The URL can be used to link to this page

boa_11 29 2004LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES NOVEMBER 29, 2004 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 25, 2004 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present: Members Absent Fred Gray, Chairman Andrew Francis, Vice Chairman David Wilbourn Terry Burruss Debra Harris City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT leTel:1111142 NOVEMBER 29, 2004 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEM: A. Z -6773-A 2400 Cantrell Road B. Z -7467-A 18 Greathouse Bend Drive II. NEW ITEMS 1. Z-7461 -A 2300 Country Club Lane 2. Z-7742 NE Corner of Thayer Street and Maryland Avenue 3. Z-7743 1812 N. Monroe Street 4. Z-7744 14709 Colonel Glenn Road 5. Z-7745 20 Dartmouth Drive 6. Z-7746 10 Noyant Court 7. Z-7747 5804 Scenic Drive 8. Z-7749 2120 N. VanBuren Street 9. Z-7750 215 N. Cross Street 10. Z-7751 35 Tallyho Lane 11. Z-7752 73 Wellington Colony Drive 12. Z-7753 106 Fountain Drive 13. Z-7754 500 President Clinton Avenue 14. Z-7755 5124 Crestwood Road 15. Z-7756 608-610 President Clinton Avenue 16. Z-7757 215 Markham Center Drive 0 0 V, N N • 3NId — a31ZVad nnva[Hl ^ ` CV - d�oy T W w gON� NtlWa30 U o M i � o NIVq AVMOV088 H3av Noi/vo N �S3H3 z 83H380 s o 0 d Q ONIN IN � � � \RpNtoN N — �o �MOa000M g 3NId 00M - `v � 133y1s 3NId z HObb av0 0 NO1lIWV 11005 y y m s S�NrydS m • h i �Jj� Na d 81V3 y�J � A11S83NNn AlIS63AINn SONIdds 8309 v (/� 53H0nHEE O IddISS m a s tea' 1031H3 i �p 81On83S38 M088tl8 NHOf 3 ✓ Q lit 1 3NN13H LO _ o 9a 31 3V S Oa033lN0VHS o SIOaVS — W WVHatld A3N00a NV 09 s — h s11WIl A11O x 3001a AWIn OJ��b1S OReR 4-j Q) � GR H w � 40 r Nvnnlns Vl lavM3ls O h COQ S11WIl A113 O 70 3ltlONa33 /�-� 0 NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z -6773-A Owner: Gus Blass III Applicant: Cuerden Sign company Address: 2400 Cantrell Road Description: North side of Cantrell Road, east of Riverfront Drive Zoned: 1-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 554 and 36-557 to permit more projecting signs than allowed and the permanent use of banner signs. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Restaurant and Office/Warehouse Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant and OfficeMarehouse STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The 1-3 zoned property at 2400 Cantrell Road is occupied by a multi -building office/warehouse development. There are three (3) large office/warehouse buildings oriented east/west on the property. There is a smaller building oriented north/south along the west property line. Cajun's Restaurant is located in the west end of the northernmost east/west building. There is a main entry drive from Cantrell Road at the southwest corner of the property. Access to the rear (northernmost) building is by way of the driveway at the west end of the two (2) southern east/west buildings. The applicant proposes to mount three (3) banner signs permanently on the west end of the each of the two southernmost buildings, for a total of six (6) NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) banner signs. The signs would advertise Cajun's Restaurant, with each banner being approximately 8 feet by 4 feet in size. The banner signs would be interchangeable and mounted to metal brackets (frames) attached to the buildings. The metal frames would extend approximately 3.5 feet above the roof line of each building. Each banner sign will be lighted by way of gooseneck light fixtures at the top of each metal frame. In addition to the banner signs, the applicant is also making upgrades in the landscaped areas (including accent lighting) along the access drive leading to the restaurant. Section 36-554(a)(2)c of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows only one (1) projecting sign per occupancy, not to exceed 12 square feet in area for industrial zoned property. Section 36-557(d) limits the placement of banner signs to four (4) events in a calendar year, with a limit of six (6) weeks per event, for a total of 24 weeks. The applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the six (6) projecting signs for Cajun's Restaurant, and the permanent use of banner signs. Staff is not supportive of the variances as requested. Staff cannot support the variances due to the fact that the banner sign will advertise a specific business within the development, and that they will extend above the roofline of the buildings. Staff has supported variances for the permanent use of banner signs in the past (1001 S. Bowman Road and 12309 Chenal Parkway), with certain conditions. Those conditions included the banner sign being for identification of the overall development only, that there be no wording on the banner signs which advertises a specific business, sale/promotion, merchandise or product line, and that they be removed or replaced if damaged. Staff could support the banner sign for this location under these conditions and with the frames being located below the roofline of the buildings. Staff feels that the requested use of banner signs is not reasonable and would be unfair to the other businesses located within this development. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the sign variances, as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 25, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the November 29, 2004 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the November 29, 2004 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) D. Staff Update: On November 3, 2004 the Planning Staff met with the owner of Cajun's Restaurant to discuss concerns related to the proposed banner signage at 2400 Cantrell Road. As a result of the meeting, the application has been revised to satisfy staff's concerns. A copy of the letter revising the application is attached for Board of Adjustment review. The application has been revised as follows: 1. Reduce the number of permanent banner signs to four (4). The banner signs will have messages on the front and back of each banner. Goose neck lighting will illuminate both sides of each banner. 2. Cajun's Wharf name will not exceed 10 percent of each sign face. 3. The banner signs will not extend above the roof lines of the buildings. The architectural structure of the signs may extend above the roof lines. 4. The property owner will restrict other tenants in the complex from applying for similar signage. 5. The banner and messages will be changed out when it becomes necessary for maintenance/repair or seasonally for special events. Creative, attractive artwork will be viewed similar in scope to the examples attached. Staff is supportive of the application as revised. Staff feels that the application as revised is reasonable and will have no negative impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Staff feels that the banner signage and improved lighting will aid in identifying the restaurant and improving the entry way into the business within this large warehouse complex. E. Revised Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the revised application, subject to the following conditions: 1. There will be a maximum of four (4) permanent banner signs, with messages on both sides illuminated with goose neck fixtures. 2. The "Cajun's Wharf' name will not exceed 10% of each sign face. 3. The banners will not extend above the roof lines of the buildings. The sign frames/architectural features may extend above the roof lines. 4. No other permanent banner signs will be allowed within this complex. 5. The banners will have designs similar to examples submitted by the applicant. 6. If any of the banner signs become damaged, they must be immediately removed or replaced. 7. A sign permit must be obtained for each sign. 3 NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) 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. M A1W r INCORPOPATM Serving Arkansas Since 1920 PO Box 187 Conway AR 72032-0187 www.cscsigns.com email:cuerden@swbell.net (501) 329-6317 Fax (501) 327-3438 (800) 844-3155 September 24, 2004 Monty Moore City of Little Rock 701 West Markham Little Rock AR Re Capital Park/Cajun's Wharf Variance Application Dear Mr. Moore, Enclosed please find our application for a variance to allow projecting signs at the Capital Park property on Cantrell Road in Little Rock. 4 We respectfully request a variance due to the face that projecting signs are not allowed in the sign ordinance, and placing the signs flat on the building would make them unreadable due to the proximity of the drive -way in relation to the elevations. Capital Properties has carefully crafted a very unique entrance to Cajun's Wharf, and the projecting banners are a key architectural element to the design. The banners would be primarily promotional in nature, similar to what many cities do on street light -poles along their rights of way. In addition to the signs Capital Properties is to install bollard style lights to help create a safe park like atmosphere. While the city has spent substantial sums of money to create a safe pedestrian friendly atmosphere at the Riverfront, it is necessary for private property owners to fund similar efforts elsewhere, and that is the intent of this project. As I mentioned the projecting banners would be seasonal and changed periodically. The banners are illuminated to enhance the nighttime atmosphere and pedestrian safety of the area. Enclosed please find a site plan showing the proposed improvements, and drawings of the proposed banners, there will be six banners, three on the west end of the two buildings on the right hand side of the drive into the north parking area of the complex. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 501 329 6317. Thank you for your assistance in the matter. Sign Co., Inc. November 8, 2004 Mr. Monte Moore J_ 10, 4 r_ -x -7-73-r4 Zoning and Enforcement Administrator City of Little Rock Planning 723 West Markham Street Little Rock AR 72201-1334 Dear Monte, Thank you for taking the time to visit with me on Wednesday. As per our discussion I wanted to amend the original application for the banner signs at Cajun's Wharf located at 2400 Cantrell Road. The following are the substantive points upon which I believe we all agreed: 1) Reduce the number of permanently affixed banner styled signs from eight to four. This would actually allow for front and back sign faces on each of the four signs. Goose neck lighting would shine on both sides of the sign. faces. 2) Insure that the Cajun's Wharf name would not exceed 10% of the sign face. 3) Insure that the actual banner sign does not protrude over the top of the building. Although, it is allowed that the architectural structure of the sign might extend higher than the building. 4) Agree that the property owner, Capital Properties, LLC and Gus Blass III will restrict the other tenants in the complex from applying similar signage. 5) It is agreed that by the nature of the design, it is our intension to change out the banners and messages when it becomes necessary for maintenance or repair as well as seasonally when bringing attention to an event. It is our intension to use creative, attractive art work that is similar in scope to the samples attached. Again, thank you for working with us on this project. We certainly appreciate your efforts to help devise a plan that will satisfy our need for better lighting and entry -way image. Sincerely, MaryeB h Rin President 2,400 Cantrell Road • Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 • Telephone 501-375-5351 • Fax 501-375-5354 www.cajunswharf.com Af E .S .... 7"" r ... , I'L F I L � lot �•J.,plow MAO Y C. M Q 10 c I 0 OF r a A ht 7 e Y , i. i i S,t,•--_ d vim w�.''7 .. `..: �1•ad�' r t 03Sit lw^1S ou C �'AV� A.. S�.-,,t:.: h�y� t' .,"� r.�•d+i: !r�-r .-�; w.._ ..,. �.'�.•....,�. :?a:ky ' M T.h�-� �M 1 S ✓ .c1 sear v think Cajuns for eve nt.