Loading...
boa_11 28 2005LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES NOVEMBER 28, 2005 2:00 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Minutes of the October 31, 2005 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present: Members Absent Andrew Francis, Chairman Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman Fletcher Hanson David Wilbourn Debra Harris City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA NOVEMBER 28, 2005 I. OLD BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: A. Z-7929 305 President Clinton Avenue II. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: 1. Z -6599-B 10425 Stagecoach Road 2. Z -7262-B 2710/2712 Kavanaugh Blvd. 3. Z -7887-A 110 Vigne Drive 4. Z-7958 324 Charles Street 5. Z-7960 1832 N. Cleveland Street 6. Z-7961 1905/1907 N. Polk Street LO O O N fill // 3NId a3Rtlai M �.1`/ nnrelHl CN CZ) /1 zI e ego � s Nrwa3n O W� — Nlrw (V AYMOVONG HJaV a S3HO 01-1380 Ab limbi v � oNa in a � MOa000M 3NId 3NId aro N0111wtl 1100S 5 SAH/yam, /Q 2 Q x ani n� m�' •/ Y usa i n AlISa3AINn SONIads a3A3J Q S3H'JnH WIRE Iw x "6 10.71HJ arona3s a MOawe NW 3 y 3NN13H tl s OWAINOWIS i j SIMS Hard A3NO08 3Z NYwMOB � � S11wI7 Alq r a � �r 3001a ANN Sllwil ALD g\t bfS r i Sllwfl A1D J JJ " NVAMAS [�li/1 J larM3L5 oor W /'A $ rMH IH a S11WIl ;113 i 31tlaaa3i y 4F � o O r 1 O NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-7929 Owner: Melton Properties Applicant: Jamie Garrett, Big Impressions Address: 305 President Clinton Avenue Description: South side of President Clinton Avenue, between Cumberland Street and Ottenheimer Plaza Zoned: UU Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 553 to allow additional commercial signage. 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 UU zoned property at 305 President Clinton Avenue is occupied by a two- story commercial building. The ground floor of the building is occupied by Ten Thousand Villages, a commercial business. Ten Thousand Villages went before the River Market Design Review Committee (DRC) in May of this year and received approval of awnings with signage, a sandwich board sign and a sign on the window glass. None of these signs required any variances. The business is now before the Board of Adjustment requesting variances for two (2) additional signs. The applicant recently placed a projecting sign on the NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) second level of the building and a sign on the glass portion of the front door to the business, as noted in the attached photos. The first requested variance is from Section 36-353(c)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance (River Market Design Overlay District guidelines). This section allows a maximum of three (3) signs per business in the River Market District. The two (2) additional signs proposed will bring the total number of signs to five (5). The second requested variance is from Section 36-353(e)(1)b. This section states the "Height of projecting signs shall not extend past the sill of the second story windows." The projecting sign which was recently placed on the building is located entirely above the sills of the second story windows, and was placed on existing brackets. The final requested variance is from Section 36-353(e)(2)a., and also involves the projecting sign. This section states that "Projecting signs shall have a maximum of twelve (12) square feet of sign face per sign." The projecting sign in question has an area of approximately 13.6 square feet. The applicant proposes to illuminate this sign with lighting that will be compatible with existing lighting on other projecting signs in the district. The River Market Design Review Committee reviewed this request for additional signage on October 11, 2005. The DRC voted to deny the request for the projecting sign and the sign on the door. See the attached letter from River Market DRC staff for additional information. It has been staff's past practice to support the River Market Design Review Committee in their review and recommendations for variances in the River Market District. Therefore, staff cannot support the requested variances, as filed. As noted in the attached DRC letter, the DRC suggested that the applicant meet with the business owner, prioritize the signage needs and submit an amended application to the Board of Adjustment. To staff's knowledge, this has not taken place, as no amendments to the application have been requested. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff cannot support the requested sign variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 26, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the River Market Design Review Committee was scheduled to review this application at its September 13, 2005 meeting. The applicant NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) was not present at that meeting. Therefore, the DRC will re -hear the item on October 11, 2005 as per their bylaws. Staff recommended this application be deferred to the October 31, 2005 Board of Adjustment Agenda to allow time for the DRC review and recommendation. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the October 31, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 31, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting the application be deferred to the November 28, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the November 28, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 28, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting the application be deferred to the January 30, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 30, 2006 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. bi irpressi®ns 08/26/2005 City of Little Rock Board of Adjustment & Design Review Committee 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Attention: Monte Moore & Brian Minyard 1823 South Scott Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501.301-9031 ph. 501-301-9032 fax http://www.big-impressions.biz swallace@big-impressions.biz jgarrett@big-impressions.biz Re: Ten Thousand Villages Zoning Vai-iance On behalf of Ten Thousand Villages we respectfully request that a variance for a blade sign & an additional window sign be granted. Carrying out the strict letter of the zoning regulation in this instance would not be a reasonable use of this property. To avoid the hardship created by lack of visibility of the business front signage due to the existing landscape granting a variance from the regulation would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and preserves its spirit, and granting the variance would assure the public safety and welfare and produce substantial justice. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Jamie Garrett Big Impressions, LLC 1823 Scott Street Little Rock, AR 72206 501-301-9031 River Market 41� 1 Design ul �L Review +� Committee Tim Heiple, Member Shannon Jeffery -Light, Member Frank Porbeck, Member Ann Wait, Member Millie Ward, Member Planning and Development • 723 W_ Markham • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 •501-371-4790 . fax 501-399-3435 October 12, 2005 , Board of Adjustment -79 20 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: 10000 Villages / October 31, 2005 agenda Chairman and Members, The River Market DRC has reviewed the Ten Thousand Villages additional signage at the October 11, 2005 meeting. The DRC has denied your submittal of the Projecting Sign and Sign on door. The final vote was 1 aye, 2 noes 1 recusal and 1 open position. The item failed for lack of three positive votes. The summary of the item heard was that the number of signs was too great in addition to the two variances associated with the projecting sign. If the representative present at the meeting would have been able to speak for the business and had the authority to reduce the number of the signs, a different result could have taken place. The committee and Staff suggested that the applicant get with the business owner prior to the BOA hearing and prioritize the signage so that an amended application could be taken to the BOA. Thank you, Brian Minyard River Market DRC Staff NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z -6599-B Owner: Metropolitan National Bank Address: 10425 Stagecoach Road Description: Lot 1, Otter Creek Plaza Addition Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 557 to allow wall signs without street frontage. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Branch Bank Proposed Use of Property: Branch Bank STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 10425 Stagecoach Road is occupied by a branch bank facility which was recently constructed. The property is located at the northeast corner of Stagecoach Road and Otter Creek Road. There are subdivision access roads located along the north and east property lines. Access to the branch bank facility is from the subdivision access roads. As part of the bank development, the applicant is proposing wall signs on all four (4) sides of the building. There are currently wall signs on the north, south and west building facades. The sign on the north fagade consists of the Metropolitan Bank eagle logo. The applicant also proposes to place a sign on the east building fagade which will match the existing sign on the west (front) NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) fagade. All of the wall signs are under 10 percent of the building fagade area for each side of the structure. Section 36-557(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that all on -premise wall signs face required street frontage except in complexes where a sign without street frontage would be the only means of identification. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the wall signs on the east and north building facades with no public street frontage. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels the request is reasonable. Although there are not public streets along the north and east property lines, there are access drives along these property lines which will serve the remainder of the subdivision. These drives will essentially function as public streets. Therefore, staff feels that it will be appropriate to have wall signs on the east and north facades, and that these signs will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the overall subdivision. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to permits being obtained for all signs. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 28, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting the application be deferred to the December 19, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 19, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. e ARCHITECTURAL SIGNS 2 POINT CIRCLE LITTLE ROCK, AR 72205 PHONE: 501.352.1796 FAX: 501.851.8840 To: Little Rock Board of Adjustment Date: 10.27.05 From: Charles Aitkens RE: Metropolitan National Bank sign variance request CC: To Whom It May Concern: Metropolitan National Bank would like to add their logo and letters to the EAST side of the drive through canopy at their branch bank located at 10425 Stagecoach Road. The logo and letters will be the same size as the letters and logo on the front of the building. The east fagade of the drive through canopy provides for optimum visibility to traffic moving west on Otter Creek Road from Interstate 30. A similar variance has already been obtained for the branch location at 23816 Chenal Parkway, near the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Hwy. 10. Attached are photos of the signage on the front and back of the Chenal/Hwy. 10 branch which illustrates that the signage will be in good taste and will not detract from any of its surroundings. Sincerelv. Charles Aitkens President DFI Architectural Signs, Inc. NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -7262-B Owner: Pulaski Heights Lodge #673 Applicant: John Selva Address: 2710/2712 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lots 7 and 8, Block 20, Pulaski Heights Addition Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-502 to allow a restaurant use with a reduced number of parking spaces. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Commercial/Office Building Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant and Offices STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 2710/2712 Kavanaugh Blvd. Is occupied by a two- story brick commercial building. The property is located at the northwest corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. And Ash Street. The building has been used by Pulaski Heights Masonic Lodge for a number of years. There is a paved parking area on the east side of the building. The existing paved parking area will allow the parking of approximately 17 vehicles. The applicant proposes to utilize the first floor of the building as a U.S. Pizza restaurant, with the second floor being the administrative office for the restaurant. The restaurant and offices will each occupy approximately 3,150 NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) square feet of building space. The proposed occupancy of the existing building would require 38 off-street parking spaces as per Section 36- 502(b)(2)g. and 36-502(b)(3)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from these ordinance standards to allow the conversion of the existing building to a restaurant/office use, utilizing the existing 17 paved parking spaces. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Several commercial buildings in this general area along Kavanaugh Blvd. have relied heavily on off-site parking for a number of years. There is on -street parking along Kavanaugh Blvd. as well as other surrounding streets. Staff believes the conversion of this commercial building to a restaurant use with no additional off-street parking provided is reasonable, and will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 28, 2005) John Selva, Randy Breece and Judy Waller were present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present with concerns. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. John Selva addressed the Board in support of the application. He briefly described the commercial uses in the area and the current parking situation. He noted that this property has one of the larger parking lots in the area. He explained that there is more parking at the proposed location than the current restaurant location. Richard Delay, representing 2615-2623 Kavanaugh Blvd., addressed the Board with concerns. He noted that he supported relocation of the restaurant. He expressed concerns with people parking in places where they are not supposed to in this general area along Kavanaugh Blvd. He stated that a larger restaurant use with the existing parking conditions could have a negative impact on his property. There was a brief discussion of the parking issues in this area along Kavanaugh Blvd. Mr. Selva explained that employees of U.S. Pizza could park at the old restaurant location. Chairman Francis asked about the number of employees. Randy Breece noted that there would be six (6) to seven (7) employees. There was additional discussion of the parking issue. NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 28, 2005) Staff made a revised recommendation to the Board. Staff recommended approval of the parking variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The parking lot at 2710/2712 Kavanaugh Blvd. will be for U.S. Pizza only. 2. Employees of U.S. Pizza must park in the parking lot at 2814 Kavanaugh Blvd. 3. Signage must be placed on the parking lot at 2710/2712 Kavanaugh Blvd. directing customers to 2814 Kavanaugh Blvd. for overflow parking. There was a motion to approve the application, subject to the revised staff recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. October 28, 2005 Dear Board of Adjustment Members: 72— - US Pizza would like to request a variance in the number of parking spaces required for the C-3 classified building at 2710 Kavanaugh Boulevard from the 37 required spaces to the existing 16 spaces. U.S. Pizza has been a good neighbor on the Kavanaugh Boulevard corridor for over 20years. The business has seen positive growth and would like to move forward with an opportunity for the restaurant at 2814 Kavanaugh Boulevard to relocate to the vacant Masonic Lodge one block east. U.S. Pizza plans to occupy the entire two-story brick building with the first floor as the location for the U.S. Pizza restaurant. The second floor will be used as a new location for the corporate headquarters