Staff feels that the proposed front setback
will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested front setback variance, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 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 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
James F. Goodwin
Three Longfellow Lane
Little Rock Arkansas 72207
January 28, 2005
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock AR 72201
To Whom It May Concern:
Please accept this letter as an official request for a residential zoning variance at
Three Longfellow Lane, Little Rock AR 72207.
The request is for a double garage addition to the residence and changing the
entrance for parking from Beverly Place to Longfellow Lane. The existing structure does
not have a protected place to park vehicles.
The garage will load from Longfellow Lane which will help alleviate three
driveways that open onto Beverly Place together. (#14 Beverly Place, #15 Beverly Place
and my house at #3 Longfellow Lane).
The addition will be constructed of brick veneer to match the rest of the house
with a gabled roof tying into the existing structure.
I feel this will be a valuable addition to the neighborhood increasing the value of
the property in question.
Thank you for our consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
ames F. Goodwin
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.: Z -4469-C
Owner: John Stacks
Applicant: Andrew McCauley
Address: 8800 Stagecoach Road
Description: Lot 2, Cracker Box Subdivision
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the buffer provisions of Section
36-522 to allow construction of a branch bank with reduced land use and street buffers.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Undeveloped
Proposed Use of Property: Branch Bank
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No comment regarding reduced buffers. Access drive design and locations
must be approved by Traffic engineering with building permit review.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
The Zoning Ordinance requires a land use buffer with a minimum width of 9 -
feet along the northern perimeter of this site. The Zoning Ordinance does not
allow for utility easements to count as land use buffer area. There is a 15 —
foot wide utility easement along the northern perimeter of the site. The Zoning
Ordinance requires a street buffer with an average width of 18 feet and in no
area less than 9 feet. The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum width of
6 feet 9 inches.
A 6 -foot high opaque screen is required along the northern and western
perimeters of the site.
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
C. Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned property at 8800 Stagecoach Road is currently undeveloped.
Site work is taking place in preparation for a new branch bank development.
The site is located just north of the northwest corner of Stagecoach and
Baseline Roads.
As part of the proposed development, the applicant proposes to utilize the 15
foot wide utility easement along the north property line as the land use buffer
between this property and the R-2 zoned property to the north. The applicant
has noted that this area will be landscaped. Additionally, the applicant is
proposing a street buffer (along east property line) with a minimum width of five
(5) feet.
Section 36-522(b)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum land
use buffer of nine (9) feet along the north property line. Section 36-521(f)
states that utility easements cannot be used toward fulfilling a buffer
requirement (depth or area). Section 36-522(b)(3) also requires a minimum
street buffer width of nine (9) feet, with an overall buffer width averaging 18
feet. The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum street landscape strip
width of 6 feet -9 inches. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from
the Zoning Ordinance requirements for land use and street buffer widths along
the north and east property lines. The City Beautiful Commission must grant
variances from the Landscape Ordinance requirements.
Staff does not support the buffer variances as requested. Staff has no problem
with the reduction in the north land use buffer as proposed, as the undeveloped
R-2 zoned property to the north is designated as suburban office on the City's
Future Land Use Plan. It is very unlikely that this property will ever be
developed as single family. Staff does not support the requested reduction in
the street buffer. Stagecoach Road was recently designated by the City Board
of Directors as a scenic corridor. Staff feels that allowing a reduced street
buffer for a new development along this new scenic corridor would defeat the
purpose and intent for the new designation.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the buffer variances, as requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005)
John Stacks and Andrew McCauley were present, representing the application.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had amended the application to provide
2
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
the required street buffer (18 foot width), and reduce the north land use buffer to 6
feet -9 inches wide at its narrowest point. Staff noted that parallel parking would be
provided along the south side of the land use buffer. Staff informed the Board that
the variance for reduced street buffer was no longer needed. Andrew McCauley
officially amended the application as presented by staff. Staff recommended
approval of the reduced land use buffer along the north property line, as amended.
Staff noted that the proposed buffer conformed with landscape ordinance
requirements and would not require City Beautiful Commission approval.
