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