office that is currently located in North Little Rock. The current U. S. Pizza restaurant location would be used to expand the existing Hillcrest Liquor and allow them to offer a larger selection of wines. The current restaurant location is operating using only 13 spaces so there would actually be an increase in spaces available to the restaurant. Since the ownership of the current U.S. Pizza restaurant location will remain in U.S. Pizza's ownership, overflow parking could be directed to those available parking spaces if necessary. It is believed by the owners of U. S. Pizza that the above plan is in accordance with the Hillcrest Neighborhood Plan and that the revitalization of this Historic building will have a positive impact on the Kavanaugh corridor and the neighborhood of Hillcrest. The scale, density, and commercial/residential mix of Hillcrest were conceived and built long before the existence of the post -World War H suburb and prior to the emergence of modem zoning and land -use practices. The look and feel of its neighborhoods and commercial centers result from an earlier paradigm of development that ranked the pedestrian over the car and proximity over sprawl. Hillcrest residents believe that these priorities should prevail for future development as well, and that the city's land -use zoning policies should act to preserve Hillcrest's unique neighborhood scale. -The Hillcrest Neighborhood Plan The above excerpt was taken from the plan that was developed by Hillcrest Residents and Merchants in collaboration with the Planning and Development Office and was adopted by the City Board of Directors on September 21, 1999. U.S. Pizza respectfully requests this variance approval so that it can continue to be a good neighbor and grow its business while benefiting the architectural integrity of the Kavanaugh corridor by putting a new use into a grand old building. Sincerely, J' Judy Waller, Owner U.S. Pizza NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z -7887-A Owner: Michael Ronnel Applicant: Eugene Levy Address: 110 Vigne Drive Description: Lot 74, Block 83, Chenal Valley Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 156 to allow a swimming pool with a reduced rear setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residence under construction Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Due to stormwater quality requirements, all pool drains must be connected to the sanitary sewer. Pool water cannot be discharged to the stormwater system. Contact Little Rock Wastewater utility. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 110 Vigne Drive is currently being developed. The foundation work for a new two-story single family residence is currently being done. The property backs up to the Chenal Country Club facilities (tennis courts and parking area). On July 25, 2005 the Board of Adjustment approved a variance for a reduced rear setback for an unclosed pavilion addition on the rear of the structure. An in -ground swimming pool was also shown on the approved site plan. NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) As part of the lot development, the applicant is proposing to construct a six (6) foot high masonry wall along the west (rear) property line. The applicant plans to incorporate a waterfall feature into the masonry wall which will discharge water into the swimming pool. With this design a 12 foot wide portion of the pool structure will have to extend to the masonry wall on the rear property line, as noted on the attached site plan. Section 36-156(a)(2)f. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum three (3) foot rear setback for accessory buildings (including pool structures). Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 12 foot wide section of the pool to extend to the rear (west) property line. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels the request is reasonable, based on the fact that the lot backs up to a 15 foot wide open space tract (platted) and the Chenal Country Club facilities. Staff feels this in - ground pool structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The applicant will need to submit a letter from the Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee approving the preliminary plans for the pool and wall construction. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The pool structure must be located at least six (6) feet back from the principal structure. 2. The applicant must submit a letter from the Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee approving the pool and wall construction, prior to a building permit being issued. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 28, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. CROMWELL ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS October 27, 2005 Mr. Monte Moore Zoning and Enforcement Administrator Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Re: Board of Adjustment: Lot 74, Block 83, Chenal Valley Addition Little Rock, Arkansas A/E Project No. 2005-016 Dear Mr. Moore: 799-7-4 We are requesting permission from the Board of Adjustment to construct a small portion of the swimming pool to be located next to the west property line at Lot 74, Block 83, Chenal Valley Addition to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. Enclosed are 18 copies of the survey and site plan, a copy of the bill of assurance, the required affidavit, a copy of the subdivision plan showing Tract A, and Application for Zoning Variance Form. A 6 foot high decorative