A motion was made to approve the application, as amended. The motion passed by
a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The revised application was approved.
3
I
AM ARcmTECTURE, INC.
401 Main Street
North Little Rock, AR 72114
28 January 2005
City of Little Rock
Board of Adjustment
Department of Planning and development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: 8800 Stagecoach Road
Dear Sir or Madam:
4 Z -
I have been contracted by Mr. John Stacks to provide architectural services for his
property at 8800 Stagecoach Road. To date, we have completed Construction Document
and have submitted for a building permit.
The land to the north is currently zoned R-2, and this requires the site to have a nine foot
landscape buffer. There is currently a fifteen foot wide utility easement along the north
property line; this in conjunction with the landscape buffer narrows the area for the
building and access to the rear of the site. I would like to request a removal of the nine
foot wide landscape buffer along the north property line.
I would also like to request a reduction in the minimum width of the landscape buffer at
the east property line. The east end of the building is the main entry for the bank and
additional parking at the area would make it easier for the visitors to the facility. I would
like to request a reduction of nine foot minimum to five foot minimum at the east
property line. In addition to the landscape inside the property line there is currently an
average of twenty feet from the property line to the curb along Stagecoach that will also
be landscaped.
We would request that the matter be added to the 28 February 2005 agenda.
Sincerely,
Andrew F. McCauley, AIA
Ph: 501.374.5500 Fx: 501.374.5501
www.amarchitecture.com
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.:
Z-5591 -C
Owner:
Emmett Jones
Applicant:
Wendie White
Address:
10609 Interstate 30
Description: South side of Interstate 30, West of Baseline Road
Zoned: 1-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-
554 to allow a ground sign which exceeds the maximum area allowed.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Commercial/Light Industrial
Proposed Use of Property: Commercial/Light Industrial
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The 1-2 zoned property at 10609 Interstate 30 is occupied by two (2) one-story
commercial buildings located within the east half of the property. The west
portion of the property is undeveloped and gravel covered. A single drive from
the 1-30 frontage road serves as access. There is an existing ground -mounted
sign at the northeast corner of the property.
The applicant proposes to place a second ground -mounted sign on the
property, at the northwest corner of the tract. The sign will advertise a new
motorcycle dealership. The proposed sign will have a height of 28 feet and an
area of 117 square feet (18 feet by 6.5 feet). The sign will be located at least
five (5) feet back from property lines. The applicant is proposing to move this
sign from the business' previous location.
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.)
Section 36-554(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum sign
height of 30 feet and maximum area of 72 square feet for ground -mounted
signs in industrial zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to
allow the increased sign area.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the additional
sign area is reasonable and will not be out of character with the general area.
There are numerous commercial properties along 1-30 to the east with signs of
this size and larger. The portion of 1-30 east of 1-430 is more commercial in
nature. Staff feels that the requested variance to allow the additional sign area
will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The sign must not exceed a height of 28 feet.
2. The sign must be located at least five (5) feet back from any property
line.
3. A sign permit must be obtained for the new sign.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 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 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
2
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z-7637
Owner/Applicant: David Hall
Address: 1319 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Description: Lot 13, Block 9, Midland Hills Addition
Zoned: R-3
Variance Requested: A time extension is requested for a previously approved
variance.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Condominiums
Proposed Use of Property: Condominiums
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
On September 27, 2004 the Board of Adjustment approved front and side
setback variances associated with a deck structure at 1319 Kavanaugh Blvd.
The 12 foot by 18 foot deck structure was constructed on the east end of the
northernmost condo building on the property. The deck's northeast corner is
located on the side (east) property line, with the southeast corner extending
across the side property line by approximately two (2) feet. The deck is
located 12 to 15 feet back from the front (north) property line.
The Board of Adjustment approved the variances, subject to the following
conditions:
1. A replat must be completed within 60 days to adjust the east side
property line, resulting in a minimum 2 foot setback from the deck
structure at any point.
2. The deck structure must remain uncovered and unenclosed.
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.)
ma
The deck structure must be reduced in size to provide a minimum 2 foot
setback (at any point) from the existing east side property line.