- CA U Ns WHARF NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z -7467-A Owner: James Raczynski and Martha Phillips Address: 18 Greathouse Bend Drive Description: Lot 23, Greathouse Bend Estates Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the height provisions of Section 36-254 to permit a single family structure which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residence under construction. Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 18 Greathouse Bend Drive is occupied by a three- story rock and stucco single family structure which is in the process of being constructed and nearing completion. A driveway from a rear access easement will serve as access to the property. The property slopes downward from back to front (south to north). The new house is located within the east half of the property, with a detached garage structure within the west half. The garage is connected to the principal structure by an unenclosed breezeway. The garage structure is located approximately 53 feet back from the front property line. On August 25, 2003 the Board of Adjustment granted a front setback variance for the detached garage at the west end of the residence. At that same meeting, the Board denied a requested height variance. The applicants proposed to construct a new single family residence on the property. The structure was to have two (2) main levels, with a finished basement level and an observation level (4th story). The building had an overall height of 42 feet, NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) as measured from the finished floor of the basement to the mean roof line of the observation level. After the Board denial of the height variance, the applicants decided to proceed with construction of the residence and not finish out the basement level. With the basement level being unfinished, the overall height of the structure complies with ordinance standards. The overall height is less than 35 feet as measured from the first level finished floor to the mean roof line of the observation level. The applicants are back before the Board requesting another height variance, based on the fact that they now wish to finish out the basement level of the structure. Section 36-254(c ) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum building height of 35 feet for R-2 zoned property. As noted previously, the building will have an overall height of approximately 42 feet if the basement level is finished out, as measured from the finished floor of the basement to the mean roof line of the observation level. Staff supports the variance request. Staff views the requested variance as very minor in nature. The topography of the lot and the fact that the applicants wish to finish out the basement level of the structure, dictate the way that the building height is calculated. The height variance in this case is only a technical issue in how the overall height is calculated. As far as the overall height of the structure is concerned, there will be no physical changes from what exists on the site at this time. Staff believes allowing the basement level to be finished will not affect the impact of the structure on adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 25, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the November 29, 2004 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the November 29, 2004 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 NOVEMBER 29, 2004 20MI[*7■ .11 WrCelI a I BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter to staff requesting that the application be withdrawn without prejudice. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn, without prejudice, by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 y � V Proposal for Zoning Variance Located at Lot 23, Greathouse Send Estates Phase H in the City of the Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. . Presented by General Partners of FC Enterprises, Inc. Justin Cleveland and Chuck Wiser September 24, 2004 EC Enterprises, Inc. 1 Pinehurst Circle Little Rock, AR 72212 Page 1 Zoning Variance Summary The following document represents the proposal for (1) Zoning Variance for the property located at #18 Greathouse Bend Drive. Acting on behalf of the property owners, James H. Raczynski & Martha M. Phillips; .FC Enterprises is requesting 1 zoning variance. The variance deals with the proposed height of the single-family dwelling. Height Variance: It has been communicated to FC Enterprises that the maximum height of a single-family dwelling is 35 feet. Due to the topography of the property and the fact that the property is being constructed with the intent to `view` the Arkansas river, the property owners built a house that includes a basement, 2 levels and an observation tower. The basement, if finished out, would cause the house to exceed the maximum height 35 feet. The final height would be approximately 41 feet. However, since the basement is not .finished out, it currently remains in compliance with 'the all city code and zoning restrictions. With that said, the property owners would like to propose this zoning variance to allow them to finish the living space that is currently the basement. The structure already exists and the proposal would allow the basement to become another - living area in the house. Paae 2 l NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z-7461 -A Owner: Sidney M. Thom Living Trust — Sidney M. Thom, Trustee Address: 2300 Country Club Lane Description: Lot 7 and 8, Block 11, Country Club Heights Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence/wall provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a wall which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. The proposed fence is shown to be in an abandoned alley right-of-way. No comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 2300 Country Club Lane is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from Country Club Lane which serves as access. On September 29, 2003 the Board of Adjustment approved variances associated with a room/garage addition at the northwest corner of the home. The addition is under construction and nearing completion. As part of the new building construction, the applicants have constructed a 7 foot -3 inch tall masonry wall along the rear property line, at the southwest corner of the property. The new wall runs for approximately 25 feet along the rear property line and will enclose a small garden area. Masonry columns associated with the new wall extend approximately one (1) foot higher than the main wall structure. NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) Section 36-516(d)(e)1. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence/wall height of six (6) feet along interior lot lines. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the 7'3" wall height. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the variance request as very minor. The wall as proposed will not be out of character with other fences and walls in this general area. The last section of wall at the southwest corner of the property does not exceed the maximum height as allowed by ordinance. Staff feels that this short wall section that exceeds the maximum height allowed will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence/wall variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) Sidney and Emily Thom were present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Emily Thom addressed the Board in support of the application. She explained the wall construction, noting that the residents to the west considered the wall an asset. She explained the topography of the lot. She also explained the existing wall height and stated that it enhanced the neighborhood. Andrew Francis asked about the slope of the lot. Mrs. Thom explained that the southwest corner of the lot was the lowest point and had been filled in over the years. Diane Lord addressed the Board in opposition. She explained concerns with the wall height. She also discussed the change in grade between her property and the Thom's property. There was a brief discussion about the new wall section to fill the gap between the new wall and the existing wood fence along the Thom's south property. Staff indicated an understanding that the filler section would have a maximum height of six (6) feet with a column extending one (1) foot higher. This issue was discussed further. There was some discussion as to whether the existing fence along the Thom's south property line was actually on the property line or on Mrs. Lord's property. In 2 NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) response to a question from Andrew Francis, Deborah Weldon, City Attorney, stated that the Board could not address a property dispute. This issue was discussed further. There was additional lengthy discussion related to the filler wall section. Mrs. Thom explained that it was their intent to construct the filler section to be the same height as the existing wood fence along their south property line, with a column extending no more than one (1) foot higher. It was determined that the filler section needed to be approximately 7 feet-4inches in height. Chairman Gray noted that a variance would be needed for the filler section and explained. Chairman Gray asked Mrs. Lord if she objected to the filler section being the same height as the existing wood fence. Mrs. Lord asked about the angled wall section. Mrs. Thom explained that they planned to raise this wall section in order to hide an existing wood fence to the west. It was determined that the angled section would need to be raised 5 to 7 brick courses. Chairman Gray explained that the angled section would also have a height approximately the same as the existing wood fence along the Thom's south property line. There was additional discussion of this issue. Staff summarized the requested wall construction as follows: 1. The existing two (2) wall sections along the west property line and existing four (4) columns would remain as is. 2. The angled wall section would be increased in height (probably 5 to 7 brick courses) to match the height of an existing wood fence to its west. 3. The new filler wall section would be no taller than the existing wood fence along the Thom's south property line (approximately 7 feet-4inches), with one (1) additional column extending no more than one (1) foot higher. Chairman Gray asked Mrs. Lord if she was clear on the wall issue as explained and summarized by staff. Mrs. Lord stated that she was clear on the issue. She stated that she did not want the new column to exceed the height of the existing wood fence. She stated that she did not want this wall construction to set a precedence for future additional wall sections along the Thom's south property line. Mrs. Thom officially amended the application to include height variances for the filler wall section with column, and the increase in the height of the angled section. There was a motion to approve the revised application, as summarized by staff and noted above. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The revised application was approved. 