masonry wall is to be constructed on the west property line, and there is a 15 foot wide buffer (Tract A) adjacent to the property line between our property and the Chenal Country Club tennis court area, which is planned for a tennis parking lot in the future. There are no houses west of our property, only the Country Club. As a result of these two barriers, the pool cannot be seen by any neighbors, and will not create any harm to the adjoining property, as it is in the ground, and hidden by the wall on the property line. There are no easements along this property line. On the east side of the property line wall, a 12 foot long waterfall is planned to discharge water into the pool. This waterfall is the main feature of the back yard as it will be visible on centerline from the front entry foyer of the house and from all parts of the back yard poolside decks. The pool is planned to extend under the waterfall so that a swimmer can stand under the waterfall. Because of this feature, the pool area is planned to be 12 feet wide along the property line and 6 feet wide toward the main pool, just enough room for a 2 or 3 people to enjoy the waterfall, away from the main pool. The backyard of the property is very small and it is not possible to move the pool back away from, the property line without constricting the back yard to an un- usable condition, or creating too small of a waterfall pool area. i i✓i ` % :+�t F 4:i. �1 ± Ei',?GITNTEE S, LNT . 101 S. SRRENTG STREET, L+_? TLE ROC:K, A IC., SAS 72201-2490 (501) 372-2900 E X (501):372.-0482 Mr. Monte Moore Zoning and Enforcement Administrator October 27, 2005 Page 2 We will apply for permission from the Chenal Valley Addition (Deltic Timber) design review committee for this adjustment, and will submit their approval letter to you when it is received. You may contact me at 372-2900 with any questions. Thanks you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, EugeneP. Levy Agent for the Owner, Mr. Michael Ronnel EPL Enclosures NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-7958 Owner: Samuel and Nancy Ledbetter Applicant: Samuel Ledbetter Address: 324 Charles Street Description: Lots 6 and 7, Block 8, Midland Hills Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a fence with increased height. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Sidewalk was previously removed. Sidewalks and ramps must be installed to the current ADA standards. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 324 Charles Street is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence. The applicant recently acquired the vacant lot immediately east of 324 Charles Street. There is a new two -car wide concrete driveway from Charles Street which serves as access. A partially paved alley runs along the rear (south) property line. The property slopes downward slightly from west to east (side to side). A wood fence is located around a portion of the rear and side yards. The existing fence ranges in height from six (6) feet to eight (8) feet depending on the slope within certain areas. NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 ICON'T. The applicant proposes to replace and extend portions of the existing fence and construct new fence sections, as noted on the attached site plan. The new fence sections and extensions of existing fence sections will maintain the same heights as the existing fence. The existing fence along the west side property line is approximately seven (7) to eight (8) feet in height. The fence along the south (rear) property line is six (6) to seven (7) feet in height. The fence along the east side property line which will be replaced with a new fence constructed along the new east side property line of the vacant lot is seven (7) to eight (8) feet in height. No portion of the existing or proposed fencing is located between the front building setback line and the front property line. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows fences in residential zoning to have a maximum height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the fencing to exceed the maximum height allowed. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels the request is reasonable given the slope of the property. As noted previously, portions of the existing fence are located seven (7) to eight (8) feet above grade. It appears that this fence height has had no negative impact on the adjacent properties. Staff feels that replacing and extending the existing fence as proposed by the applicant will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. No portion of the fence must exceed eight (8) feet in height as measured from the grade of the low side of the fence. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 28, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. October 18, 2005 Little Rock Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Variance Request Dear Ladies/Gentlemen: denise na mcmathlaw.com My wife and I reside at 324 Charles St., which is located on Lots 6 & 7 of Block 8 of Midland Hills Addition to the City of Little Rock. Prior to September of 2004, we owned Lot 6 and the west 10 feet of Lot 7. In September of 2004, we purchased the remainder (40 feet) of Lot 7. I enclose herewith a copy of our deeds and the survey of this property. There is an existing privacy fence surrounding a portion of our property. I understand that this fence was installed in approximately 1982 (we purchased this property in 1992). It is, in certain locations, currently above the 6 -foot