Since the approval date, the applicant has been working with the property
owners to the east on replatting the properties (adjusting the dividing side
property line). The property to the east is a condo development with several
property owners. The applicant has experienced difficulty in reaching all of the
property owners as of this date. Staff, through the enforcement process, was
able to grant the applicant some additional time to complete the replat process.
However, the applicant is in need of additional time, and is requesting 60 more
days to complete the replat.
Staff recommends approval of the 60 day time extension. Staff feels that this
will allow adequate time for the applicant to complete the replat of the
properties. Staff knows of no objectors regarding this issue. None were
present at the public hearing last September. Therefore, the extension should
create no hardship for any parties involved.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the time extension to April 28, 2005.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 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 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
6
ATTN: Montee Moore and Zoning Commission
I need to request an extension of time to resolve my zoning situation with my neighbors.
The reason I need an extension is the unavailability of the president of the neighboring
property association. This individual is Jeff Gillespie, a state senator, who has been out
of town extensively and I do not know how to contact him. Jeff has told his association
that he wants to explore the zoning commission's recommendations, specifically an
easement as a solution. While I understand that this will not work, my word is not
enough, for this individual, (who is an attorney) and his association. So, I am presently
working to resolve this and get the parties involved to reach a consensual agreement. I
have already attended one of the neighboring association's meetings, spoken with
members in person, and have corresponded by e-mail. The deck, which is at the center of
this conflict is generally considered by my neighbors as an improvement, the dispute is
currently centered on the sale of land, price, and whether or not they can grant an
easement vs. a sale. This issue is not a nuisance to my neighbors or a danger to the
public's safety. I don't think an extension would cause anyone harm and should
therefore be granted. I do think this issue may take at least another 60 days or so to be
resolved. I am working hard to resolve this issue and my motivation is to sell my
property before this spring.
David Hall
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.: Z-7792
Owner/Applicant: Wes Sutton
Address: 5125 Lee Avenue
Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Pfeifer's Addition
Zoned: R-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Sections
36-255 and 36-156 to allow additions with reduced setbacks and separation.
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:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
Single Family Residential
The R-3 zoned property at 5125 Lee Avenue is occupied by a one-story frame
single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of Lee
Avenue and Harrison Street. A two -car wide drive from Harrison Street serves
as access. There is an alley along the south property line. There are two (2)
accessory buildings located in the rear yard, along the south property line.
The applicant proposes to construct a two-story addition on the south side of
the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The addition will have
approximately the same overall height as the existing house. The addition will
be located approximately 15 feet from the rear (south) property line, and will
abut the accessory structure (carport) at the southwest corner of the property.
The addition will be located approximately one (1) foot from the accessory
building at the southeast corner of the property. The addition will maintain the
same 9 foot side yard (east side) as the existing home. The addition will be
located 7 to 13 feet from the west side property line.
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.)
Section 36-255(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 25
foot rear yard setback for principal structures in R-3 zoning. Section 36-
156(a)(2)b. requires a minimum six (6) foot separation between principal and
accessory structures. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow
a reduced rear yard setback for the proposed addition, and a reduced
separation between it and the existing accessory buildings.
Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff feels that the addition,
along with the existing accessory buildings, represents an overbuilding of the
property. The combined structures would occupy slightly over 75 percent of
the required rear yard (rear 25 feet of the lot). Staff feels that this amount of
coverage is unreasonable and will be out of character with the immediate
neighborhood. Staff could possibly support the rear setback variance for the
building addition if some of the accessory building area were removed from the
property.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested rear setback variance, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005)
Wes Sutton was present, representing the application. Staff informed the Board that
the applicant had agreed to amend the application. Mr. Sutton noted that he wished
to amend the application by removing the smaller accessory building at the
southeast corner of the property. Staff recommended approval of the revised
application, subject to the following conditions:
1. The accessory building at the southeast corner of the property must be
removed.