3 SIDNEY M. THOM 2300 Country Club Lane Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 TO: Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FROM: Sidney M. and Emily S. Thom Re: Application for Residential Zoning Variance Date: October 22, 2004 2- 7 We respectfully request your consideration and approval of our application for zoning variance at 2300 Country Club Lane. We have resided at this address for 33 years and have recently constructed an addition to accommodate physical limitations. Architectural landscape plans have been drawn to include a brick wall in the garden area at the rear, or West, boundary of our property and extending east on the South boundary approximately 21 feet. This wall is the exact height of an 33 year old existing brick wall which is 12 feet in length. These two are joined by a brick column built by our West neighbors. After consultation with adjohng property owners, a Charleston style wall has been constructed as per the enclosed, and enlarged, survey. Fences of brick, stone, wood and cyclone run the entire length of Country Club Lane from Country Club Blvd (South boundary) to the Northern end of the street. These walls vary in heighth from five (5) feet to eight (8) feet. representing eleven common property owners . The natural topography of the property in this block is a gradual decline from the North end of Country Club Lane to the South. Fill was required in the original building plat some 70 years ago to create level building sites. Upon our purchase of the property 34 years ago, grade was brought up to level the back yard. The current grade has been in existence for 34 years and creates a more gradual fall. A wooden fence was erected 33 years ago down the South and Vest boundaries with heights ranging from five (5) feet to six and one-half (6 Y2) feet in order to accommodate the natural fall of the property and to maintain a reasonable height. Our neighbors on the West intend to use the back side of our new brick wall as a landscape feature at the end of their driveway. The new brick wall has a height of seven (7) feet three (3) inches and the older brick wall is the same. From the enlarged survey, you can see the angled portion of the wall which was done to accommodate a large tree stump. Re: Variance Request, 2300 Country Club Lane Thom Page 2 We are requesting a wall height of six feet for approximately four (4) feet from the Southwest corner column indicated on the survey. This height will match the height of a 33 year old wooden fence from our historical and existing grade and tie into the existing wooden fence. An additional column with brick wall will be constructed approximately four (4) feet from the currently constructed column on the South side. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Sidney M. Tho Emily S. Thom Enclosures NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z-7742 Owner: Reed Family Limited Partnership Address: Northeast corner of Thayer Street and Maryland Avenue Description: Lots 4-6, Block 13, Capital Hill Extension Addition Zoned: 1-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 320 to allow new building construction with reduced front setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Warehouse STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Existing right-of-way width is adequate for the proposed commercial use. 2. With building permit, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Thayer Street including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. Public Works would support a waiver for Maryland Street improvements. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right- of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield). 4. Storm water detention will not apply to the proposed development. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: A small amount of building landscaping is required by the Landscape Ordinance. This landscaping must be between the public parking area and structure or within the general area. Considerable flexibility is allowed with this requirement. NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) A six-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden, fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the eastern perimeter where adjacent to residential property. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide detailed landscape plans in compliance with buffer and landscape ordinance requirements. C. Staff Analysis: The 1-2 zoned property at the northeast corner of Thayer Street and Maryland Avenue is currently undeveloped and covered with high grass and weeds. The 1-630 overpass is located immediately to the north. A drainage ditch runs along the north property line. The applicant proposes to construct a one-story warehouse building on the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed warehouse building will be located 25 feet from the front (west) property line, 15 to 34 feet from the side property lines and 25 feet from the rear property line. A driveway is proposed from Thayer Street, accessing a 10 -space paved parking lot located on the west and north sides of the L-shaped warehouse building. Section 36-320(e)(1) of The City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 50 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement. The side and rear setbacks, as proposed, conform to the minimum ordinance requirements. Staff is supportive of the requested setback variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The industrial buildings across Thayer Street to the west have minimal setbacks from their respective front property lines. Additionally, staff feels that this project represents a good infill development, which may trigger the development and redevelopment of properties in this area. Staff believes the proposed building with reduced front setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. 2 NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of this report. 2. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of this report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) 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. 91 October 20,2004 Board of Adjustment City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development RE: lots 4,5 &6 of Block 13 of Capitol Hill Extension Addition Request for Variance Board of Adjustment To whom it may concern, --7�-77�-I- I, David Reed represent Reed Family Limited Partnership, owners of lots 4,5,6,7,8,and 9 of Block 13 of Capitol Hill Extension Addition, request the following variances on lots 4,5&6 only (zoned I-2) as follows: l.On lots 4,5 &6 the front yard set back to be reduced from 50'-0" to 25'-0". This request will allow a new warehouse constructed along and parallel to Maryland Avenue. This will create a structural barrier between the proposed warehouse building and the adjacent property to the south across Maryland and will provide not only additional square footage but would conceal the existing business (junk car lot) from view and provide security for the property that I intend to develop. 2. On lot 4 the 30'-0` landscape buffer be abandoned along north property line and the side yard set back be 15'-0" along the north property line of lot 4 (same as south side of lot 6). This buffer serves no use due to its location below the elevated bridge on I-630. Both requests will allow the property to be developed in such a way so as to maximize intended use as a warehouse. Sincerely, David Ree VFN �Ata NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-7743 Owner: Edwin O. Corder, II Address: 1812 N. Monroe Street Description: Part of Lots 53 and 54, Shadowlawn Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a building addition with a reduced side setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Issues B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 1812 N. Monroe Street is occupied by a one-story brick and rock single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from N. Monroe Street which serves as access. A one-story frame garage structure is located at the southwest corner of the property. The applicant proposes to construct a building addition (approximately 10 feet by 35 feet) at the northeast corner of the home. The addition will be one-story in height with a finished attic space. The addition will be located four (4) feet from the side (north) property line and approximately 34 feet from the front (east) property line, behind a 30 foot front platted building line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of six (6) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for the proposed room addition. NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the request is reasonable, and that the proposed side setback will not be out of character with the neighborhood. The existing residential structure to the north is located 10 to 12 feet back from the dividing side property line, with a driveway along the south side of that structure. Therefore, staff feels that 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 29, 2004) 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. oil Edwin 0. Corder 1812 North Monroe Little Rock, AR 72207 September 24, 2004 To Whom It May Concern: I have; lived in my house,for 6 years• and do not wish to move, My, home is approximately 14 S square feet with only 2 bedrooms and 1 bath. Soon the number of occupants will increase from 1 to 4. More space will be necessary. One option is to add on to the back of my house. In this case a variance would not be needed, but I would lose most of my landscaped backyard and the addition would be an obvious "add-on". My other option is to build onto the north side of the house and to complete the upper level. This proposal wall match the or4Wnal exterior and stonemasonry, rnaintainingthe architectural integer try. The neighbors. on the north side of the house, Mr. and Mrs. Slocum Pickell, do not oppose this plan. The shrubs, which are approximately fifty years old, and separate our properties, will not be removed. Maintaining privacy and old Heights charm is my priority. I love my neighbors and my neighborhood. I want to stay here, but I do need this variance to increase my li iing space.. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Edwin 0. Corder, II NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-7744 Owner: Mike and Cathy Christeson Address: 14709 Colonel Glenn Road Description: South side of Colonel Glenn Road, east of Pritchard Mill Road Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a building addition with a reduced rear setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Issues B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 14709 Colonel Glenn Road is occupied by a one- story frame single family residence. A one -car wide gravel drive from Colonel Glenn Road serves as access. There is a one-story frame accessory building near the southeast corner of the property. A six (6) foot high privacy fence is located along the front of the property, parallel to Colonel Glenn Road. The property slopes upward from Colonel Glenn Road (from front to back). The property immediately south has an extreme slope upward to a ridge. The property to the south is significantly higher than the property at 14709 Colonel Glenn Road. The applicants propose to construct a 15 foot by 28 foot room addition on the rear of the residence. The southeast corner of the proposed room addition will be located nine (9) feet from the rear (south) property line. The southwest corner of the addition will be located approximately 24 feet from the rear NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T. property line. The new addition will maintain the same side setback (west side) of approximately eight (8) feet as the existing home. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance for a reduced rear setback for the proposed room addition. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The applicants submitted a letter from the owner of the 35 acres immediately to the south supporting the requested variance. Given the extreme slope of the property to the south, it is likely that no structures will be constructed within several hundred feet of the property at 14709 Colonel Glenn Road. Therefore, staff feels that the requested variance 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 29, 2004) 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. 