height limit. Between Lot 6 and Lot 5, the fence does not exceed 6 feet above the grade of Lot 5, but does, for the most part at least, exceed this height as to the grade of Lot 6. At places this fence is 6 feet above the grade of Lot 6 and at other places it is as much as 8 feet above the grade of Lot 6. Our request for a variance would allow us to replace this section of privacy fence at its current height, and extend it to the back property line and to the front corner of our house. At the front corner of the house, the fence would turn and attach to the front of the house, but we do not propose to exceed 6 feet on the portion of the fence facing Charles St. There is also a privacy fence that runs along the back portion of the two Lots we own. We would like to replace that portion of the fence at its current height and extend it to the rear corner of Lot 7. In most places, this fence does not exceed 6 feet above the grade of the back portion of Lots 6 & 7. Again, we would replace it at its current height. The existing section of fence between the west 10 feet of Lot 7 and the remaining 30 feet of Lot 7 also exceeds the height limit in certain places. We would like to relocate that fence at its present height (7 feet in places) to the lot line between Lots 7 and 8. Again, this would involve a variance to allow this fence to exceed 6 feet in most places. Since 1953, a tradition of aggressive, creative and ethical representation. --7 PHILLIP H. McMATH 7STREET SMcMATH BRUCE LITTLE 411 A T /Z/AX50-375118 MART PAUL HARRISON 140 A, SAMUEL E. LEDBETTER www.mcmathlaw.com SANDRASANDERS iO11 CHARLES D. HARRISON =0RNevs AT LAW® SAMUEL E. LEDBETTER Direct No. 501-396-5405 sam@mcmathlaw.com SIDNEY S. McMATH (1912-2003) DENISE REEVES HENRY WOODS (1918-2002) Legal Assistant WINSLOW DRUMMOND (1933-2005) 501-396-5410 October 18, 2005 Little Rock Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Variance Request Dear Ladies/Gentlemen: denise na mcmathlaw.com My wife and I reside at 324 Charles St., which is located on Lots 6 & 7 of Block 8 of Midland Hills Addition to the City of Little Rock. Prior to September of 2004, we owned Lot 6 and the west 10 feet of Lot 7. In September of 2004, we purchased the remainder (40 feet) of Lot 7. I enclose herewith a copy of our deeds and the survey of this property. There is an existing privacy fence surrounding a portion of our property. I understand that this fence was installed in approximately 1982 (we purchased this property in 1992). It is, in certain locations, currently above the 6 -foot height limit. Between Lot 6 and Lot 5, the fence does not exceed 6 feet above the grade of Lot 5, but does, for the most part at least, exceed this height as to the grade of Lot 6. At places this fence is 6 feet above the grade of Lot 6 and at other places it is as much as 8 feet above the grade of Lot 6. Our request for a variance would allow us to replace this section of privacy fence at its current height, and extend it to the back property line and to the front corner of our house. At the front corner of the house, the fence would turn and attach to the front of the house, but we do not propose to exceed 6 feet on the portion of the fence facing Charles St. There is also a privacy fence that runs along the back portion of the two Lots we own. We would like to replace that portion of the fence at its current height and extend it to the rear corner of Lot 7. In most places, this fence does not exceed 6 feet above the grade of the back portion of Lots 6 & 7. Again, we would replace it at its current height. The existing section of fence between the west 10 feet of Lot 7 and the remaining 30 feet of Lot 7 also exceeds the height limit in certain places. We would like to relocate that fence at its present height (7 feet in places) to the lot line between Lots 7 and 8. Again, this would involve a variance to allow this fence to exceed 6 feet in most places. Since 1953, a tradition of aggressive, creative and ethical representation. .-b7cMatli. Woods P.A.P` Little Rock Board of Adjustment October 18, 2005 Page 2 Finally, we are building a new carport and plan to build a fence along a portion of the front of Lot 7 facing Charles St. We intend to keep this fence within the height restriction, which I understand is 6 feet so long as it is set back 25 feet from the front property line. Enclosed with this letter is an application for zoning variance, a check in the amount of $80.00 and a drawing that reflects where the existing fence would be replaced, where it would be extended and where it would be relocated, and the respective heights we request. I respectfully request a variance on fence height restriction where applicable to accomplish this. Should you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sinc Samuel er SEL/dr Enclosures Since 1953, a tradition of aggressive, creative and ethical representation. NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-7960 Owner: Michael Stewart Applicant: Richard S. Harp Address: 1832 N. Cleveland Street Description: Lot 1 and the north Y2 of Lot 2, Block 7, Forest Park Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow an addition with a reduced rear setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 1832 N. Cleveland Street is occupied by a one- story frame single family residence. The property is located on the southwest corner of N. Cleveland Street and "R" Street. There is a short access drive from "R" Street leading to a carport on the north side of the residence. There is a swimming pool in the rear yard along the south property line. Some work is being done on the rear (west end) of the residential structure in preparation for a new building addition. The applicant is proposing to construct a one-story 40 foot by 22.4 foot addition to the rear of the existing residential structure, as noted on the NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) attached site plan. The proposed addition will be located approximately 7.5 feet from the north (side) property line and nine (9) feet from the west (rear) property line. The addition will be approximately 6.5 feet from the pool structure. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 25 foot rear setback for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the building addition with a nine (9) foot rear setback. The addition's proposed side setback and separation from the pool conform to ordinance requirements. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff believes the proposed addition will not be out of character with similar additions and lot coverages which have occurred in this area over the past several years. The applicants have submitted a letter from the property owner immediately west supporting the proposed building addition. The letter is attached for Board of Adjustment review. Staff feels the variance request is reasonable, and the proposed building addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 28, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. Mr. Monte Moore Variance Zoning City of Little Rock October 18, 2005 Mr. Moore: I am the builder for a proposed remodel and addition for Michael and Ayasha Stewart located at 1832 N. Cleveland. We are asking for relief of a required 25 foot setback in the rear yard. The Stewarts love their neighborhood, but need more room in their little home. After three hard years of trying, the Stewarts are now expecting the birth of their first of 2 or 3 children in spring 2006. Given the narrow width of the lot and half of another lot that this house and pool are located, there are only two real options for expansion. We could build a second floor with lots of retrofitting, but the Stewarts do not want stairs, nor do they want to be out of character with the rest of the single story homes in the area. This option would also be nearly cost prohibitive per foot given the need to bring structural concerns on the existing home up to code to support a live second story load. The second option would be to aesthetically add an addition into the back yard. A modest plan to add a "master suite" is shown on the attached plans. This area would not depend on the existing structure's strength, and would give the Stewarts the extra room they desperately need, along with the ability to stay in their house and the neighborhood they love. Without the extra building area allowed in the back yard, there is simply not enough land on this small combination of two lots. We would like to avoid razing the entire structure, as we have seen in other examples in the area, but still maintain the look and feel of the current home. In visiting with neighbors, the Stewarts have received kudos for their planned addition. They have also enclosed a copy of a letter from the affected neighbor to the west, indicating her support of the project. I am asking for assistance as to how to remedy or excuse this planned infraction on the building setback. I hope to hear back from you soon. I may be contacted at (501) 690- 4277. FTha"u for yo r ti e, Harp Homes, 17200 Chenal Parkway, Ste. 300, PMB 356 Little Rock, AR 72223 007-17-05 MON 03,30 PM FAX NO P. 01 Paige Perritt x82;3 North McKinley Little Rocky AR 722207 n:1832 North Cleveland Addition To Whom It May Concern: October 12, 2005 zS :2-- 7 '�6 C I ana an immediate neighbor of Michael and AyaSha Stewart by way of our backyards adjoining. The Stewarts have discussed with me their plans for an addition extending,from the rear of their house. I completely support their plans for #his addition and understand their need for more space since Mrs. Stewart is expecting their first child. The Stewarts are wonderfulneighbors, and I sun very excited that they have decided to remain my neigbbors instead of moving to accommodate the new addition to their family. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the aforementioned address. Respectfully, TAY,M4 Paige Penitt PP NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-7961 Owner: Fritzi Drew Barnes Applicant: James Fell Address: 1905/1907 N. Polk Street Description: East side of N. Polk Street, between Kavanaugh Blvd. And "R" Street Zoned: R-4 Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested to allow the parking of a commercial trailer on residential property. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Duplex Proposed Use of Property: Duplex and Parking for a Commercial Trailer STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-4 zoned property at 1905/1907 N. Polk Street is occupied by a one- story brick and frame duplex structure. There is an alley along the east property line which is used for vehicular access to the property. There is a non -paved parking area for the duplex in the rear yard of the property. On August 29, 2005 the city's Enforcement Staff observed an enclosed commercial trailer parked in the rear yard of the property as the result of a citizen complaint. The trailer is 14 to 16 feet long and has "Pepperidge Farms" logos and advertising on the sides. A courtesy notice was issued to James NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) Fell to cease parking the commercial trailer on the residential property, as per Section 36-512 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. On August 30, 2005 Mr. Fell submitted a letter to staff appealing the courtesy notice. Staff was unable to approve the appeal. On September 27, 2005 a warning notice was issued to Mr. Fell based on the fact that the trailer was still parked on the property and an appeal had not been filed with the Board of Adjustment by the filing deadline for the October meeting. Mr. Fell did subsequently file and is appealing the administrative denial to the Board of Adjustment. The applicant, James Fell, is requesting an appeal of the notices and administrative denial in order to park the commercial trailer on the residential property at 1905/1907 N. Polk Street. The Heights Neighborhood Association was notified of the public hearing. The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine if it is appropriate to allow the parking of the above described commercial vehicle on the R-4 zoned property at 1905/1907 N. Polk Street. As noted above, Mr. Fell was issued the notice for violation of Section 36-512 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Section 36-512 reads as follows: "Sec. 36-512. Commercial vehicle parking (prohibited). (a) Except as provided herein, no portion of any lot, tract or parcel of land zoned for residential usage, including districts "R-1" through "R -7a" and "MF -6" through "MF -24", shall be utilized for the parking of commercial vehicles with a load carrying capacity of one (1) ton or greater. (b) For the purposes of this section, the following types of vehicles are expressly prohibited at any time. (1) All commercial tow vehicles or vehicle carriers. (2) Dump trucks, trash haulers, bulldozers and other earth haulers or excavation equipment. (3) Flatbed or stake bed trucks. (4) Trailers whose designed intent is storage or transport of material or equipment. (5) Trucks or buses used in inter -or -intrastate commerce. (6) Vans of one (1) ton or greater in load -carrying capacity. (7) School or church buses or vans of one (1) ton or greater in load -carrying capacity. (8) Street sweepers and vehicle -mounted vacuum devices intended for the cleaning of streets or parking lots." NOVEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 28, 2005) James Fell, Fritzi Barnes and Thad Wells were present, representing the application. There were two (2) persons present in opposition. Staff presented the application. James Fell addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that he has parked the trailer on the site for three (3) years. He noted that the tenant in the other half of the duplex had a large bucket truck which probably caused the initial citizen complaint. Fritzi Barnes also addressed the Board in support. She explained that Mr. Fell needed to park the trailer at the residence in conjunction with his job. Thad Wells, owner of the trailer, also addressed the Board in support. He also noted that Mr. Fell had parked the trailer at this location for three (3) years. He explained that the trailer was parked discretely behind the duplex structure. Chairman Francis asked Mr. Wells if he had other trailers. Mr. Wells noted that he had one (1) other trailer in Conway. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked where the trailer is loaded. Mr. Wells explained that they meet a semi truck in Benton each week to load the trailers. Trudie Cromwell, vice-president of the Heights Neighborhood Association, addressed the Board in opposition to the appeal. She noted that the Heights Neighborhood Action Plan addressed maintaining the residential nature of the area. She stated that if one person were allowed to park a commercial vehicle in a residential area others would probably follow. She noted that the trailer could probably be parked on the Kroger parking lot to the west. Kathy Johnson, President of the Heights Neighborhood Association, also addressed the Board in opposition. She explained that her association was opposed to the appeal. There was a brief discussion of the requested appeal and other possible locations in the area to park the trailer. There was a motion to approve the requested appeal. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent. The appeal was denied. Department of Planning & Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 James Fell 1905 N. Polk Street Little Rock, AR 72205 August 30, 2005 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter regarding the courtesy notice that ordered me to "remove and cease future placement of the Pepperidge Farm trailer" at my residence. I would like to request an appeal regarding this since use of the trailer i§ -directly related to my livelihood. I am a vendor and must use the trailer in order to perform my job. I park the trailer in the back of the property so that it is not obstructing the front area of the street and it is not visible to the general public. I am requesting a reconsideration or to file a variance or appeal- whatever options may be available to me. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. i Sincerely, r4y"Q James Fell (501) 612-9243 CU UL. 1� ) O U W W F— O F— z E F— cn D O Q � LL O o Q e co H c� L 0 CD CCW G z Q U) m Q z w U) m a LU z 14 D elf W W % _ O z W W m Z Q LL W z W Q (n zQ _o W z O of m :D Q Q J F- IL In November 28, 2005 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m. Date: ( Z/ f - l''os Chairman