2. No additional building additions or accessory buildings will be allowed on the
property in the future.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as revised and
recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
2
January 13, 2005
Dear Board of Adjustment,
I have lived at 5125 Lee Avenue for 18 years. Hillcrest is a wonderful
neighborhood composed of older homes with character and history. The mid -town
location is very attractive and I plan on staying in my home for many more years.
I purchased the home from a family that had lived there for 45 years. It needed
much work to bring it up to date, which I have done over time. I have especially worked
hard on yard and landscaping which have added a desirable curb appeal.
Being an older home, the rooms are all fairly small. I have always to this point
used the dining room as a den and the kitchen is not large enough for a kitchen table.
Over 18years and much thought, I have planned an addition on paper and now am ready
to move ahead with the project.
My home is located on the corner of Lee Avenue and Harrison Street.
There is an alley that serves as the back boundary. My proposed two story addition is for
a den/family room (down) and a master bedroom with half bath (up). The plans are to go
straight out from the back of the house, not venturing any wider than the current house.
The plans call for going back approximately 35 feet toward the back property line. Upon
attempting to permit this project, I was told there is a zoning limitation from building
anything within 25 feet of the back property line. This proposed addition would encroach
upon this zoning limitation by approximately 10 feet. It should be noted, however, that
when I purchased the property in 1986, the workshop and carport were already in
existence and were directly on the property line along the back (south) boundary. As I
am sure you are aware, these types of tool sheds, workshops, or storage sheds are
commonplace in the alleyways of Hillcrest. Most have been there for years and years.
My proposed addition would all be within the confines of the existing structures. No
changes are being made to the structures that currently border my property.
I have twisted the layout of the addition every way possible and this is simply the
best layout. It keeps with the consistency of the houses in my neighborhood by being
deeper, but not wider. I am trying to keep the flow of the roofline by simply extending
the house in depth and not width.
Currently, I have about a 40 foot walk from my carport to my back door. This
walk is all uncovered. One major design factor is to incorporate that walk inside the
addition. My carport is one of the few in my neighborhood that is freestanding. Almost
all carports around me are attached to the house. I feel the look of my home after the
addition, if granted the variance, will be one of consistency. Upon completion, this
addition will be a complement to the renovation that is currently occurring in mid -town
Little Rock. The roofline, exterior siding and the tie in to the carport, will be a smooth
transition in keeping with the current look of the original structure while adding some
much needed space.
I am requesting the Board to grant a variance so that I may proceed with my
Project. I look forward to discussing any questions the Board may have at the February
2005 meeting.
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.: Z-7793
Owner: James and La Rae Bearden
Applicant: James Bearden
Address: 2624 Crouchwood Road
Description: Lot 32, Kingwood Place Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A time extension is requested to remove an accessory building
from a front yard.
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:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 2624 Crouchwood Road is occupied by a one-story
brick and frame single family residence. There is a single -car driveway from
Crouchwood Road which serves as access. The property slopes downward from
front to back.
The applicant recently placed a "Rubbermaid" storage building within the front
yard of the property. The building is approximately 15 feet from the front (south)
property line. The applicant has noted that the accessory building was placed on
the property in order for him to park his motorcycle in. The applicant also notes
that without the enclosed parking for his motorcycle, his insurance policy would
be canceled. The City's enforcement staff recently issued the applicant a notice
to remove the building from the front yard.
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.)
Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front
setback of 60 feet for accessory buildings in R-2 zoning. The applicant agrees to
remove the accessory building from the front yard, but is requesting six (6)
months to do so. The applicant has noted that the building could be moved into
the rear yard, but because of the slope downward from front to back, a concrete
walkway/driveway would need to be constructed from the front yard to the
building. The six (6) month extension is requested to give the applicant time to
have the walkway/driveway constructed. Staff has met with the applicant at the
site and determined the accessory building could be placed in the rear yard and
meet all required minimum setbacks.
Staff is supportive of the requested extension of time to remove the accessory
building from the front yard. Staff feels that six (6) months from the time the
applicant made the request (January 26, 2005) is a reasonable amount of time to
have the walkway/driveway constructed and the accessory building moved.