6 Dear Board of Adjustment members, My name is Mike Christeson and I live, along with my wife, Cathy, our 9 year old daughter, Hannah, two dogs and a cat, at 14709 Col. Glenn Rd. Our house, as it currently stands, has a total square footage of 700. ft., so you may appreciate why we need to enlarge it. One purpose of the proposed addition is to expand the kitchen, which is located in the back [ southern ] portion of the house. We also need a second bathroom and closet space, both of which are most practically located off of the master bedroom, which is also in the back of the house. Because of the shape of the lot [ an unequal triangle with the longest side fronting Col. Glenn ], the area to the back of our house is the only possible direction in which to expand. We have a septic tank on our west side, patios and a driveway to the east and Col. Glenn to the north. Since Col. Glenn is scheduled to be widened, this prevents us from building in that direction. This expansion of Col. Glenn will also make our current driveway the only available place in which to park. Needless to say, we can't build over the septic tank. The area affected by the proposed variance is on a forested hillside contained within some 35 acres of undeveloped land, where it is almost certain that any house built upon it would be erected on the ridge line and not adjacent to our property line. Also, because the property line cuts diagonally across the hillside, it is again unlikely that any house would be built in a location that would place it anywhere near the planned addition. There is already a 12 by 16 ft. storage barn only 1.9 ft. from the line in question and a stone patio with a stone bench only 6 inches from that same line. We believe, for the reasons listed above, and because of the fact that the proposed addition would increase our real estate value [ thus increasing the amount of taxes paid ] and the fact that it would improve the neighborhood in general [ and go a long way toward promoting harmony in our own household ], that a variance should be allowed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mike, Cathy and Hannah Christeson so vi'a NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Owner: Address: Description Zoned: Z-7745 Jesse Smith 20 Dartmouth Drive Lot 72, Kensington Place Addition, Phase I R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a deck addition with a reduced rear setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Issues B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 20 Dartmouth Drive is occupied by a one-story single family residence which is under construction. Foundation work on the structure is nearing completion. There will be a two -car wide driveway from Dartmouth Drive which will serve as access. The lot slopes downward from front to back (south to north) to a drainage ditch which runs along the rear property line. As part of the new home construction, the applicant proposes to construct a 12 foot by 22 foot deck at the northwest corner of the house. The proposed deck will be uncovered and unenclosed, and be located 17.5 feet from the rear (north) property line. The deck will be located approximately six (6) feet above grade. Steps to the deck will be located on the east side of the deck structure, running along the back wall of the house. The steps will be located approximately 23 feet back from the rear property line. NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard for the proposed deck structure. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The variance as requested is very minimal. The single family properties to the north slope upward from the drainage area which runs along the common rear property Fine. The decks on the residences to the north have approximately the same height above grade as the proposed deck. Staff feels that the proposed deck, being uncovered and unenclosed, will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, subject to the deck structure remaining uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 4-o, *- s Jesse Smith 65 Dartmouth Dr Little Rock, AR 72204 501-224-4829 10-1-04 Re: Variance Request 20 Dartmouth Dr Little Rock, AR 72204 To whom it may concern, This is a request for a variance to install a deck and steps at rear of property, by installing this deck it will extend approx. 8 feet inside the rear 25 feet set back line. The property is approx 9 feet below grade at the rear and a deck is needed to get out of back door. Thank you, Jesse Smith NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Owner: Address: Description Zoned: Z-7746 J. Bruce Cross 10 Noyant Court Lot 106, Block 36, Chenal Valley Addition R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a porch addition with a reduced front setback, and which crosses a platted building line. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Issues B. Staff Analysis: Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property lot at 10 Noyant Court is currently undeveloped and wooded. The property has a significant slope downward from front to back (west to east). A 15 foot wide utility easement runs through the center of the property, as noted on the attached sketch. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story single family residential structure on the property. A two -car wide drive from Noyant Court will serve as access. The proposed house will have the appearance of a one-story structure from the street, with a second lower level below the grade of the front yard, because of the slope of the property. The lot is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and has a 25 foot front platted building line. The porch and a small sliver of the front of the house will cross NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) the front platted building line, resulting in a 17 foot front setback. The proposed porch structure will be covered and unenclosed. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow construction of the new house with a reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line. Staff is supportive of the variances associated with the proposed new house construction. Staff feels that the request is reasonable. The excessive slope of the property and the location of the utility easement through the center of the property require that the house be pulled closer to the front property line. Only a small sliver of the front wall of the house will cross the platted building line. The main encroachment will be the front porch. As long as the porch is unenclosed, staff feels that the reduced front setback will have no negative impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the proposed house. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with the new house construction, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The porch must remain unenclosed on the north, south and west sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. 2 NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 © WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 --77 October 13, 2004 Mr. Monte Moore Zoning & Code Enforcement Administrator City of Little Rock Planning Commission 723 W. Markham Road Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Monte, Mr. Bruce Cross, owner of Lot 106, Block 36 in the LaMarche Neighborhood of Chenal Valley, wishes to get on the "Docket" for the November Board of Adjustment meeting. The purpose of his request is to reduce the front building line from 25 ft. to 15 ft. It is his wish not only to move his house forward away from the easement in the middle of his lot, but to shift his house farther to the left to enhance the view from the cul-de-sac. The Chenal Valley architectural Control Committee has already given their approval to this revision. Sin ly, Carl S. Gars Senior Technician CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Owner: Address: Description Zoned: Z-7747 Jenny Smith 5804 Scenic Drive Lot F, Block 3, East Palisades Addition R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a porte-cochere addition with a reduced front setback, and which crosses a platted building line. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Because of the potential for future interference with utility and maintenance operations, Public Works recommends against a zero setback from the right-of-way line. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5804 Scenic Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence with finished basement level. The property slopes downward from front to back (south to north) and side to side (west to east). A circular driveway from Scenic Drive serves as access. The applicant proposes to construct a 9 foot by 14 foot porte-cochere on the front of the house, covering a portion of the circular drive. The proposed porte- cochere will extend to the front property line with a zero front setback. There is a small landscaped area immediately south of the proposed porte-cochere within the street right-of-way. The porte-cochere will be unenclosed on the south, east and west sides. Additionally, this R-2 zoned lot contains a 20 foot front platted building line, which the proposed porte-cochere encroaches upon. NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed porte-cochere addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line. Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. Staff does not view the request as reasonable. As noted in paragraph A. of this report, Public Works notes that the proposed zero front setback would result in the potential for future interference with utility and Public Works street maintenance operations. Additionally, staff's inspection of the area resulted in the observation of no similar encroachments on the single family lots on the north side of Scenic Drive east and west of this property. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the proposed porte-cochere. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested front setback and building line variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) The applicant was not present. Staff recommended deferral of the application to the December 20, 2004 Agenda. A motion was made to defer the application to the December 20, 2004 Agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. 01 1-t- -4f s7 -2-7-7'-/7 November 17, 2004 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 RE: Variance request for 5804 Scenic Drive, Little Rock, AR 72207 I am requesting a variance for my property at 5804 Scenic Drive. I would like to extend the existing carport structure from my front door to the other side of the existing driveway. This will only extend the existing carport structure 14 feet. This will allow me to enter my home under cover when the weather is not permitting. I am a widow who lives alone and this would make me feel much safer getting in and out of my car. Thank you for your consideration. Jenny Smith NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-7749 Creative Heights Partners 2120 N. Van Buren Street Part of Lots 1-3, Block 17, Newton's Addition R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow building additions with reduced rear and side setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Issues B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 2120 N. Van Buren Street is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence which is being remodeled. There is a two -car wide driveway from Country Club Blvd. which serves as access. As part of the remodeling project, a portion of the house at its northwest corner has been removed, and is proposed to be reconstructed along with a large garage/room addition on the rear (west side) of the residential structure. A new covered, unenclosed porch is also proposed on the north side of the house. The proposed garage/room addition will have the appearance of a one-story structure, with a second level within the structure's roofline. As part of the project, the old driveway will be removed, with a new two -car wide drive at the northwest corner of the property to serve the proposed new garage addition. NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) The proposed porch and garage/room addition will have side setbacks (north side) ranging from approximately three (3) feet to nine (9) feet. The addition will have an eight (8) foot setback from the south side property line. The garage/room addition will have a rear setback of four (4) feet, for approximately 20 feet of the addition's width. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of seven (7) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements to allow reduced side and rear setbacks for the proposed porch and garage/room additions. Additionally, an eight (8) foot high wall is proposed to enclose a portion of the south side yard. No variances are needed for the wall based on the fact that it complies with the minimum building setback for the lot. Although staff has no problem with the requested side setback variance, staff does not support the requested rear yard setback of four (4) feet. Staff's support of the side setback variance is based on the fact that Country Club Blvd. has an excessively wide 80 foot right-of-way. The proposed side setback should have no adverse impact on the area. However, staff feels that the requested four (4) foot rear yard represents an overbuilding of the lot. Staff feels that there is ample space within the south side yard to redesign the addition, picking up additional building space and providing the required 25 foot rear setback. Additionally, the existing residence immediately to the south fronts on Country Club Blvd. and has a side yard setback (east side) of approximately five (5) feet. Therefore, minimal separation will exist between the two houses. If the applicant redesigns the proposed addition to provide the required 25 foot rear setback, staff will support the reduced side setback as proposed. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval, subject to no accessory buildings being built on the property. Staff noted that this condition was offered by the applicant thereby changing staff's recommendation to approval. Staff also noted that the property owner immediately to the west submitted a letter of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. 2 NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 Monte Moore Planning and Development Dear Monte, -7-7�i We have bought a home located at 2120 N Van Buren. In order to accommodate our family, we need to build an addition. The house is located on 1.5 lots that measure 75 feet wide by 150 feet deep. In order to maintain the current street appeal to Van Buren and better utilize the lot, we believe the best place for this addition is on the west side or the back of the current house. (Please see survey/drawing). We would like to add a side entry, two car garage at the rear of the house and a third, small garage that would be entered from Country Club at the back comer of the lot. We would like to keep our children from parking on Country Club and Van Buren—both very busy streets. My understanding is this would require a variance to the 25 foot rear yard set back. The third garage would be 4 feet from the property line, however, that garage is only 22 feet wide. The rest of the house would remain 25 feet from the rear property line. I am unsure if this would require a rear coverage variance as well but if it does, we are applying for that as well. We would also like to add a small porch on the north side that might require a variance. The way the house currently sits, it already encroaches the side yard set back to the north. We wouldn't need to encroach any further than the existing structure.(Please see survey/drawing). As always, we would appreciate your advice regarding these requests. Thank you so much. Since rely, PWAAA'L Cathy Pursell ria:. s -o, '04 NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7750 Owner: Gladfelter Properties -Louis Gladfelter Address: 215 N. Cross Street Description: Northeast corner of Cross and Garland Streets Zoned: UU Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the development provisions of Section 36-342.1 associated with an accessory building, building addition and outdoor use. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Restaurant Building Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant with outdoor seating STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. With future building permit, repair or replace any curb, gutter, driveway aprons or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Based upon the size of the expansion proposed, no landscaping upgrade is required. C. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 215 N. Cross Street is occupied by a small one-story restaurant building which is currently vacant. The property is at the northeast corner of Cross Street and Garland Street. Driveways from Cross and Garland Streets serve as access. There is concrete parking on the north, south and west sides of the building. There is also an uncovered, unenclosed wood deck structure on the south side of the building. NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.) The applicant, Adams Catfish and Bar -B -Q, proposes to make several improvements to the property and reoccupy the building as a restaurant. The applicant proposes to construct a 13 foot by 17 foot trellis/sunscreen structure over the existing deck structure and use it for outdoor restaurant seating. The applicant also proposes a 21 foot by 30 foot fenced area (6 foot wood fence) on the north side of the building which will contain a 7'8" x12' wood storage building and a portable smoker. Additionally, a small section of fence is proposed at the southeast corner of the building. The proposed trellis structure will be located 16 feet back from the south property line and 28 feet from the west (Cross Street) property line. The proposed storage building will be located approximately 40 feet from the west (Cross Street) property line. Section 36-342.1(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that all uses within the UU zoning district be inside or enclosed. Section 36-342.1(f)(1) requires that new building construction in the UU district have a zero (0) front setback, built to the front property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the outdoor restaurant seating and portable smoker uses, and to allow the trellis and storage building construction with setbacks from the front (Cross Street) property line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the requested variances and proposed use of the property is reasonable. The existing building is relatively small and its use as a restaurant would be difficult without the additional outdoor seating. Additionally, the placement of the trellis structure and storage building are reasonable based on the fact that the existing building has a 28 foot setback from the front (Cross Street) property line. Staff feels that the applicant's proposal represents a good re -use of this property on the outer edge of the UU zoning district. Staff's support is based on the fact that the dumpster area at the northeast corner of the property be screened and the existing landscaping at the northwest corner of the property being preserved and maintained. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested UU zoning variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A. of this report. 2. The dumpster area at the northeast corner of the property must be screened as per ordinance requirements. 3. The existing landscaped area at the northwest corner of the property must be preserved and maintained. 2 NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) 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. Q October 21, 2004 T4,,--4-1 -2 - 7-25C> Little Rock Planning and. Zoning Commission City Hall Little Rock, AR 72201 Adams Catfish Express and BBQ, Inc., will be opening a permanent place of business in Little Rock at 21.5 N. Cross Street. In order to make the property suitable for my usage 1 would like to have the following additions to the property done. QO In order to promote an urban environment in the downtown area, I would like to build .a sunscreen porch over the existing wood deck. This would allow my patrons to sit outside and eat in a more comfortable atmosphere. Tables and chairs are needed for outdoor seating. Q in order to prevent transients and homeless from bedding down on the property at night and to provide additional security to the property, I would like to erect two privacy fences: one on the southeast corner of the building and the other on the north end of the building. The southeast comer fence would extend eight (8) feet across to the adjacent property line. The north facing fence would extend thirty (30) feet to the north and then twenty-two (22) feet to the east, adjoining an already existing fence on the property line. ® In order to alleviate an already cramped work space at this property, I would like to install a portable storage building (8' x 12') on the north end of the building. This addition will help my business run efficiently. (See attached plans and photograph). ® In order to smoke our barbeque we would need to place a smoker on the north side of the building inside the privacy fence. Jason Adams NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Z-7751 Owner: Arthur and Jeanine Hart Address: 35 Tallyho Lane Description: Lot 212, Foxcroft Fourth Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a porch addition with a reduced front setback, and which crosses a platted building line. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Issues B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 35 Tallyho Lane is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is at the southeast corner of Tallyho Lane and Bugle Court. There is a two -car wide driveway from Bugle Court which serves as access. This single family lot slopes upward from Tallyho Lane, from front to back. The applicants propose to construct a 9 foot by 36 foot covered porch on the front of the residence. The porch will be unenclosed and located approximately 17 feet back from the front (north) property line. Two (2) or three (3) steps will lead from the center of the porch to an existing sidewalk to Tallyho Lane. Additionally, the porch will cross a 25 foot front platted building line by approximately eight (8) feet. NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 10 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12 ( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed porch addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances associated with the proposed porch construction. Staff feels that the proposed unenclosed porch will be compatible with the neighborhood, and give the single family residence more street appeal. The single family residences across Tallyho Lane to the north were developed as per the City's hillside subdivision standards, with front setbacks of approximately 15 feet. Based on this and the fact that the property is at a higher elevation than Tallyho Lane, staff feels that the proposed porch addition will have no negative visual impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the proposed porch addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with the porch addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The porch must remain unenclosed on the north, east and west sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. K October 21, 2004 -751 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR RE: Request for variance from setback Lot 212, Foxcroft Fourth Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Dear Sir or Madam: Jeannine and I are requesting a residential zoning variance to obtain approval to add a porch to the front of our home. The primary purpose of the porch addition is to provide shelter for visitors in inclement weather. At the present time, our home does not provide shelter or a seat at the door for visitors to take off their boots and raincoats. The addition of a porch would provide such shelter. The attached survey outlines the proposed extension of our home for the porch. We plan to add a porch approximately thirty-six feet in width and nine feet in depth. At the present time, the extended portion of our home is one foot off of the twenty-five foot setback. The addition of the porch would encroach on the setback by eight feet, but will still leave approximately twenty-eight and one-half feet from the end of the new porch to the curb. The dimensions of the porch addition are dictated to some extent by the necessity to build something that would be ascetically pleasing as well a functional. The front of our home has two sets of double windows in rooms that are not the same width and we have found it difficult to design a porch that would not cover the width proposed. The proposed porch addition will extend the roofline from the point in the center of the roof parallel to the street equal to the depth of the porch and then the roof will slope as it now does to the edge of the porch. Jeannine and I would appreciate your favorable consideration of our variance request. The porch will provide additional shelter that is needed in inclement weather and will improve the appearance of our home and will be ascetically pleasing to the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration of our request. NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 11 File No.: Z-7752 Owner: Parkinson Building Group, Inc. Address: 73 Wellington Colony Drive Description: Lot 34, Block 13, The Villages of Wellington Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow front steps with a reduced front setback and which cross a platted building line. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Issues B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 73 Wellington Colony Drive is occupied by a two- story brick and stucco single family residence which is under construction and nearing completion. There is a two -car wide shared access drive along the east and south property lines which serve as access to a garage on the rear of the structure. There is a 20 foot front platted building line along the north property line. The existing house is located approximately 23 feet back from the front property line, with the front door being approximately five (5) feet above grade. The applicant proposes to construct an uncovered, unenclosed step structure from the front entrance, which will extend 4.13 feet across the platted building line. This will result in a front setback of approximately 16 feet. NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 11 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed step structure with a reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line. Additionally, an 8 foot high wood fence is proposed to enclose a portion of the yard at the southeast corner of the house. No variances are needed for the fence based on the fact that it complies with the minimum building setbacks for the lot. Staff is supportive of the requested variances associated with the proposed front step structure. Staff views the request as reasonable. There is an existing access easement (20 to 30 feet wide) along the side and rear property lines which limits the amount of buildable area on the lot. Additionally, staff feels that given the design of the home and its placement on the lot, the proposed step design is the best option for the structure. Therefore, staff believes the proposed step structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the proposed step structure. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with the front step structure, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The portion of the step structure extending past the front platted building line must remain uncovered and unenclosed on the north, east and west sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. K NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 11 (CON'T.) The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 ENGINEERING ■ PLANNING s SURVEYING October 21, 2004 The City of Little Rock Board of Adjustments Subject: Request for Zoning Variance 73 Weiington Colony Court, Little Rock, AR 72211 Dear Board Members: MARK E. DAVIS, PE, RLS THOMAS W. CHAMBERS, PE BYRONL. HARRIS, RLS i 4.a,k__._ 4 11 -2— -775 On behalf of Parkinson Building Group, we respectfully submit the attached aplication for a variance from the City of Little Rock's Zoning Ordinace on the subject property. We have two request: The builder is proposing to construct an eight (8) foot privacy fence along the private access drive. Please refer to the attached sketch. A six (6) foot fence is not adequate to provide privacy for the home's master bedroom. Wellington Village Road which runs directly behind this property is aproximately 5 feet above the finished floor of the home. The purchaser of the home is a single parent and is concerned that a pedistrian walking along Wellington Village Road is able to see over a six foot fence and into her master bedroom. The fence will extend from the rear corner of the house to a point 18 inches off the private drive, turn and run parallel along the private drive to a point, turn and tie the the corner of the garage. 2 The builder is proposing the construct stairs for the entrance to the home that will extend four (4) to five (5) feet beyond the front yard setback. The lot slopes from rear to front with approximately five (5) feet of fall. The front poorch is elevated above the front yard and will require eight (8) to nine (9) steps. In addition to the slope of the lot, the lot is also challenged by its size and shape. The buildable area is 45.32 feet wide by 85.42 feet deep. This has made it difficult to fit a reasonablely sized home on this lot. The builder has already reduced the size of the home and has shifted as far the rear of the lot as possible. The steps will not be covered and will be approximately 3.5 feet tall at the point the steps cross the buiding setback. On behalf of Parkinson Building Group, we would like to thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely: Davis Ening eenngCo.. Inc. W. Thomas W. Chambers Regional VP 55 Marcella Drive 0 Little Rock, AR 72223 • (501) 868-8484 Telephone 0 (501) 868-5456 Fax NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 12 File No.: Z-7753 Owner: Jeff and Kathy Watson Address: 106 Fountain Drive Description: Lot 1, Block 3, Young's Park Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 and Section 36-255 to allow a garage with increased coverage and a deck addition with a reduced side setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Issues B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 106 Fountain Drive is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a platted alley along the south and west property lines which serves as access. There is a one-story frame garage structure along the west property line which extends slightly into the alley right-of-way along the south and west property lines. The applicants propose to remove the existing garage and construct a new 22 foot by 22 foot, two-story garage structure within the rear yard. The new garage will have one (1) foot setbacks (corner relationships) from the south and west property lines and a three (3) foot setback from the north side property line. The proposed garage structure will occupy approximately 61 percent of the required rear yard (rear 25 feet). The second floor of the garage structure will be used as a game room. NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 12 (CON'T.) The applicants also propose to replace and expand the existing deck structure on the rear of the house, as shown on the attached site plan sketch. The existing deck will be replaced and expanded to tie into the new garage structure and wrap around the north side of the house, extending to the northeast corner of the residence. At the northeast corner of the house the deck will be approximately 16 feet by 16 feet with a trellis structure overhead. The deck's setback from the north side property line ranges from zero (0) feet to 10 feet. A small portion of the deck (approximately 42 inches) will have a zero (0) setback from the side property line, with approximately 10 linear feet of the deck having a three (3) foot setback from the side line (at the garage structure). The northwest corner of the 16 foot by 16 foot deck section will be three (3) feet from the north property line, increasing to 10 to 11 feet at its northeast corner. Steps to the second level of the garage will be incorporated into the deck construction. With the exception of the trellis at the northeast corner of the residence, the deck structure will be uncovered and unenclosed. The applicants also plan to construct a new parking pad at the northeast corner of the property, with a walk leading to the front of the house. The proposed garage structure will be accessed by the alley, with a new drive along the south property line. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum rear yard coverage of 30 percent for accessory buildings in residential zoning. Section 36-255(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet for this R-3 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances to allow the garage structure with an increased rear yard coverage, and the deck addition with a reduced side yard setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. The single family lot immediately to the north is approximately four (4) feet lower in grade, with the house on that lot being at least 10 to 12 feet back from the dividing side lot line. Therefore, staff feels that the proposed deck structure will have no adverse impact on that property. Additionally, the existing garage structure occupies approximately 55 percent of the required rear yard of the property. The requested 61 percent coverage is a relatively minor increase. Staff feels that the overall redevelopment plan for this property represents a good project which should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation.- Staff ecommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 2 NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 12 (CON'T.) 1. With the exception of the 16 foot by 16 foot trellis structure, the deck must remain uncovered and unenclosed. 2. The second level of the proposed accessory garage structure must not be used as a dwelling unit. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the December 20, 2004 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 20, 2004 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 &CqLLMLNTS S S O CIATLS A ARCHITECTURE, INC. :2-- 7 753 October 22, 2004 City of Little Rock Dept. of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas RE: Zoning Variance for 106 Fountain Drive Dear Sirs: Attached please find application for a zoning variance for the existing residence at 106 Fountain Drive. We wish to remove existing non -conforming garage and replace it with a new 1 %2 story, 2 -car garage. The irregular shape of the lot will not allow construction of the garage with -out exceeding the allowable area coverage for a rear yard. If you have any questions or need any additional information please contact me at the address above. Sincerely, CLEMENTS SSOCIATES/ARCHITECTURE, INC. C ris Dimon 507 Main Street - North Little Rock, AR 72114 Teleohone (501) 375-3380 - Facsimile (501) 375-8231 - Website! www.clPmentserc hitarts.rnm November 5, 2004 To whom it concerns: -J- -775-3 I, Gary Lambdin, owner of the property located at 2601 W. Markham, share a property line with 106 Fountain Avenue. This letter is to state that I am aware and in agreement of the plans to build an outdoor deck at 106 Fountain Avenue where a portion of said deck is to be built directly to my property line at 2601 W. Markham. The property line for 106 Fountain Avenue crosses into my yard at 2601 W. Markham in a couple of areas and this understanding between me, my wife Leslie and the Watson's has always been amiable. Jeff and Cathy Watson have my permission to build directly to my property line with a portion of their deck pertaining to this project. 41 i NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 13 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: 0404*1 Walter Hussman 500 President Clinton Avenue North side of President Clinton Avenue at Commerce Street UU Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the development provisions of Section 36-353 associated with proposed signage. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Mixed Commercial Uses Proposed Use of Property: Mixed Commercial Uses STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Issues B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 500 President Clinton Avenue is occupied by the Museum Center Building. The Underground Pub restaurant occupies a portion of the building's main level at the northwest corner of the structure. Access to the restaurant is gained from St. Vincent Plaza at the west end of the building. The restaurant proposes to install a projecting sign at the northwest corner of the Museum Center building. The sign will be 24.5 square feet in area and located at the third floor level of the building, at a 135 degree angle to the west and north building facades. The projecting sign will extend approximately 5 feet -5 inches out from the corner of the building. The sign will contain the restaurant's name, logo and address, with the color being red, white and blue. Section 36-353(e)(1)b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance (River Market Design Overlay District Standards) requires that projecting signs in the River Market District not extend above the sill of second story windows. Section 36- NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 13 (CON'T.) 353(e)(1)c. allows projecting signs to extend a maximum of three (3) feet from the face of the building. Section 36-353(e)(1)e. requires that projecting signs be placed at a 90 degree angle to the building. Section 36-353(e)(2)a. requires that projecting signs have a maximum area of 12 square feet per sign. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements to allow the projecting signs as described above and shown on the attached sketch and photos. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the variances as relatively minor. Similar type projecting signage has been approved in the River Market District (Boscos); Therefore, the proposed sign will not be out of character with the area. Staff believes the projecting sign will have no adverse impact on the River Market District. The River Market Design Review Committee met on October 12, 2004 and recommended approval of the requested variances by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. As part of the DRC review, the applicant agreed to remove all sandwich board signs for the restaurant. A copy of the DRC approval letter is attached for Board of Adjustment review. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. A sign permit must be obtained 2. A franchise permit must be obtained from the City's Public Works Department. 3. Any sandwich board signs for this business must be removed from the property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) 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. oil T4� /3 2--7-75-� Department of Planning and Development Sign Request for The Underground Pub 500 President Clinton Blvd suite 40 1. Project is a new Steel frame, aluminum faced sign outlined and highlighted in neon. 2. Sign will be on the northwest corner of the Museum Center building coming out at a 45 -degree angle. 3. Sign is 10' by 5' with an actual square footage of 24.5' Variances from ordinance are as follows: 1. Height of sign to exceed past the sill of the second story windows. As shown in the included representation, sign must be at least this high to be seen past the awning of Bosco's directly in front of us. 2. Sign extends past the maximum 3' from the face of the building. We again feel that since we are not on the street front, the sign needs to be a little larger to draw eyes down St. Vincent's Plaza. 3. We are asking to place the sign at a 45 -degree angle versus the ordinance of 90 degrees. This again is due to the awning at Bosco's and we feel that it will look better and more integrated with the building at this angle. 4. Sign is 24.5', which exceeds the ordinance maximum of 12'. This is again due to our distance off the street. Also having been a good neighbor in the Rivermarket District for 6 years, we feel like to help us remain competitive with the 8 other bar/restaurants with street frontage that we need a sign large enough to attract tourist who might not otherwise know we are there due to our distance off of President Clinton Blvd. _T4,,_j,2 wa..� River — 7 % S Market Greg Hart, Chairman Design Millie Ward, Member Review Patty Wingfield, Member Committee Tim Heiple, Member Shannon Jeffery -Light, Member Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 • 501-371-4790 • fax 501-399-3435 November 16, 2004 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Underground Pub Chairman and Members, The River Market DRC met on October 12, 2004 and reviewed the proposed signage at 500 President Clinton Ave, Suite 40 for Underground Pub. The DRC did approve the projecting sign on the northwest corner of the building. The final vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The application also included the removal of any sandwich board signs and that the applicant will be required to get a sign permit and franchise permit from the City of Little Rock. Thank you, Charles Bloom NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 14 File No.: Z-7755 Owner: John and Patti Bailey Address: 5124 Crestwood Road Description: Lot 84 R, Prospect Terrace Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254, the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the easement provisions of Section 36-11 associated with proposed building additions. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Issues B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5124 Crestwood Road is occupied by a two-story rock and frame single family residence. Access to the property is gained by way of a paved alley along the north property line. A three -car carport is located near the northeast corner of the property, with an inground pool south of the carport structure. There is a two-story accessory dwelling at the northwest corner of the property, within three (3) feet of the northwest corner of the house. The accessory building is located two (2) to three (3) feet from the west side property line. The applicants propose to construct two(2) new additions to the single family house. The first is a two-story addition (16 feet by 21 feet) on the rear of the structure at its northeast corner. This addition will cross a rear platted building line as noted on the attached site plan sketch, and be located 16 feet to 21 feet back from the rear (north) property line. NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 14 (CON'T.) The second proposed addition is a two-story addition at the northwest corner of the house, connecting to the existing accessory building. This second proposed addition is also noted on the attached sketch. The second addition will be fairly narrow and wrap around the east and south walls of the accessory building. The addition will be located 11 to 12 feet from the rear (north) property line and two (2) feet from the west side property line. The northeast corner of this addition will extend approximately one (1) foot into a rear access easement. This addition will also cross the rear platted building line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of eight (8) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Section 36-11(f) requires that encroachments into easements be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance also requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed building additions. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as relatively minor. The overall residential structure will occupy only a small percentage of this rather large single family lot. The building additions as proposed will not be out of character with other large single family residences in this neighborhood. Staff feels that the proposed access easement encroachment is very minor. The proposed one (1) foot corner encroachment should not interfere with the main paved travel lane within this alley access easement. Staff feels that the proposed additions will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted rear building line for the proposed additions. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with the additions subject to the completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the rear platted building line as approved by the Board. 2 NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 14 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 October 21, 2004 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas RE: Application for variance John and Patti Bailey residence 5124 Crestwood Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 .Z-77SS We have recently purchased a home at 5124 Crestwood in the Prospect Terrace area of Little Rock. The home was constructed back in the late 1920's and even though the interiors have been updated over the years, the building footprint has not been enlarged to fit with today's lifestyles. We are applying for a variance to expand the back of the house to build a larger Kitchen and to enclose a walkway to an existing detached building that will be converted to our children's Bedrooms. These additions extend into the rear yard setbacks on the north side of our property. We are submitting our plans in hope of a favorable response from the Board of Adjustments. I would be happy to respond to any questions regarding this matter. R ectfully subfRktted, t Ht,— , ---- Jo and Pa ' ilei----- NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 15 File No.: Z-7756 Owner: The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation Address: 608-610 President Clinton Avenue Description: Lot 9, Block 3, Pope's Addition Zoned: UU Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the development provisions of Section 36-353 associated with proposed signage, and the development provisions of Section 36-357 to allow awnings with reduced clearance. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Commercial Building Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (John Barr, 371-4646) for the improvements located in the right-of-way. Any repair or replacement of the awnings will require installation to meet code clearance height of 9' over the sidewalk. B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 608-610 President Clinton Avenue is occupied by a three-story masonry building with a rear basement level. The building is located on the north side of President Clinton Avenue and backs up to Riverfront Park. The William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Foundation offices and Museum store recently occupied the building. With the recent building occupancy, new awnings and wall signage has been placed on the north and south sides of the building. There are two (2) awnings on the south side street level of the building which are located 7 feet -7 inches above the sidewalk. One (1) awning on the north NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 15 (CON'T.) side basement level of the structure is 8 feet — 2 inches above the rear walkway. Two (2) wall signs have been placed on the building, one (1) on the north fagade and one (1) on the south facade. The sign on the rear of the building will be placed above the third level windows and have an area of 24.75 feet by 21.375 inches (approximately 43 square feet). The letter size will range from 15 inches to 21.375 inches. The wall sign on the front (south side) of the building will be located above the second floor windows and be 27.72 feet by 24 inches (approximately 55 square feet) in area. The letter size will range from 17 inches to 24 inches. Section 36-357(a)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance (River Market Design Overlay District standards) requires awnings to have a minimum clearance of nine (9) feet above sidewalks. Section 36-353( c)(1)a. allows wall signs to not extend above the second floor window sill of a building. Section 36-335( c)(2)a. allows wall signs to have a maximum area of 25 square feet. Section 36-353( c)(3)a. requires that wall sign letters not exceed 1 %2 feet in height. