The URL can be used to link to this page

boa_06 27 2005A.$1 Ye dJ LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JUNE 27, 2005 a IIJIT "M MA 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 May 23, 2005 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Andrew Francis, Chairman Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman Fletcher Hanson David Wilbourn Members Absent: Debra Harris City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA JUNE 27, 2005 2:00 P.M. 1. OLD BUSINESS: A. Z-7809 3010 Painted Valley Drive B. Z-7747 5804 Scenic Drive C. Z-7843 114 Ridge Road D. Z-7845 9500 Satterfield Drive E. Z-7847 5425 Centerwood Road II. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Z-3371 -N 11715 Colonel Glenn Road 2. Z -4691-A 8824 Fourche Dam Pike 3. Z -6957-E 19 Remington Road 4. Z-71 00-A 5 Longfellow Lane 5. Z -7716-B 1615 Rebsamen Park Road 6. Z-7857 900 S. Main Street 7. Z-7858 710 N. Palm Street 8. Z-7859 8610 Geyer Springs Road 9. Z-7860 9 East Shore Drive 10. Z-7861 40 Legends Drive 11. Z-7862 808 Reservoir Road 12. Z-7863 NE corner of 6t" and Arch Streets 13. Z-7864 431 Midland Avenue 14. Z-7865 23 Bouresse Court 15. Z-7866 7601 Denise Drive N O ■ // 3NId a3IZrad llnralw V�}V z w Sao g o Nrn839 _ —U LO Nfr% AYMOY089 HDV A101 N53RD � 83H3a0 w n ONIN IN a rF xF ��(CM G m MOao00M g 3NId Q i 3NId ar s NOlI H 11005 00 Q ' O U6N2AINn VA11S83AINn Nard 81r3 , S3HOPN is aadS 83A30,� Idd65 SINODIM $ a aron a � MONNYS NHOr 3 Q M � 3NN13H Q — Oa0331NOrHs a No slows W5 NYHard A3NOO8 o �' — l2 a c NYNM08 ` simn ),110 -"I a ` Y bOJ„t�Jd! o 3001a .INV S S11NIl A113 . � ' silWll A113 r y66 ti� 1NYM31S NYAPInS c� oor W os rM IH z UNll A113 0 �J 1� 31YONa3d q o o O 1 O JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-7809 Owner: Robert Tanner Applicant: Mark Thomas Meador Address: 3010 Painted Valley Drive Description: Lot 7, Block 30, Pleasant 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 porte-cochere addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line, and a building addition with reduced side and rear setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 3010 Painted Valley Drive is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. There is a circular drive from Painted Valley Drive which serves as access. The driveway extends along the south side of the residence to an attached carport at the southwest corner of the structure. The single family lot has a 25 foot front platted building line. The applicant proposes to make two (2) additions to the single family structure. The first addition is a proposed 20 foot by 20 foot porte-cochere addition to the front of the house, over a portion of the circular driveway. The proposed porte- cochere will extend across the front platted building line by approximately 15 feet, resulting in a 10 foot front setback. JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) The second proposed addition is a 21 foot by 43 foot addition at the southwest corner of the structure. This addition will include a garage for boat and trailer storage and an exercise/pool room next to an existing swimming pool in the rear yard. This addition will be located six (6) to eight (8) feet from the side (south) property line and 10 feet from the rear (west) property line. There is a 10 foot wide utility easement along the rear property line. The addition is not proposed to extend into the easement. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned property. Section 36-254(d)(3) also requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Section 36-254(d)(2) requires minimum side setbacks of eight (8) feet for this 100 foot wide lot. In addition, Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed porte-cochere addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses the front platted building line, and the proposed building addition at the southwest corner of the house with reduced side and rear setbacks. Staff does not support the variances, as requested. Staff does not oppose the proposed addition at the southwest corner of the residence, as the neighborhood contains large residential structures on lots which are above average in size. Staff feels that this addition will not be out of character with the neighborhood. Staff would require that the applicant obtain a letter of approval from the neighborhood property owners' association for the proposed addition. Staff does oppose the proposed porte-cochere addition. Staff feels this proposed addition will not be compatible with the neighborhood. On inspection of the general area, staff observed no other similar front encroachments in the neighborhood. 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 addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the setback and building line variances, as requested. 2 JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 28, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the April 25, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 25, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 25, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the May 23, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the May 23, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the June 27, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the July 25, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 25, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 11111MIFAIP-19 JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: B 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: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential 1. 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 JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: B (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 this 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. PAI JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: B (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 JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: B (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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the June 27, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 2005) Jenny Smith was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff noted that a five (5) foot front setback would be acceptable and explained. Jenny Smith addressed the Board in support of the application. She explained that Staff's suggested front setback would not work. She stated that a two (2) foot front setback could be provided and amended the application accordingly. 10 JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) There was a brief discussion of the Master Street Plan required right-of-way for Scenic Drive. Staff noted that the Master Street Plan called for an additional five (5) feet of future right-of-way for this lot. Chairman Francis explained that he could not support an encroachment into the Master Street Plan required right-of-way. There was additional discussion of this issue. Chris Wilbourn and Terry Burruss stated that a two (2) foot front setback could be supported. The issue of future street width was discussed. Ms. Smith stated that she would be willing to remove the structure if the area were needed for street/utility widening in the future. Debra Weldon, City Attorney, noted that it would be difficult to enforce the demolition of a structure. She noted that it could become a takings issue and explained. There was additional discussion of the proposed encroachment with relation to the future Master Street Plan right-of-way. There was a motion to approve the revised application with a two (2) foot front setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner of the property at 5804 Scenic Drive must remove the porte- cochere structure if the area is ever needed for future street/utility widening 2. A one -lot replat must be completed reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The revised application was approved. 5 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 E � 7-747 December 20, 2004 Members of the Board of Adjustments: Please reconsider my request for a porte-cochere. As you can see from the attached photos there are other property owners on my street that do not comply with the building code setback. I am aware that the porte-cochere encroaches on the property line but am willing to remove it if it should ever interfere with utility and public works street maintenance. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Jenny Smith JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: C File No.: Z-7843 Owner/Applicant: Michael and Amy Mueller Address: 114 Ridge Road Description: Part of Lots 351 and 352, Kingwood Place Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Staff Note: Single Family Residential 1. Entrance gate should be located one car length (20' minimum) back from the edge of street. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 114 Ridge Road is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Ridge Road which serves as access. A carport is located at the northwest corner of the residence. The property slopes downward from side to side (west to east). A drainage ditch is located along the east property line as well as running through the front portion of the property. The southeast corner of the property is located approximately 20 feet below the elevation (foundation) of the house. The single family lot contains a 25 -foot front platted building line. The applicants propose to construct an eight (8) foot high wood fence with two (2) gates along the front property line, as noted on the attached site plan. The eight (8) foot high fence will run along the front property line and along the side property lines to the 25 -foot front platted building line. The applicants note in the attached letter that the fence is needed for security and privacy. JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a residential fence located between a building setback line and a street right-of-way to have a maximum height of four (4) feet. Other residential fences may be constructed to a maximum height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow the eight (8) foot high fence. Staff does not support the requested variance. Staff feels that a fence taller than four (4) feet within the required front setback will be out of character with the neighborhood. The home immediately to the east faces south and would have a front yard relationship to the proposed fence. Additionally, the driveway for that adjacent lot is located at its southwest corner. Staff feels the fence could create a sight -distance problem for that driveway. According to the survey, the house at 114 Ridge Road is located 75 feet back from the front property line. Staff feels the applicant could locate the eight (8) foot high fence on the 25 foot building setback line (by right) and achieve the desired effect. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance for increased fence height. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda based on the fact that the applicant completed the required notification to surrounding property owners several days late. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had revised the application, reducing the height of the proposed fence to six (6) feet. Staff recommended approval of the revised application, subject to the following conditions: 1. The finished side of the fence must face outward. 2. Compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A. of the staff report. 3. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. The applicant offered no additional comments. 2 JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) 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 To: State Board of Adjustments From: Mike and Amy Mueller Date: April 20, 2005 Memo: Code Variance Request -4-d� C— J --7,Y�3 Board of Adjustments, We are requesting a code variance for fence height on the property line at the Mueller residence located at 114 Ridge Road, Little Rock, ADZ 72207. The pro erty line that borders along Ridge Rd. and the intersection of Kingsrow requires aoot fence to enhance the safety and privacy of our property. The intersection is a major thoroughfare and the slope of the residential property is such that a fence of 4 feet high would be ineffective. The construction of a-6-teofoot fence with two gates; one at the driveway and the other located at the lower parcel of land, would ameliorate this problem. As indicated in the survey, this property line is the front access to the property but is not the direction in which the front of the home is faced. Additionally, the lower level of the property has no residence on it at all. Thank you for the consideration of this matter. OMPZ� yWJX,t_, Mike and Amy Mueller JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: D File No.: Z-7845 Owner: Dollar General Stores Applicant: Condray Sign Co. Address: 9500 Satterfield Drive Description: West side of Satterfield Drive, north of Rodney Parham Road Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 557 to allow a wall sign without street frontage. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 9500 Satterfield Drive is occupied by a one-story commercial building which was recently constructed. The building is located near the southwest corner of the property, with paved parking on the north and east sides of the building. Two (2) drives from Satterfield Drive serve as access to the property. There is a wall sign on the front (east side) of the building and a ground -mounted sign near the southeast corner of the property. The ground sign is 35 feet tall, with an area of 96 square feet. The applicant is proposing to place an illuminated sign on the south wall of the building. The sign will be located near the rear section of the wall (west end) between the vertical gutters. The sign will have an area of 50 square feet (20 feet by 2.5 feet). Section 36-557(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that all on -premise wall signs face required street frontage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.) a variance to allow the wall sign on the south wall of the building, which has no direct street frontage. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the request is reasonable, as long as there is no additional commercial signage or increase in the existing commercial signage on the property. The existing 96 square foot ground -mounted sign would otherwise be able to be increased to 160 square feet based on the Zoning Ordinance allowances for commercial zoning. This commercial property sits several feet above the property to the south along Rodney Parham Road. Staff feels that a sign on the south wall of the building will have good visibility from this arterial street. Staff believes the proposed wall sign 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: There is to be no additional commercial signage or increase in existing commercial signage on the property. 2. A sign permit must be obtained for the new wall sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda based on the fact that the applicant completed the required notification to surrounding property owners several days late. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 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 1107 E. Harding Avenue Pine Bluff, AR (870) 534-5210 phone (870) 534-5217 fax This letter is to explain the reasoning behind the variance that was filed for 9500 Satterfield Drive for the Dollar General location. Dollar General feels that we should install a 2'6" x 20' illuminated wall sign on the south wall of their building. The reason for this request is that the store sits on the side of a hill, and they feel that the sign would impact more potential customers traveling on Rodney Parham towards the store. JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: E File No.: Z-7847 Owner/Applicant: James Phillip Jaros Address: 5425 Centerwood Road Description: Lot 114, Prospect Terrace No. 2 Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the easement provisions of Section 36-11 and the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an accessory structure with reduced setbacks 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: STAFF REPORT A. Public Work Issues: No Comments. B. Utility Company Issues: Single Family Residential Little Rock Wastewater Utility: Little Rock Wastewater Utility agrees to the variance subject to the following conditions: 1. That no permanent structure (Walls etc.) be built in place of the awning. 2. That the awning is supported by 4 X 4's and not any type of extensive foundation that may interfere with the existing sewer main. 3. That in the future if the Utility is required to perform maintenance on the existing sewer main you will remove and reinstall the awning at your expense allowing the Utility to perform any necessary work within the easement. Entergy: Although we normally don't allow permanent structures within our easements, in this case we will not require removal or modification. Allowing this encroachment to remain, as currently placed and constructed, is contingent on the following conditions: JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: E (CON'T.) 1. No additional encroachments are placed within the easement at the rear of your property. 2. The awning height is not modified such that the clearance to our conductors is reduced. 3. Entergy is not liable for any damage to the structure within the easement from falling material due to any reason including maintenance activities. Southwestern Bell: No objection to encroachment. Central Arkansas Water: No Comments received. Centerpoint Energy: No Comments received. C. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5425 Centerwood Road is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Centerwood Road which serves as access. A one-story frame garage structure is located at the southeast corner of the property. The garage structure was recently moved back approximately 15 feet on an existing slab, as approved by staff. There is a four (4) foot wide utility easement along the rear (south) property line. The applicant recently constructed an awning on the rear (south side) of the garage structure, as noted on the attached site plan. The awning is 7 feet by 18 feet, and 8 feet in height. It was constructed using three (3) 4 X 4 posts and a shed roof. The awning structure is currently unenclosed. The applicant has plans to screen in the structure. The awning structure is located one (1) foot from the side (east) and rear (south) property lines. Additionally, the accessory structure, with awning, occupies approximately 35 percent of the required rear yard (rear 25 feet of the lot). The awning structure also encroaches into the four (4) foot wide utility easement by approximately three (3) feet. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows an accessory structure to occupy a maximum of 30 percent of the required rear yard area. Section 36-156(a)(2)f. requires minimum three (3) foot side and rear setbacks for accessory buildings. 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 ordinance requirements to allow the awning structure. Staff does not support the requested variances. Although the size of the entire accessory structure is not out of character with the neighborhood, staff has 2 JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: E (CON'T.) concerns with the structure occupying almost the entire width of the utility easement and with the reduced setbacks. Water run-off associated with the shed roof could adversely affect the adjacent property. Staff feels that the awning structure as proposed is inappropriate for the property. Staff suggests moving the awning structure to the west side of the garage structure. This would eliminate the need for any variances. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested setback and easement encroachment variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the June 27, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the July 25, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 25, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 April 22, 2005 Monte Moore Little Rock Zoning Board of Adjustment RE: Zoning Variance J. Phillip Jaros 5425 Centerwood Road Little Rock, AR. 72207 Dear Sir, .T4-1-- C F-- 797 I am requesting a zoning variance for an addition of a shed type structure on the back (south side) of my garage. The footprint of this awning structure is 7 feet deep, 18 feet wide, 8 feet high, and is noted on the attached survey. It is supported by 3 piers with 4x4's, where an existing fence once stood. It is bordered to the south by a 10.5 feet high by 32 feet wide brick garage wall. To the east by a 8 feet high stone wall with wood fence. On the west side is my yard. I agree to sign any release of liability that you may want in this matter. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, J. Phillip Jaros JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z-3371 -N Owner: Crain Investments, LLP Applicant: Joe White, White-Daters and Associates Address: 11715 Colonel Glenn Road Description: Lot 10, 1-430 Colonel Glenn commercial Subdivision Zoned: C-4 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the development provisions of Section 36-302 to allow vehicular display within the front setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Auto Dealership STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. No comments provided the proposal does not include parking of vehicles in the right-of-way or blocking of sidewalks. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The plan submitted does not satisfy the eight percent interior landscaping requirement of the Landscape Ordinance. An application has been made to the City Beautiful Commission seeking a variance of this requirement at the July 7, 2005 meeting. The width of the required perimeter landscape buffer along Colonel Glenn Court is less than the 20 -feet required by the Zoning Ordinance for outdoor display in a C-4 zone. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) Prior to obtaining a building permit, it will be necessary to provide landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Landscape Architect. C. Staff Analysis: The C-4 zoned properly located at 11715 Colonel Glenn Road is currently undeveloped and grass covered. The property is located at the southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Colonel Glenn Court. There are two (2) car dealerships to the east, at the southeast and southwest corners of Colonel Glenn Road and Colonel Glenn Plaza Drive. The applicant is proposing to develop a Mazda automobile dealership on this property. The proposed auto dealership will consist of a single building located near the center of the property, with paved parking/vehicular display on the building's north, south and west sides. There will be a shared driveway between this dealership and the Infiniti dealership to the east, as the two (2) dealerships have the same ownership. There will be two (2) access drives from Colonel Glenn Court in addition to the shared drive from Colonel Glenn Road. The applicant is requesting one (1) variance with the proposed development. Vehicular display is proposed to be located 15 to 19 feet back from the front (west) property line. Section 36-302(b)(5) states that there shall be no open display of any kind in the first 20 feet of the required front yard setback in C-4 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the display of vehicles 15 to 19 feet from the front property line along Colonel Glenn Court. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the variance as relatively minor. The 15 to 19 foot landscape strip along the west property line will comply with the landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. Staff feels that the slight reduction in the required 20 foot front setback for vehicular display in C-4 zoning will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Staff feels that after the property is developed the reduction will go virtually unnoticed. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to compliance with the landscape and buffer comments noted in paragraph B. of this report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. OA, JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 (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 © WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 24 Rahling Circle ID Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 0 Phone: 501-821-1667 Fax: 501-821-1668 May 27, 2005 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Neighborhoods and Planning 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Lot 10, I-430 Colonel Glenn Commercial Zoning Variance Mr. Moore, Please find attached six copies of the above referenced site plan for the proposed car dealership. The developer would like to request a variance from the required 20 ft. vehicular display along the street frontage to allow a 15 ft. vehicular display. The owner will operate a Mazda Automobile dealership at this site. The existing Infiniti dealership to the east and Colonel Glenn Court to the west dictated the lot size that the owner has purchased. The developer needs to maintain the central driveway between this lot and the lot to the east. As a result the narrow lot size, allowing the owner to use a 15 foot setback instead of a 20 setback will enable the owner to have a two way traffic on the west side of its building. This will greatly enhance the convenience and safety of the property to its customers. A majority of the dealership's traffic will travel in the effected area. Please place this item on the next Board of Adjustment Meeting. Do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or require additional information. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. Best regards, Brian Dale CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z-4691 -A Owner: Diamond State Oil, LLC Applicant: Eddie Martin Address: 8824 Fourche Dam Pike Description: Tract M (R ) Area 201, Little Rock Port Industrial Park Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variance are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-555 to allow a ground sign which exceeds the maximum height allowed and has a reduced separation. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Convenience store with gas pumps Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No comments. B. Staff Analysis: Convenience store with gas pumps The C-3 zoned property located at 8824 Fourche Dam Pike is occupied by a convenience store development. The property is located at the northwest corner of Fourche Dam Pike and Lindsey Road. The main store building is located near the center of the property, with covered gas pumps on the building's east and south sides. Existing drives from Fourche Dam Pike and Lindsey Road serve as access to the development. There is paved parking on the east and south sides of the building, with paved truck parking within the west half of the property. There are existing ground -mounted signs at the northeast and southeast corners of the property. There is also an existing sign pole at the northeast corner, within a few feet of the existing ground -mounted sign. The existing pole is approximately 40 feet tall. The applicant proposes to place a fuel price sign on top of the existing pole. The sign will be 96 square feet in area, with an overall height of 48 feet. The JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.:2 (CON'T.) sign pole is located approximately eight (8) feet from the existing sign. The existing sign has a height of 30 feet and an area of approximately 91 square feet. Section 36-555(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum sigh height of 36 feet in commercial zoning. Section 36-557(c ) requires a minimum separation of 150 feet between commercial signs on a property's street frontage when a minimum of 300 feet of street frontage exists. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow use of the existing sign pole. There is slightly over 300 feet of street frontage along Fourche Dam Pike. Staff is not supportive of the variances as requested. Although staff could support variances for increased sign height and area at this location, staff has serious concerns with allowing two (2) ground -mounted signs this close together. A number of years ago these two (2) signs were combined as a single sign, with the smaller sign attached to the side of the larger pole. Staff could support height and area variances associated with this type of arrangement, if the applicant were willing to revise the application accordingly. Otherwise, staff feels that the number of signs proposed for the property is in excess of what should be allowed for a development of this size. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the July 25, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 25, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. COULSON OIL GROUP D/AMOND $NAMil06K CHIEFSEAHAWK TRANSPORT FUE�Mnn ■ Coulson Oil Company, Inc. ■ Superstop Stores, LLC ■ Port Cities Oil, LLC ■ Diamond State Oil, LLC ■ ChiefSeahawk Transport, LLC May 10, 2005 Department of Planning and Development Attn: Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Signage for Diamond State Oil, LLC located at 8824 Fourche Dam Pike, Little Rock Dear Board Members: �F--401-4 We are requesting variance to install a 48 foot pole mounted sign. The signage area will be 96 square feet. A copy of the proposed sign is attached. The reason for this variance is the location is approximately 570 feet from the centerline of I-440. It is my understanding that if the railroad right-of-way was not between our property and the Interstate right-of-way, no variance would be required. Best regards, Eddie Martin, for Diamond State Oil, LLC EM:mc Enclosures ■ P.O. Box 68, North Little Rock, AR 72115-0068 ■ Phone: 501-376-4222 ■ FAX Corp: 501-376-7904 ■ FAX Acct: 501-376-4707 JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z -6957-E Owner: EAI Realty, Inc. Applicant: Jerry Hodge, Sign First Address: 19 Remington Road Description: Lot 14, Boen Center Addition Zoned: O-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 553 to allow a ground sign which exceeds the maximum height and area allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: School Campus Proposed Use of Property: School Campus STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The 0-3 zoned property at 19 Remington Road is occupied by the Little Rock campus of Remington College. There is a two-story brick school building located within the west half of the property, backing up to Interstate 430. There is paved parking along the east side of the building, with one (1) access drive from the end of Remington Road. There is an existing construction sign along the west property line at the northwest corner of the building. The applicant proposes to remove the existing construction sign and replace it with a permanent sign identifying Remington College. The proposed ground - mounted sign will be on two (2) poles, with a height of 11 feet and an area of 100 square feet, as noted in the attached sketch. The proposed sign will be placed at least five (5) feet inside the west property line. Section 36-553(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum sign height of six (6) feet and a maximum area of 64 square feet fro signs in office JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from this ordinance standard. There are no other existing or proposed ground -mounted signs on the property. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Given the fact that the property has interstate frontage, staff feels that the variances are relatively minor. The proposed ground -mounted sign will not be out of character with the general area. The commercial area which is being developed several hundred feet to the north will contain several large commercial scale signs. Staff's support of the variances is based on there being no wall signage on the west wall (facing 1-430) of the school building. Staff feels that the proposed sign will have no negative impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. There is to be no signage on the west wall of the school building. 2. A sign permit must be obtained for the new ground -mounted sign. 3. The construction sign must be removed prior to placement of the new sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 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 REMINGTON COLLEGE LITTLF ROCK CAMPUS May 24, 2005 To; Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Subject: Request for variance We would like to request a variance regarding a sign we would like to install behind our campus building. The sign will be installed facing I-430 behind our building so that traffic on I-430 can see where we are located. At present there is a construction sign which will be replaced by the permanent sign. Because of the location of our campus we feel this sign is necessary in order for the public to be aware of our location. We would like to install a 5'x20' single side internally lighted sign. The sign would be mounted on top of two poles. This requires two variances. The maximum allowable size in our zoned area is 64 square feet. We feel that this would be too small to be effectively seen from I-430 and that the 5'x20' (100 square feet) sign would provide the visibility we are seeking. In addition, the maximum height of a sign is 6' in our area. The proposed location of the sign is adjacent to the highway department fence separating our property from the highway right of way. In order for the sign to be seen it would need to be installed so that the bottom of the sign is visible above the fence which is six feet tall. Therefore, we would like to install the sign on two poles with the bottom of the sign being six feet from the ground. We at Remington College feel that we are an important part of the Little Rock community and we would like to make sure everyone knows where we are. We appreciate your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Lemar Keith Facilities Manager Remington College — LR Campus 19 Remington Road • Little Rock, AR 72204 (501) 312-0007 • Fax (501) 225-3819 JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Owner/Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-71 00-A Scott C. Trotter 5 Longfellow Lane Lot 7, Beverly Place Addition 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 building additions with reduced setbacks and which cross a platted building line. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 5 Longfellow Lane is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Longfellow Lane which serves as access. There is a 30 foot platted building line along the north (front) and east (side) property lines. On October 29, 2001 the Board of Adjustment granted side and rear yard setback variances for an addition at the southwest corner of the residential structure. The addition has a side setback of two (2) feet from the west property line and a rear setback of three (3) feet from the south property line. The applicant is proposing two (2) new building additions, as noted on the attached site plan sketch. The first is a one-story addition on the rear of the structure maintaining the three (3) foot rear setback as previously approved with the addition at the southwest corner of the house. The second addition proposed is a two-story addition at the southeast corner of the house. This addition will be JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) located approximately 28 feet from the rear (south) property line and 27 feet from the street side (east) property line, extending approximately three (3) feet across the 30 foot platted street side building line. The proposed one-story addition will accommodate a new master bedroom and bath, with the two-story addition being for an expanded den area. The existing uncovered deck on the east side of the house will remain. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear setback of eight (8) feet for this R-2 zoned lot, based on the fact that this is a corner lot and the existing single family structure has greater than 25 feet of setback from each street property line. Section 31-12( c) of the subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the one-story addition with a reduced rear setback and the two-story addition with an encroachment across the platted street side property line. Staff is supportive of the requested setback and building line variances. Given the fact that the platted building lines limit the buildable area on this rather large single family lot, staff feels that the variances are reasonable. The angled portion of the platted building line is 57 feet back from the northeast corner of the lot and required the residence to be pushed back toward the southwest corner of the property. The building additions will not cause the property to be out of character with the overall massing of single family structures in this general area. Staff believes the proposed addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The residence immediately to the south is located 12 to 14 feet from its north property line and separated from this property by a concrete driveway. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted side building line for the proposed addition and existing deck 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 setback and building line variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted side building line as approved by the Board. 2. The existing deck structure on the east side of the residence must remain uncovered and unenclosed. 2 JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 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 SCOTT C. TROTTER strotter@perkinstrotter.com PERKINS & TROTTER, PLLC A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILrrY COMPANY Attorneys and Counselors POST OFFICE BOX 251618 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72225-1618 TEL 501-603-9000 FAX 501-603-0556 www.perkinstrotter.com May 5, 2005 Board of Adjustment Members Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Street Address 1 Information Way, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 yZ —7 Re: Variance Application; 5 Longfellow Lane; Lot 7 Beverly Place Addition Dear Board Members: On June 5, 2004, I married Katherine Ann Kumpuris. We have known each other since third grade at Forest Park School in Little Rock. Katherine Ann has sold her home in Sherrill Heights, and now we plan to remodel and expand my home at 5 Longfellow Lane. I grew up in this home and it has been in my family since 1959 when we moved from Pine Bluff. In 2001, I obtained a variance to extend my garage and make a two-story addition in the southwest corner where an old bomb shelter stood. Per the variance the addition was constructed within less than eight feet of the line to the south rear and west side. Katherine Ann and I want to add a master bedroom and bath to the east of the garage addition, extending within less than eight feet of the south line, as does the garage addition. This is the only spot to add a first -floor master bedroom and bath. Our neighbors and friends to the south, Carol and Susan Penick, do not object. Their driveway is in between their home and the south line of my property. Katherine Ann and I also plan to expand the home's existing den to make it into a great room. The expansion will be to the south and east. The expansion to the east will encroach about two feet over the existing 30 -foot building setback from Beverly Place. Katherine Ann and I would very much appreciate your approval of a variance for construction of the master bedroom and bath and the great room, as described above. Cordially, PERxiNs & TROTTER, PLLC Scott C. Trotter SCT/1s JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 Owner: Edward A. and Laurie K. David Applicant: Edward David Address: 1615 Rebsamen Park Road Description: East side of Rebsamen Park Road, North of Old Cantrell Road Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-301 to allow a building addition with a reduced front setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Commercial Building Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. According to the survey, the proposed dining area is outside of the existing right-of-way which is acceptable, Per previous comments, construct curb, gutter and public sidewalk across the property frontage to match improvements to the east. 2. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Contact David Hamilton at (501) 244-5402. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Since there is not an enclosed building addition, a landscaping upgrade is not required with this proposal. C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property located at 1615 Rebsamen Park Road is occupied by a split level masonry building which is currently vacant and being remodeled. The building is being remodeled for use as a restaurant or banquet facility. There is a driveway from Rebsamen Park Road at the northwest corner of the property, which serves as access to a paved parking lot behind (east side) the JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) commercial building. There are three (3) head -in parking spaces in front of the building along Rebsamen Park Road. The applicant proposes to remove the head -in parking spaces and construct a canopy addition to the front of the building to allow outdoor restaurant seating. The proposed canopy structure will be 16.67 feet by 18.67 feet in size and be located one (1) foot back from the front (west) property line. The canopy will have a zero (0) setback from the south side property line. The applicant will also install additional landscaping between the canopy structure and the street. The outdoor dining area will accommodate approximately six (6) tables and 24 seats. The outdoor seating area will also have a short wood railing on its north, south and west sides. Section 36-301(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for this C-3 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed canopy structure with a reduced front setback. No side setbacks are required for this commercial lot. Staff is supportive of the requested front setback variance. Staff feels that the proposed canopy structure will be compatible with this commercial area along Rebsamen Park Road. There are restaurants located immediately north and south of this property. The Buffalo Grill restaurant immediately to the south has a canopy structure on front of its building which extends to the front property line, approximately one (1) foot closer to the street than the canopy proposed. Several of the restaurants in this area also have outdoor dining. Therefore, staff feels the proposed canopy structure with outdoor dining will not be out of character with or have any adverse impact on the adjacent property or the general area. On September 27, 2004 the Board of Adjustment approved a variance for this property in combination with the property immediately north (Faded Rose) to allow off-site parking. The owner of the two restaurants has a long-term lease on the parking lot across Rebsamen Park Road to the west. The existing parking within this lot and on the individual restaurant sites will be sufficient to meet the minimum parking requirement for both restaurants, including the addition of the outdoor dining area at 1615 Rebsamen Park Road. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested front setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works comments as noted in paragraph A of the staff report. 2. The canopy addition must remain unenclosed. 3. A franchise permit must be obtained from the Public Works Department for the landscaping within the right-of-way. 4. There are to be no outdoor speakers within the outdoor dining area. 2 JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 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 Edward A. and Laurie K. David 27 Perdido Cr. Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: 501-221-7136 May 11, 2005 — 7 % City of Little Rock, Arkansas Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR Attn: Mr. Monte Moore Subject: Zoning variance 1615 Rebsamen Park Rd. As owners of the subject property, please accept this letter as our formal request for a parking variance for the property located at 1615 Rebsamen Park Road, Little RoCk, AR 72202. We are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustments to allow for a 16' 8" by 18' 8" portico over the outdoor seating area in the attached plans. This portico is an integral part of the design of the restaurant (see attached architect's drawing, attachment 1) and will enhance the eye appeal of the property from the street. It will accentuate the Northern New Mexico architectural style of the building and provide for shade and comfort for customers by allowing the installation of ceiling fans under the portico.. This portico will extend 16' 8" from the front of the building which will make it approximately one foot shorter than the portico on the Buffalo Grill building, 1611 Rebsamen Park Road, which is adjacent to our property. (see attached photographs, attachments 2 & 3) S, c4af rdA. , David JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-7857 Owner: Pat Rudder Applicant: Robert Fuller Address: 900 S. Main Street Description: Southwest corner of West 9th and Main Streets Zoned: UU Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the development provisions of Section 36-342.1 to allow outdoor storage/display, and a variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-543 to allow a vehicular sign. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Hardware Store Proposed Use of Property: Hardware Store with outdoor storage/display STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No comments. B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 900 S. Main Street is occupied by a one story commercial building which houses Fuller and Son Hardware Store. There is paved parking along the north and west sides of the building. A paved alley is located along the west property line. The property is located at the southwest corner of Main Street and West 9th Street. When the hardware store occupied the building, an outdoor fenced storage area was created at the northwest corner of the building. There is also a small amount of outside storage along the north side of the fenced area and the north side of the building, as noted on the attached site plan. In addition, there is a trailer box at the northwest corner of the property with the business name painted on it. When staff became aware of these issues, the business owner was made aware that variances were needed. The ground -mounted sign at the JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) northeast corner of the property has existed for a number of years and was permitted accordingly. Section 36-342.1(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that all uses in the UU (Urban Use) Zoning District be inside or enclosed. Additionally, Sections 36-543(5) and (6) prohibit the use of vehicular and trailer signs. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the outdoor storage and trailer sign as currently existing on the property. Staff is supportive of the requested variances for this business only. Staff feels the business has made a quality improvement and addition to the downtown area, and that the outdoor storage of materials is a very important component of the business. The current use of the property is no more intense than the auto repair use that previously occupied the north portion of this building. Staff believes the existing use of the property, including outdoor storage and trailer sign, is not out of character with the general area. The existing hardware store located one block to the southeast (Besser Hardware) also has a small fenced outdoor storage area. Staff feels the proposed use of the property will have no adverse impact on the overall area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow outdoor storage and a trailer sign, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances be approved for this business only. When this business vacates the site, the outdoor storage area (fence and canopy) and trailer sign must be removed from the property. 2. The outdoor storage area is limited to inside the fenced area at the northwest corner of the building and along the north side of the fenced area and building, as shown on the site plan submitted. The outdoor storage along the north side of the fenced area and building must not extend into the paved parking area more than the depth of one (1) pallet. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 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. 011 LL AIPV 00.. ANA) SON HAR.DIVALRE PRICED RIGIY'r Every ay! May 23, 2005 City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 To Whom It May Concern: 14a., � 4 -;—?— 78G 7 This is a request for a zoning variance that would allow us to fill a void in the downtown shopping environment. We need to be able to store bagged goods such as potting soil, top soil, pine bark, etc. and lumber outside of the structure. These products are not available anywhere else downtown. They are difficult to store inside and because of the chemicals in the treated lumber, they could be a health hazard in a confined area. It is also necessary for us to have the container in the parking lot for straw storage. Customers use straw for bedding animals and covering newly seeded lawns and gardens. Obviously, the straw must be kept dry and cannot be stored inside a structure where everyday commerce is taking place. Thank you for your consideration of our request that will allow us to continue to serve our customers in the downtown Little Rock area.. Sincerely, Bobby Fuller President Office: 7311 Baseline Rd. 9815 W. Markham 14710 Cantrell Rd. 9728 Maumelle Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72205 Little Rock, AR 72212 Maumelle, AR 72113 (501) 562-2345 (501) 227-4440 (501) 868-8080 (501) 771-9229 (501) 562-4794 Fax JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-7858 Owner/Applicant: Drew Camp Address: 710 N. Palm Street Description: Lot 10, Block 37, Pulaski Heights Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an accessory building with an increased rear yard coverage. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The plan as provided would be acceptable, however, because of limited maneuvering room on the alley, a 5' setback is recommended. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 710 N. Palm Street is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. There is a paved alley along the west property line which serves as vehicular access to the property. There is a coffee shop located on the C-3 zoned property immediately to the north, with parking off the alley. Additional commercial uses are located further north along Kavanaugh Blvd. With single family homes to the south. The applicant proposes to construct a 24 foot by 26 foot garage near the northwest corner of the property. The garage will be one story in height, with a 3.3 foot side (north) setback and a zero (0) rear setback where abutting the alley. The garage will cover approximately 49.9 percent of the required rear yard (rear 25 feet), and be constructed to match the existing house. JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.) Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows an accessory building to occupy a maximum of 30 percent of a required rear yard in the R-2 zoning district. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the garage construction. The proposed garage conforms to the minimum required side and rear setbacks and separation. Staff supports the rear yard coverage variance as requested. Staff views the request as reasonable and feels the proposed garage structure will not be out of character with the overall area. As noted previously, there is a small commercial parking lot immediately north which is accessed by way of the alley. Additionally, there are commercial buildings further north which appear to have zero (0) setbacks off the alley. The overall area also contains accessory structures equivalent in size and scale to the one proposed. Staff feels the proposed garage structure will have no negative impact on the general area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard coverage variance, subject to the garage structure being constructed to match the existing principal structure. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 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 May 25, 2005 _ Board of Adjustment %c?'�;� Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Board Members, Thank you for accepting this application for a residential zoning variance for the property at 710 North Palm Street. My wife and I have planned to build a two car garage this property that will measure 24' by 26 ft'. Because this proposed building will take up more than 30 % of our backyard space we need a zoning variance. Our house is an older house built in 1906 in the Hillcrest area. Our lot is a narrow one (measuring 150' by 50'). Hence, we need the variance not because the garage is unusually large but because the space in our backyard is unusually small. We are also placing it at the edge of our property by the alley which will match other existing structures bordering this alley. As we have planned it, the garage will incorporate a small storage area and will be adequate to house two vehicles. Additionally, we are planning to build the garage to match the style of the house. We will'side and paint the garage to match the house and have designed it to appear more like a small cottage than a garage. We are doing this by the addition of windows and shutters facing our internal yard. We are also going to landscape the backyard into a courtyard with lots of greenery. On a personal note, I have lived in this house for 22 years. I am recently married and with the the addition of another family member, storage has become a significant problem for us. I want very much to stay in this house, and the small storage area planned into our garage will make a big difference in the living quality in our older house. I appreciate your attention to this matter. I love my house and my neighborhood and sincerely believe this addition will add to the overall quality, not only of my home, but for my neighborhood also. Respectfully submitted, Drew Camp JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7859 Owner: Ken and Mike Cox Applicant: Terry Burruss Address: 8610 Geyer Springs Road Description: West side of Geyer Springs Road, North of Baseline Road Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the development provisions of Section 36-301 to allow outdoor storage/display. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Pawn Shop Proposed Use of Property: Pawn Shop with outdoor storage/display STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Because there is not a building expansion proposed, no upgrade in landscaping is required. In the C-4 open display district that allows outdoor storage, all outdoor storage must be screened by a permanent opaque screening fence or wall so that it cannot be seen from an adjoining lot. Automobile, truck, tractor, mobile home, boat or motorcycle sales areas are not required to screen fully assembled merchandise ready for sale. C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 8610 Geyer Springs Road is occupied by a one-story commercial building which houses a pawn shop business. The building was JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) originally constructed as a McDonald's Restaurant. There are two (2) driveways from Geyer Springs Road which serves as access. There is paved parking on the north, south and east sides of the building. The building was recently remodeled for the new pawn shop use. With the remodeling, the rear portion of the parking lot (from the rear wall of the building to the rear property line) was fenced for the outdoor storage of large items (vehicular, etc.). When the City's Enforcement staff became aware of the outdoor storage area, a Courtesy Notice was issued to cease the outdoor use. Section 36-301(b) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that all commercial uses in the C-3 zoning district be restricted to closed buildings, except parking lots, seasonal and temporary sales per Section 36-298(4), and the normal pump island services of service station operations. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the area of outdoor storage of large items associated with the pawn shop use. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Although the applicant has done a very good job in rehabilitating the existing building and front parking area, staff feels that the outdoor storage area proposed is inappropriate for this area of enclosed commercial and office uses along Geyer Springs Road. Staff feels that the introduction of an outdoor commercial use could be a detriment to the future development and redevelopment of property in this area along Geyer Springs Road. Staff also has concerns with the upkeep of an outdoor storage area as the one proposed. Staff feels that this type of outdoor storage could quickly become an eye sore and provide difficulty in enforcement. E. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow outdoor storage. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the July 25, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 25, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 DESIGN PLANNING anI INTERIORS May 27, 2005 Dear Mr. Moore: Attached please find 6 copies of a survey and Site Plan on the above referenced project. The site contains a structure that formally housed a McDonald's Restaurant. The building was remodeled to contain a pawn shop. The exterior area of the parking lot was fenced in and screened with landscaping to allow storage of large items. It was our feeling that since this was not outdoor display of merchandise, that it would be an acceptable utilization of the rear area. I would tike to point out that this was discussed with City of LR Staff. It was much to our surprise when City of Little Rock Enforcement issued a courtesy notice regarding this issue. Due to the current interpretation, we are requesting a variance to allow storage in the rear area. As we have previously stated, this area is screen with landscaping to prevent display of these items. We appreciate your consideration on this request. If there are any questions or additional information is needed, please call. Yours very truly, 7Terry . Burruss, AIA Mr. Monte Moore Zoning and Code Enforcement Administrator Department of Planning & Development City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham 1202 Main Little Rock, AR 72201 Suite 230 Little Rock RE: Boll Weevil Pawn Shop Arkansas 8610 Geyer Springs Road 72202 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 501-376-3676 A/E # 0519 Fax 376-3766 Dear Mr. Moore: Attached please find 6 copies of a survey and Site Plan on the above referenced project. The site contains a structure that formally housed a McDonald's Restaurant. The building was remodeled to contain a pawn shop. The exterior area of the parking lot was fenced in and screened with landscaping to allow storage of large items. It was our feeling that since this was not outdoor display of merchandise, that it would be an acceptable utilization of the rear area. I would tike to point out that this was discussed with City of LR Staff. It was much to our surprise when City of Little Rock Enforcement issued a courtesy notice regarding this issue. Due to the current interpretation, we are requesting a variance to allow storage in the rear area. As we have previously stated, this area is screen with landscaping to prevent display of these items. We appreciate your consideration on this request. If there are any questions or additional information is needed, please call. Yours very truly, 7Terry . Burruss, AIA JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7860 Owner: Marvin Itzkowitz Applicant: Jake Limberg Address: 9 East Shore Drive Description: West side of East Shore Drive, South of Leatrice Drive Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow a carport with a reduced front setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential 1. East Shore Drive is a private drive. No comments on carport location. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at #9 East Shore Drive is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence. There is concrete parking within the front yard, with vehicular access from East Shore Drive. The property backs up to Foreman Lake. The applicant proposes to construct a 22 foot by 23 foot -10 1/2 inch carport structure within the front yard as noted on the attached site plan. The carport will be unenclosed and located 71/2 inches to 9 feet -7 % inches back from the front property line. The carport will be separated from the house by approximately 13 feet, and located approximately 10 feet back from the closest side (north) property line. The applicant notes that the carport structure will be constructed to match the existing house and that the existing parking slab will be broken up to provide additional landscaping in the front yard. JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.) Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 60 foot front setback for accessory structures in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the carport structure with a reduced front setback. The proposed structure conforms with all other setback and separation requirements. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Given the fact that the residential lot is located on a private drive serving only four (4) homes (possibly two additional in the future), staff feels that the proposed carport structure will be compatible with the overall area. There is very little traffic on this private drive, and because of surrounding wooded area, the homes along it are not very visible from the surrounding residences to the north and east. Although staff typically does not support this type of front yard encroachment for carport structures, staff feels that the location of the residence within the overall subdivision and on a private drive is unique in nature, and that the carport structure should have no adverse impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested front setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The carport structure must remain unenclosed on all sides. 2. The carport structure must be constructed to match the existing residence. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 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 THE OFFICE OF JAKE LIMBERG * ASSOCIATES R--7960 To Whom It May Concern: Th15 15 a proposal for a zoning variance allowing a new carport to be built at 9 East Shore Drive, In Little Rock. The Street, East Shore Drive, has an existing variance, I believe, for building 5etback5. There 15 a lake that prohibits normal setbacks. I . Internal structural configurations a. The property does not have room on the 51de5 of the existing home to allow a garage or carport. 2. Major Natural Features a. There 15 a lake to the west of the home. This proposed carport will add to the beauty of the existing neighborhood. It will breakup the exl5ting concrete parking area in front of the house, and provide more green Space to the east of the home. The carport will be built to match the ex15t1ng structure. The existing parking slab will be broken up to provide more vegetation options. Thank you for considering this zoning variance, Jake Limberg Landscape De5lgner 13 1 NORTH WOODROW STREET LITTLE DOCK, AR 72205 501 .661 .0935 FX. 501 .960.0025 PH JAKEKL@?AOL.COM JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Z-7861 Owner/Applicant: John D. Curreri Address: 40 Legends Drive Description: Lot 901, Fairway Woods Addition, Phase III Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 40 Legends Drive is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence. There is a circular driveway from Legends Drive which serves as access to the property. The property is located at the northeast corner of Legends Drive and Jack Nicklaus Cove. The property is located two (2) to three (3) feet above the grade of Jack Nicklaus Cove. There is a 25 foot platted building line along both street frontages (south and west). The applicant proposes to construct a wood privacy fence to enclose the rear yard, as noted on the attached site plan. The applicant is proposing a seven (7) foot high fence extending from the northwest corner of the house to the north property line, then running approximately 15 feet to the east along the north property line. The applicant is proposing a six (6) foot high fence along the remainder of the north property line. There is an existing six (6) foot high fence along the east property line. The applicant proposes to construct a seven (7) foot high fence section from this existing fence to the east side of the house. The JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 10 (CON'T.) seven (7) foot high section extending from the northwest corner of the house will cross the 25 foot platted side building line by approximately five (5) feet at the north property line. The seven (7) foot high fence section on the east side of the residence will include a gate for vehicular access to the rear garage. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between building setback lines and street rights-of-way. A maximum fence height of six (6) feet is allowed along interior property lines. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed seven (7) foot high fence sections. Staff is not supportive of the requested fence height variance, as filed. Given the fact that the residences immediately north along the east side of Jack Nicklaus Cove are set back at least 25 feet from their front property lines and have a front yard relationship to the proposed fence section extending from the northwest corner of the residence, staff will suggest the proposed seven (7) foot high fence section follow the 25 foot platted side building line along Jack Nicklaus Cove and not extend into the front yard of the residence to the north. With this minor revision, staff could support the variance request as the fence should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requ4ested fence height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had revised the application to have the proposed fence follow the platted building line along Jack Nicklaus Cove, and not extend between the building line and the street. Staff recommended approval of the revised application, subject to the following conditions: 1. The finished side of the fence must face outward. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. 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 _.�-.q-,-4J 0 Proposal Request -2— -7 8 6; I am requesting a variance to have a seven -foot tall fence in the areas marked in pink - - highlight on the attached survey. The reason for this request is because the subject lot slopes downhill from east to west. A six-foot fence would not be high enough in certain areas due to the slope to keep my two Labrador Retrievers from crossing the fence line if they so desired. There is about an eleven -foot drop from east to west. A seven -foot fence would keep my dogs safe and better serve the community by insuring them to stay in the yard. On the attached survey to this letter, the areas. marked in green highlight represent my neighbors existing six-foot privacy fence. "The areas marked in yellow highlight represent the areas of the proposed fence that will be six-foot tall as well. The areas marked in pink highlight will be the proposed seven -foot tall privacy fence. All fence will be wood material known as decorative fencing with post and caps. The work will be performed by McDonald Fence Company who suggested that I request this variance. The seven -foot areas will consist of the following: • Starting at the Northwest corner of dwelling extending approximately forty-five feet north. • From the Northwest corner of the fence extending east no more than fifteen feet at which time it will become six-foot. • Starting at the Southeast corner at neighbor's fence post extending west approximately thirty feet this section to include gate. I do not feel that any section of this fence will'be an obstruction or eye sore to the community. Thank you for your consideration, John Curreri 40 Legends Drive Little Rock, AR 72210 (501) 247-5757 JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 11 File No.: Z-7862 Owner: Frazier Properties, LLC Applicant: Rick Frazier Address: 808 Reservoir Road Description: West side of Reservoir Road, North of Rodney Parham Road Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-555and 36-557 to allow a ground sign with reduced setback, a ground sigh with decreased separation and an off -premise sign. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Office Proposed Use of Property: Office STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No comments. B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 808 Reservoir Road is occupied by a one story commercial/office building. There is paved parking on the east side of the building, with two (2) access drives for Reservoir Road. There is a small ground -mounted sign at the southeast corner of the property advertising a chiropractic clinic which is in the south half of the building. The existing ground sign is approximately 16 feet tall and 20 square feet in area. Frazier Insurance Agency occupies the north half of the building. There is a concrete walled detention basin located on the property to the north, just on the north side of the dividing side property. The applicant recently received permission from the property owner to the north and painted the south wall of the detention basin as a sign advertising the insurance agency. The sign/wall is approximately four (4) feet in height and 128 square feet. There is JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 11 (CON'T.) an existing ground -mounted sign (Cleo's Furniture) a few feet north of the detention basin. Section 36-555(b) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that ground -mounted signs be located at least five (5) feet back from property lines. Section 36- 557(c ) requires a minimum separation of 150 feet between commercial signs on a property's street frontage when a minimum of 300 feet of street frontage exists. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance does not allow this type of off - premise sign. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the ground -sign with a reduced setback and separation, and the sign being located on the adjacent property. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Although staff typically does not support off -premise signs and signs with this minimal amount of separation, staff feels that the circumstances are appropriate in this case. Staff's support is conditioned on the sign being for this business only and there being no additional height or area added to the existing ground -mounted sign at the southeast corner of 808 Reservoir Road. The Ordinance typically allows ground signs in commercial zones to have a maximum height of 36 feet and a maximum area of 160 square feet. Staff feels that with the conditions above, the variance requests are reasonable and the sign painted on the detention basin wall should not only have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties, but should also help eliminate sign clutter in the immediate area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances are allowed for Frazier Insurance Agency only. If this business vacates the site, the wall must be painted a solid neutral color. 2. There is to be no additional ground signage on the property, no additional height or area added to the existing ground sign at the southeast corner of the property. 3. A sign permit must be obtained for the new sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 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 Nationwi&' On Your Side" -2 - -7 FRAZIER INSURANCE AGENCY FRAZIER PROPERTIES, LLC May 27, 2005 City of Little Rock Board of Adjustment c/o Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Application for a Zoning Variance (Signs); for ground -mounted/ painted sign at 808 Reservoir Road Dear Board Members and Staff: As Managing Member of Frazier Properties, LLC, owner of the referenced property, we respectfully submit this Application for a Variance from the Sign Code. We apologize for the lack of timeliness in this Application for we were unaware of the applicability of the Code to this type of sign and our sign company, which is from another county, did not bring it to our attention before its completion in February, 2005. We understand that an inquiry led to your Code Enforcement Officers contacting us. A history of this occurrence may be helpful in your deliberation. We purchased the property in February, 2004 and, after expansion of the building, began occupancy in October, 2004. However, we always considered the neighbor's concrete walled detention basin an eyesore and detractor from the appearance of our property. Therefore, in January, 2005, we obtained the neighbor's permission to paint the southerly wall of the detention basin that abutted our property with a Nationwide sign. This also relieved our concern for "sign clutter" for our tenant, Dr. Hickman, already had a pole -mounted sign near the southern boundary line of our property and Cleo's Furniture had a similar pole - mounted sign near our northern boundary and a few feet to the immediate north of the basin. We have attached various pictures of our sign to the Application to show that it is not obstructive nor in bad taste and otherwise beautifies a former eyesore. Since the sign was painted on the 4 feet by 32 feet concrete wall in February. We have not heard a complaint and, in fact, we have received a few compliments as to its appearance and its efficacy of denoting our location. Please note that the sign is only visible while traveling north on Reservoir Road, as can be discerned from the pictures. As to the provisions of the Sign Code which we may have unintentionally violated: 1. Location — five feet from our boundary line — the basin has been on our northern boundary line for years with our asphalt northern entrance abutting that boundary line; 2. Offsite location — we have a License Agreement with the neighbor owner of the basin to paint or erect a sign; 3. 150 feet separation of signs — our lot has 100 feet of frontage on Reservoir Road while the other lots near us have a minimum of 165 feet of frontage. 808-B Reservoir Road, Little Rock, AR 72227 Ph: 501-225-1818 Fax: 501-223-8682 Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request your favorable consideration and grant of a variance for our sign. Please be assured that we will continue its maintenance. Thank you for this opportunity to present this request. Please contact us if you need additional information. Sincerely, Rick Frazier, Managing Member Encl: Application for Variance RF/rr JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 12 File No.: Z-7863 Owner: Margaret Stevens Applicant: Redgie Adams, Adams Signs Address: Northeast Corner of West 6th and Arch Streets Description: Lots 4-6, Block 116, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: UU Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 342.1 to allow a ground sign. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Parking Lot Proposed Use of Property: Parking Lot STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No comments. B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at the northeast corner of West 6th and Arch Streets is occupied by a paved parking lot which serves the Arvest Bank located at the southwest corner of Capitol Avenue and Broadway Street. One (1) existing driveway from West 6th Street and three (3) from Arch Street serve as access to the parking lot. There are commercial parking lots located across Arch Street to the west and West 6th Street to the south and southwest. There is an existing sign pole at the southwest corner of the parking lot, as noted on the attached sketch. The sign pole has an overall height of approximately 14 feet, with the cross bar being approximately 12 feet above grade. The sign pole is located just inside the south and west property lines. The applicant proposes to place a three (3) foot by four (4) sign on the existing pole, extending down from the existing cross bar. The sign will be located approximately nine (9) feet above grade. JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 12 (CON'T.) Section 36-342.1(c )(11) of the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits ground - mounted signs in the urban use zoning district. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to utilize the existing sign pole by placing signage on it. The sign pole has existed for a number of years and was probably erected when the property was used as a commercial parking lot. Staff supports the requested variance. Staff feels that the proposed sign will not be out of character with the general area. As noted earlier there are existing commercial parking lots to the west and south. There are several existing ground -mounted signs associated with these parking lots. Staff feels that it is appropriate to allow a ground -mounted sign at this location designating the lot as employee parking for Arvest Bank, and the re -use of the existing sign pole is the best alternative for signage. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a ground - mounted sign subject to the following conditions: 1. The sign must be secured to the pole as to not move in the wind. 2. A sign permit must be obtained for the new sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 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 May 26, 2005 City Of Little Rock Board of Adjustment Little Rock, AR Attn: Monty Moore Sign Variance for: ARVEST Bank Parking Lot We are requesting that the Board of Adjustment allow a variance for the ordinance that states no whole signs may be erected in the city (downtown) Little Rock,. This is an existing pole from an existing parking lot and we are requesting identification on that pole be allowed for ARVEST Bank who has taken possession of this lot. One reason is because they need identification for their employees parking. Because of the shortage of parking in the downtown area we wish to resist others from parking in this lot. We are not requesting the sign to be any larger than the previous signage that was on the pole. Signage would be according to the attached artwork. We appreciate your prompt attention and response to this existing request. Sincerely, Redgie Adams Adams Sign Company, Inc. RA/ja Cc: file AI'(RG�k JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 13 File No.: Z-7864 Owner: Terry and Mengrangiz Watson Applicant: Terry Watson Address: 431 Midland Avenue Description: Lots 22 & 23, Block 11, Midland Hills Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-255 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: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-3 zoned property at 431 Midland Avenue is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide drive from Midland Avenue which serves as access. There is a paved alley along the rear (east) property line. The property slopes downward from back to front. The applicant proposes to construct a one-story addition on the rear of the residence as noted on the attached site plan. The addition will be approximately 25 feet wide and extend approximately 40 feet toward the rear property line. The addition will be set back approximately six (6) feet from the side (north) property line. The addition will also be located 10 feet to 14 feet back from the rear (east) property line. JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 13 (CON'T.) Section 36-255(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet for R-3 zoned lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the proposed addition with a reduced rear setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the request is reasonable and that the proposed addition will not be out of character with other single family lot developments in this general area of Hillcrest. There are a number of single family lots in the area with building massing similar to what this applicant is proposing. Additionally, the main front portion of the house is set back over 30 feet from the front property line, which reduces the amount of rear yard space available for building expansion. Staff believes the proposed addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. In the attached cover letter, the applicant requests the right to build up to the rear property line. However, the Board is only asked to consider the addition as shown on the survey at this time. The applicant is aware that future building expansion will have to come back before the Board. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 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. PAI Terry Watson / 3 431 Midland St._-�� Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 501-603-9089 May 27, 2005 City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 To whom it may concern. I am requesting for a variance to build over the 25' rear yard setback. My intent is to add living space on to my house and the only practical direction I can go is toward the back of my property. I would like to request the right to build up to the rear property line although I may not need the entire distance at this time, but have the option in the future. I would like to request the right to build up to the property line especially because my next door neighbors on both side of me have garages that are built up to the property line and accessed from the alley. Several other neighbors close by have similar out buildings that line the alley, so, it would seem fair that I have the right to do the same. I hope you will consider this a reasonable request in that the best interests of the neighborhood are taken into account. Sincerely, Terry Watson JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 14 File No.: Z-7865 Owner: Pat Brandt Applicant: Richard Hall, Genesis Lawn and Landscape Address: 23 Bouresse Court Description: Lot 71, Block 48, Chenal Valley Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a deck addition with a reduced rear setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 23 Bouresse Court is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Bouresse Court which serves as access. There is an upper deck on the rear of the house, with steps leading to the rear yard. The property slopes downward from front to back and side to side (south to north). The applicant recently began construction of a lower deck addition at the northeast corner of the residence. Framework for the deck is currently in place. The lower deck will be located four (4) feet from the side property line and 15 feet from the rear property line, as noted on the attached site plan. JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 14 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of eight (8) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the lower deck structure with reduced side and rear setbacks. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Given the slope of the lot and the irregular lot slope, staff feels that the request is reasonable. However, staff will suggest conditions of approval of the deck construction, based on the fact that the two (2) residences immediately north are at a lower grade and the residents will look up at the deck structure from their back yards. Staff suggests installing lattice around the base of the lower de4ck structure and planting Leland Cypress trees (every 10 feet) along the north side of the deck structure to lessen the visual impact on the residences to the north. Staff also suggests the lower deck structure remain uncovered and unenclosed. With these conditions in place, staff feels that the deck structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Lattice must be installed around the base of the lower deck addition. 2. Leland Cypress trees must be planted every 10 feet along the northern side of the lower deck structure. 3. The lower deck structure must remain uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 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 P.O. BOX 95033 FML 501-753-1842 I little Rock, All 72190 Email: Richard@genesislawnandiandscage.com little Rock: 501-868-1842 Website: Lawn and Landscape N.LiuleRock: 561-7531842 www.venesisiawnandlandscape.com May 21, 2005 77-4,4/4 Z -- 73 Board of Adjustment (ZP Department of Planning and Development J 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Ph: 371-4790 RE: Request for Zoning Variance for 23 Bouresse Court, Little Rock, AR 72223 Dear Board of Adjustment: We the authorized agent for Pat Brandt, Genesis Lawn and Landscape Mgmt., Inc., are requesting to be considered for a variance from the Zoning Ordinances for the property at 23 Bouresse Court. The reasons we request this variance are as follows: First, the property has excessive slopes, which run along both sides of property toward the back, and then from right to left in back area next to easement and along left side of house. The owner has difficulty accessing her own property because of this, and normal maintenance or travel is prohibitively difficult. In addition to the slopes above mentioned, approximately 14' from the rear of existing deck, land grade drops rapidly down an embankment, which is not accessible by the owner. We propose to build a deck below existing deck, which will allow normal walking along part of backside of property, eliminate some maintenance problems, and also provide a staircase down to lower back area of property which is currently inaccessible. This proposed location of deck is the best possible solution for this highly unusual lot configuration and also the existing upper deck, which contains the only back door on property. In addition to the excessive slopes on property, the back of lot contains a "Green Space" which contains a natural feature, a creek that runs along behind property. In order to preserve this natural feature, we believe a deck would be better than a concrete block retaining wall, which would be the other option to eliminate part of slope in back area, but meanwhile detracting from the natural look desired. Also, the next-door neighbors already have a concrete block wall, and agreed that another retaining wall would be excessive. Due to the unusual lot configuration/the existing back door of house, existing upper deck, and location of house 10' from s de easement, we propose to encroach upon the side easement by 4'. This allows access from upper to lower deck. Any access to back of property from back door requires encroaching upon the 8' side easement and the 25' required from rear of property or easement. The house and existing upper deck currently sits 30' from rear of property and approximately 10' from side of house. The staircase currently lets out on a slope on the left property line. We propose to rebuild existing staircase and allow it to empty out on proposed deck to the rear below existing deck. We propose a deck to extend to limits of upper back slope and stairs to access lower part of property behind deck. We have attached a letter.of consent from owners on left side easement and pictures of lot and house as it currently stands. Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Richard Hall, President Genesis Lawn and Landscape Mgmt., Inc. JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 15 File No.: Z-7866 Owner/Applicant: Aurora H. DeArmas Address: 7601 Denise Drive Description: Lot 16, Beverly Terrace 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 Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 7601 Denise Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Denise Drive which serves as access. The single family lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line. The applicant proposes to enclose the existing carport at the southwest corner of the house and construct an unenclosed metal carport over a portion of the existing driveway. The metal carport structure will be attached to the house and be 14.67 feet by 15 feet in size. The carport will be located 11 to 12.5 feet from the front property line, crossing the front platted building line by 12.5 to 14 feet. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned property. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed JUNE 27, 2005 ITEM NO.: 15 (CON'T. and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed carport addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses the front platted building line. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff feels the proposed carport addition will be out of character with the overall neighborhood. Although the single family property directly across Denise Drive to the west has a metal carport which extends into the street side setback, staff observed no other encroachments across the front platted building lines the entire length of Denise Drive. The existing carport structure to the west is either a nonconforming structure, being constructed prior to the City's zoning jurisdiction in the area, or was constructed illegally. Staff feels this proposed addition will not be compatible with the neighborhood. 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 carport addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested setback and building line variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to withdraw the application. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 T4, 4 15 AUTRORA H. DE ARNIAS 2 - ` 9 6 (� 7601 Denise Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Fax (501) 562-0369 Cell (501)837-5139 adearmas@sbcglobal.net May 26, 2005 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Board of Adjustment: I am requesting a variance so that I can extend my carport to 127"feet from the property line. Since I have already secured a permit to enclose my carport so that I may utilize it as a living space I need to add a metal awning to replace the old carport. The measurements I have taken are as follows: It is 14'8" from my house to the end of the proposed carport, therefore, it would be 127" from the end of the new carportto my property line. Of course that would leave the required 10 feet from the property line to the curb. Please take this matter into consideration at the June 27 Board of Adjustment Meeting. Sincerely, Aurora H. de Armas r O U w w h - O z w U) D 0 Q LL O a bi 0 �J CY) 2i a� c ^ L L ^W SW G z Q m Q z w U) m Q w Q z a w =o w LLJofC)Q> LLJ ��0Q> �wwmo wwMo z f- J m z F- J m J w <C LL z Z Q LLLu Z �cnCl)z Qc)U)z�5 Q WCUDO�� ZoU) mzor-cnrm Wz�cnof M W<�QQ=� �Q�ZX_J �LLM7- S �LLm=2� June 27, 2005 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 P. M. Date: ` Chairman