Therefore, staff will support a time extension to July 26, 2005.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of a time extension (temporary variance) to July
26, 2005. By that date the accessory building must be removed from the front
yard, and comply with all minimum setbacks as required by ordinance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested this item be withdrawn. Staff
supported the withdrawal request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn by a vote of 3 ayes, 0
nays and 2 absent.
-7773
---------------
•_�,,�w�e�x.4.4.
�_aro
mo r
(ea�-s�e�1���c�aa
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.: Z-7794
Owner: Dwight and Margaret Blissard
Applicant: Dwight Blissard
Address: 5205 Hawthorne Street
Description: Lot 2, Block 11, Newton's Addition
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 to allow a building addition with a reduced rear setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 5205 Hawthorne Road is occupied by a one-story
brick single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Hawthorne
Road which serves as access.
The applicant proposes to remove the rear 12 feet from the residence, and
construct a new addition as noted on the attached site plan. The new addition
would enlarge the existing master bedroom, and allow the kitchen, baths and
laundry room to be remodeled. The addition would also include a new two -car
garage. The existing driveway would be extended further into the rear yard to
provide access to the new garage addition. The building addition will be one-
story in height, and located five (5) feet from the rear (south) property line. The
addition will be located approximately 13 feet from the east side property line,
and maintain the same 5.8 foot side setback (west side) as the existing house.
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.)
Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear
setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the building addition with a five (5) foot rear setback.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the proposed
building addition will not be out of character with the neighborhood. There are
several structures in the general area with similar rear setbacks. Although staff is
supportive of the requested variance, staff feels that the proposed addition
represents the maximum amount of building area that should be allowed on the
property. Staff feels that no additional building additions or accessory buildings
should be allowed in the future. Staff believes the proposed addition will have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to no
additional building additions or accessory buildings being allowed in the future.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 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 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
E
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 8
File No.: Z-7795
Owner: Eric Wood
Applicant: John Hannibal
Address: 2725 S. Arch Street
Description: East side of South Arch Street, South of Roosevelt Road
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section
36-502 to allow a building addition with a reduced number of off-street parking spaces.
STAFF NOTE:
The applicant has worked with staff to resolve the parking issue associated
with the property. Therefore, no variance is necessary. The applicant is
requesting the application be withdrawn. Staff supports the withdrawal
request, and has submitted the required paperwork to refund the applicant's
filing fee.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested this item be withdrawn. Staff
supported the withdrawal request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn by a vote of 3 ayes, 0
nays and 2 absent.
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 9
File No.: Z-7796
Owner/Applicant: Herb Jones
Address: 2319 N. Taylor Street
Description: Lot 8, Block 7, Newton's 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 2319 N. Taylor Street is occupied by a one-story brick
and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide concrete driveway
from N. Taylor Street which serves as access. The applicant proposes to
construct a five (5) foot high masonry wall between the residence and the front
(west) property line to create a courtyard area, as noted on the attached site
plan. The masonry wall will be located approximately 18 feet back from the front
(west) property line.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum
fence/wall height of four (4) feet between a required building setback line and a
street right-of-way. The required minimum front setback in R-2 zoning is 25 feet.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the five (5) foot wall
height within the front 25 feet of the property.
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.)
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. Staff feels that the
request is very minor in nature. The proposed wall will create no sight -distance
problem in relation to Taylor Street. There is a taller decorative iron fence to the
north along Taylor Street which encloses the St. John's PRD development to the
north. Therefore, the proposed wall height will not be out of character with the
neighborhood, nor should it create an adverse impact on the surrounding
properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence/wall height variance, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant's notice to property owners within 200
feet was done five (5) days late. With a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent, the
Board voted to waive their by laws and accept the applicant's notice to surrounding
property owners being five (5) days late.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
2
To ; 7-,6L� G i rr� l�c�� 7���v o�i4� • .s : u�.v. ,L '`'�
/a -f Q F�i2if DG✓/�6�. S/OG�rNCD 7 7
f /�S
-14%60916- AW
ClJr� pJ dAel C c7l.+ 9' ,�l� - � - !�✓/Tib /�
'lV
t) SGC �2 f �•c.1S
>E6 A)C E �.4.cJ1°Gf /N O.e ��SEQ✓E
leg 71y 3,e5;0.oO—' o 6; -,,Ver AwweAcsV Ta WWz- NE��
i H� w A i- L- w i L- L-
G CoPA 59 ovL,D I067 C2C—►4 t E
G
FROM M S
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 10
File No.: Z-7797
Owner: W.R. Stephens, Jr.