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards associated with the awnings and wall signage in the Clinton Museum store building. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff believes the awnings and signage will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties on the overall River Market District. As noted in paragraph A. of this report, Public Works requires that a franchise permit be obtained for the awnings, with any future repair or replacement of the awnings requiring installation to meet the minimum required clearance above the sidewalk. The River Market Design Review Committee met on November 9, 2004 and voted unanimously to approve the proposed signage. The DRC also voted (3 ayes, 2 nays and 0 absent) to approve the awnings. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from the River Market Design Overlay standards, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works franchise requirement as noted in paragraph A. of this report. 2. A sign permit must be obtained for each sign. 4 NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 15 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 l October 22, 2004 Mr. Monte Moore CITY OF LITTLE ROCK CARADINE & COMPANY, INC. Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: REQUEST FOR A ZONING VARIANCE FOR THE WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON PRESIDENTIAL FOUNDATION OFFICES AND MUSEUM STORE - 608-610 PRESIDENT CLINTON AVE. LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Gentleman: rs This letter is to inform you of our intent to file a request for zoning variances for The William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Foundation forthe above reference property on or before October 22, 2004 for variances under Section 36-353. Signs. The variances are for signs in general, specifically section (a)(2)0) - letters to exceed V-6" in. height, section (c)(1)(a) - sign to be above 2" d floor window sill and section (c)(2)(a) - sign to exceed 1/4 sf of sign area for each linear foot of primary street frontage. Due to the need of the Foundation to accomplish this work, before the opening of the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Park, we would like to install the signage as shown on the attachments to this letter on the front and rear of the building as shown in the mock up photograph of the front elevation of the building (see Exhibit A) and as shown on Exhibit B for the windows. Exhibit C shows the size and style of the lettering on the building. We understand that proceeding with the installation of the signage before the approval of the Department of Planning and Development, will be done at the risk of the Foundation. We appreciate the opportunity to present this information to you and we will follow up with all of the required filing and documentation on October 22, as stated above for presentation of this issue at the November 29, 2004 meeting date for the next Board of Adjustment filing as well as the River Market District filing. Should you have any questions, please contact Richard Bailey or myself at 501-372-4199. Sincerely, CARADINE & COMPANY, ARCHITECTS Wali Caradine, AIA cc: Mr. Brian Minyard, Planner H City of Little Rock 2200 SOUTH MAIN STREET • UTTLE ROCK, AR 72206-1530 • OFFICE (501) 372-4199 • FAX (501) 372-2261 November 8, 2004 RIVER MARKET DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Attn: Brian Minyard 735 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 RE: INTERIOR / EXTERIOR REMODEL THE WILLIAM J. CLINTON PRESIDENTIAL FOUNDATION OFFICES & MUSEUM STORE 608-610 PRESIDENT CLINTON AVE. LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Dear Mr. Minyard: As per our phone conversation this morning, CARA.DINE & COMPANY, INC. submits this Amendment for Awnings to the previously submitted Application for Variance — Signage package (10-15-04) to The Riser Market Design Review Committee for review and approval. It is our understanding that a variance for Sec.36-357, (b), (2) — Awning and support structures shall have minimum clearance of none (9) feet from the sidewalk, is required. This Amendment includes the following: I -Awning @ Museum Store Entry South Side Street Level. 6'-0" tall, 7'-6" wide, 4'-0" projection, T-7" above sidewalk. Re: Exhibit No.l a, b, c. l -Awning @ Vestibule South Side Street Level. 6'-0" tall, T-6" wide, 4'-0" projection, T-7" above sidewalk. Re: Exhibit No. I a, b, c 1 -Awning @ Vestibule North Side Basement Level. 3'-0" tali, 5'-6" wide, 5'-0" projection, 8'-2" above sidewalk. Re: Exhibit No.2a, b, c. Description: Framing- 1"xl" aluminum tubing. Fabric Cover- 61" / 17 oz. translucent tri -laminate "Trevira" polyester fabric, clear. Should you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, CARADESE & COMPANY, INC. Richard F. Bailey 2200 SOUTH MAIN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR. 72206 OFFICE (501) 372-4199 FAX (501) 372-2261 .10—,2 "Z-12 WRiver or Market �� Design L Review Committee Greg Hart, Chairman Millie Ward, Member Patty Wingfield, Member Tim Heiple, Member Shannon Jeffery -Light, Member Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 •501-371-4790 • fax 501-399-3435 November 12, 2004 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Clinton Museum Store Signage and Awnings Chairman and Members, The River Market DRC has reviewed the WJ Clinton Presidential Foundation Offices and Museum Store signage at the November 9, 2004 meeting. The DRC has approved the submittal of the signage with a final vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The committee then considered your awnings and approved the variances with a vote of 3 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent conditional on Public Works approval. Thank you, Brian Minyard River Market DRC Staff NOVEMBER 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 16 File No.: Z-7757 Owner: Scenic Properties — Little Rock Address: 215 Markham Center Drive Description: Lot 10, Bixler Commercial Subdivision Zoned: O-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the buffer provisions of Section 36-522 to allow a reduced street buffer. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Office Proposed Use of Property: Office STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. The existing right-of-way for Markham Center Drive would meet the reduced standard for a minor commercial street. No additional right-of- way required. 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The plan submitted does not consistently provide for the minimum 9 -foot wide on-site street buffer required by both zoning and landscaping ordinances. The width of the proposed northeastern perimeter landscaping strip is less than the minimum 6 -feet 9 -inches required by the Landscape Ordinance. The proposed interior landscaping is less than the eight percent (755 square feet) required by the Landscape Ordinance by 259 square feet. To receive credit, interior landscape islands must be at least 7 Y2 feet in width and 150 square feet in area. A small amount of building landscaping is required by the Landscape Ordinance. City Beautiful Commission approval is required in order to receive a variance from the Landscape Ordinance. C. Staff Analysis: The 0-3 zoned property at 215 Markham Center Drive is occupied by a small, one-story masonry office building. A driveway from Markham Center Drive serves as access to the property. There is paved parking on the north, south and west sides of the building. The applicant proposes to redesign the existing parking area, adding nine (9) additional parking spaces to the property. The new proposed parking lot design is shown on an attached sketch. The new parking design will maintain the existing five (5) foot wide street landscape buffer along Markham Center Drive. A six (6) foot wide landscape strip is proposed along the northeast property line. Interior landscaping will also be redesigned. Section 36-522(b)(2)b.3. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum nine (9) foot wide street landscape buffer for this office zoned lot. As noted above the redesigned parking lot will maintain the existing five (5) foot wide street buffer. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement. No additional right-of-way dedication will be required with this application. Staff is supportive of the requested buffer variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. Most of the existing parking lot curb and gutter along the west property line will remain as is. The majority of the new parking lot curb and gutter along the west property line provides a street buffer of approximately 14 feet (northwest corner of the property). Only approximately 25 linear feet of new parking lot curb and gutter will maintain the five (5) foot wide street buffer. Staff feels that the parking lot redesign will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. As noted in paragraph B. of this report, the street landscape strip, the perimeter landscape strip along the northeast property line and the interior landscaping is less than the minimum requirements of the Landscape Ordinance. Additionally, the Landscape Ordinance requires a small amount of building landscaping. The applicant will need to apply to the City Beautiful Commission for variances from the Landscape Ordinance. 2 D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested street buffer variance, subject to variances from the Landscape Ordinance being approved by the City Beautiful Commission, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 Rickett Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 242094 J n Utile Rock, Arkan5a5 72223 Phone 50 1.868.6068 �7" `1-7 S- fax Fax 50 1.868.6363 October 22, 2004 Mr. Monte Moore Little Rock Planning 723 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Request for zoning variance 215 Markham Center Drive Mr. Moore, Please consider this a request for a non-residential zoning variance for the subject project. site plan review for the above referenced project. The project consists of a parking lot expansion to add 12 parking spaces to the existing property. Little Rock Public Works Department is requiring an additional 5' of right of way dedication on Markham Center Drive. This puts the new right of way line within 1.0' of the existing parking on the west side adjacent to the street. This in and of itself violates the 9.0' landscape buffer that is required along the right of way. Additionally, the owner would like to extend the parking on the west side adjacent to the street by 3 parking spaces. We are proposing to add only 212 additional square feet of paving and 24.8' of curb along the right of way. In order to function properly, the business needs this additional parking. They would not be opposed to some additional landscaping in order to compensate for the lack of a landscape buffer and since this is an existing condition, we respectfully request permission to add these parking spaces. Enclosed are b copies of the site plan and survey, the completed application and a $205.00 review fee check. The 200' ownership notification and affidavit is currently underway. Please contact me if this submittal is deficient in any way or if you have any questions regarding this project. We appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Rickett Engineering, c. Mark E. Rickett, PE I.L 0 W w LLI r 0 F - z LUD 0 a LL 0 a 0 m 2 CL i r/ Q m Q I! 0 z w w coQ w Q z LU Q J � V J Lij f -- Q ..r y Y 2 CL i r/ Q m Q I! 0 z w w coQ w Q z LU Q ..r y Y Y L r D f' 4 }� LL ❑ ❑ Q z (� 0 ❑ � I (, �+ CK V/ D u- >-�0 of D) Q m o.A 4 T r� W>N�/" LL. ❑ > ❑ M ❑ Q Cn (p Cf ❑ LL_ m z >- Or m u ELLm(D=� Q -� 2 CL i r/ Q m Q I! 0 z w w coQ w Q z LU Q y Y Y L r D LL! }� LL ❑ ❑ Q z (� 0 ❑ � W ❑ (, �+ CK V/ D u- >-�0 of D) Q m 2 CL i r/ Q m Q I! 0 z w w coQ w Q z LU Q November 29, 2004 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:20 Date: t--'�>_ � � J c� Chairman Secretary 0