Applicant: J.L. Davis, Beard Breeding Painting
Address: 9 Sunset Circle
Description: Lots C & D, Kingwood Place Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 to allow a building addition with a reduced side setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
is1 _ W.0 1000T 1
A. Public Works Issues:
� T •1
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 9 Sunset Circle is occupied by a two-story brick and
frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Sunset
Circle which serves as access. The applicant is in the process of constructing
additions to the east and west ends of the residence. The applicant removed
an existing garage at the west end of the residence and proposes to construct
a new two-story garage addition in its place. The new addition will utilize the
existing foundation and maintain the same 3 foot side setback as the old
garage structure. The new garage addition will be somewhat larger (in depth)
than the old structure.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
yard setback of eight (8) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow the new garage addition to maintain the same
three (3) foot side yard setback as the old garage structure. The addition at
the east end of the residence conforms to all ordinance standards.
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 10 (CON'T.)
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as
relatively minor. The old garage structure had a three (3) foot side setback, as
is currently proposed. Staff feels that the new garage addition will have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The residence
located immediately to the west is located at least 20 feet back from the
dividing side property line. Additionally, this next door property is several feet
higher in grade than the property at 9 Sunset Circle, which will help lessen any
impact the garage structure may create. The next door property owners have
submitted a letter in support of the garage addition.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance, subject to
guttering being provided, if needed, to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent
property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 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 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
P
Jan 28 2005 12:(
'M BEARD BREEDING PRINTING C 5014551?.
January 28, 2005
W. R. STEPHENS, JR
LUTLE ROCK
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201
REF: Residential zoning variance for No. 9 Sunset Circle, Little Rock, Arkansas
Gentlemen:
p.2
In upgrading my garage I understand that there must be a variance obtained in order to
get the building permit.
If no variance is obtained the new addition will have to offset away from the property line
an additional five (5) feet. Since the existing wall has been in place4or sixteen (16) years, I
would like to keep from changing the footprint with an offset in the wall_
The new work is drawn on the plot plan for your review.
Sincerely,
7W VI
W.R. Stephens, Jr.
4
n1 /90 /9nnC 'CDT ii . Co rTv/Dv TTn RFnt i r7hAn1)
February 4, 2005
Dept. of Neighborhoods & Planning
Building Codes Division
723 W. Markham - Second Floor
Little Rock, AR. 72201
To Whom It May Concern:
We live next door to Mr. & Mrs. Witt Stephens, Jr., and we give our permission to remodel and
enlarge the garage that is existing next to our property.
gnature Date
Signature
Date
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 11
File No.: Z-7798
Owner: Bill and April Rush
Applicant: Bill Rush
Address: 11516 Happy Valley Drive
Description: Lot 18, Block 24, Pleasant Valley Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the building line provisions of
Section 31-12 to allow building additions which cross platted building lines.
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
0
Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 11516 Happy Valley Drive is occupied by a one-story
brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide concrete
driveway from Happy Valley Drive which serves as access. The property is
located at the northeast corner of Happy Valley Drive and Rodney Parham Road.
There is a 25 foot platted side building line along the south property line (Happy
Valley Drive) and a 40 foot platted front building line along the west property line
(Rodney Parham Road).
The applicant proposes to make two (2) one-story building additions to the west
end of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The addition at the
northwest corner of the structure will include a new garage which will utilize the
existing driveway. This addition will be located 35 feet from the front/west
property line, extending five (5) feet across the 40 foot platted front building line.
Additionally the applicant proposes to construct a new masonry step structure on
the front (south side) of the residence, which will extend approximately six (6)
FEBRUARY 28, 2005
ITEM NO.: 11 (CON'T.)
feet across the 25 foot platted side building line. The step structure will be
uncovered and unenclosed.
Section 31-12(c ) of the City's 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 this
ordinance standard to allow the proposed step structure and small sliver of the
front building addition to cross the platted building lines.
Staff is supportive of the requested building line encroachments. Staff views the
request as reasonable. Although the proposed building addition will be located
slightly closer to Rodney Parham Road than the houses to the north, given the
large amount of separation between the single family homes, the proposed
addition should have no adverse visual impact on these properties. Staff feels
that the proposed additions will not be out of character with the neighborhood
and should create no adverse impact on the surrounding properties or he general
area.
If the Board approves the building line variances, the applicant will have to
complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front and side
building lines for the proposed additions to the residential structure. The
applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to
determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line variances,
associated with the proposed additions, subject to the following conditions.
1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front and side
platted building lines as approved by the Board.
2. The portion of the step structure extending past the side platted building
line must remain uncovered and unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 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 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
0
BILL & APRIL RUSH
11516 HAPPY VALLEY DRIVE
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72212
501-225-6345 501-681-2177
January 28, 2005
Mr. Monte Moore
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR
RE: Request for Variance
Dear Mr. Moore,
Z-4.0_-4 1
This letter is a request for a 5 foot variance from the 40 foot set back
requirement. With this letter, please find enclosed the required 6 copies of the
proposed structure.
As stated, the side set back is 40 feet and there is currently significantly more
distance than that from the current street. Line of sight from my neighbor, First
Baptist Church to the east, and my neighbors to the west will still put the
proposed new structure well within limits of common sense. To the front, there is
a 25 foot set back, and we would request being allowed to build steps to the front
porch that would extend 5-6 beyond the building line. These changes will protect
the archectectual integrity of the surrounding property and allow the construction
of a two car garage
These changes have been approved by the property owners association (see
copy attached to this document).
Thank you for your consideration.
ReJsspectfully,
/ ,��"
Bill F. Rush
F ��
..s 7 �i' "` "i. "r SSS S �:;e r?i.a. .Gt'•
RZ.Tc�.ASANT VALLL`Y IPROIPER'I"V OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
2300 Arkansas Valley Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
October 4, 2004
Bill and April Rush
11516 Happy `Dalley Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rush;
(501) 225-0481
Fax (501) 225-8800
Thank you for submitting your request to the Architectural Committee. The Board
has approved your plans for a new garage, porch and sunroom, including a new
entry and extension of the current porch on the front of your home. However, as
this construction project would require an extension of the existing building line (by
approximately six feet), the boards approval is contingent on your receiving
approval from the city for a variance. Please notify us if there will be any changes to
the original plans that you submitted.
Please be sure that you obtain all permits as required by the City of Little Rock and
once you have received a variance, please make sure that you submit a copy to the
PVPOA for your file.
Please call me if I can be of assistance in any way.
I hope you enjoy your new additions. I am sure it will be a fun and exciting process.
From the plans, it looks like it will be a wonderful addition to your home!
Yours very truly,
Shannon Quinn
Executive Director
a
T
W
Q
z
v
W
Q
O
w
W
Y
_
I
S
�I
W
W
m
n
Q
U)
W
C
�I
U)
z
I
arr�aQ_j
wz�U)
t�
v t
I
0
\!
y
I
I
J
t
�
AM
v
4
�
y
B
t
W
}
LU
L
W
U
Q
>
z
�
CO
W
Z
�
mU:
U)
U)
z
O
U)
�
W
z
W
c)
E
O
E
G
LL
DD
m
<<
=
_
a
T
W
Q
z
v
W
Q
O
w
W
W
_
Q
z
W
W
m
n
Q
U)
W
C
U)
z
arr�aQ_j
wz�U)
0
i=LLm==§
a
T
W
Q
z
v
W
Q
February 28, 2005
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:16
p.m.
2 ��
Date:
A-9
Chairman