boa_12 20 2004LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
DECEMBER 20, 2004
2:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being five (5) in number.
Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The Minutes of the November 29, 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
None
City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
I. DEFERRED ITEM:
A.
Z-7747
B.
Z-7753
II. NEW ITEMS
1.
Z-6681 -B
2.
Z -6957-C
3.
Z-7762
4.
Z-7763
5.
Z-7764
6.
Z-7765
7.
Z-7766
8.
Z-7767
AGENDA
DECEMBER 20, 2004
2:00 P.M.
5804 Scenic Drive
106 Fountain Drive
5400 Highland Drive
Colonel Glenn Road at 1-430
912 McAdoo Street
6 Ledgelawn Drive
30 Menden Lane
923 Broadway
2923 N. Grant Street
67 Bellegard Drive
45�,
ANON
Z
SIINII Al0
d'
O
Q)
N
3MId Q
imreiN! N
a
a � <
NrNa3D
x � W
a 4
ALO
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: A
File No.: Z-7747
Owner: Jenny Smith
Address: 5804 Scenic Drive
Description: Lot F, Block 3, East Palisades Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section
36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a carport addition with
a reduced front setback, and which crosses a platted building line.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Because of the potential for future interference with utility and
maintenance operations, Public Works recommends against a zero
setback from the right-of-way line.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5804 Scenic Drive is occupied by a one-story brick
and frame single family residence with finished basement level. The property
slopes downward from front to back (south to north) and side to side (west to
east). A circular driveway from Scenic Drive serves as access.
The applicant proposes to construct a 9 foot by 14 foot porte-cochere on the
front of the house, covering a portion of the circular drive. The proposed porte-
cochere will extend to the front property line with a zero front setback. There is
a small landscaped area immediately south of the proposed porte-cochere
within the street right-of-way. The porte-cochere will be unenclosed on the
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.)
south, east and west sides. Additionally, this R-2 zoned lot contains a 20 foot
front platted building line, which the proposed porte-cochere encroaches upon.
Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front
setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires
that variances for encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed
and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed
porte-cochere addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses a
platted building line.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. Staff does not view the
request as reasonable. As noted in paragraph A. of this report, Public Works
notes that the proposed zero front setback would result in the potential for
future interference with utility and Public Works street maintenance operations.
Additionally, staff's inspection of the area resulted in the observation of no
similar encroachments on the single family lots on the north side of Scenic
Drive east and west of th8is 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.
2
t
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004)
Jenny Smith was present, representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Jenny Smith addressed the Board in support of the application. She stated that she
would agree to remove the porte-cochere structure if the city or utilities had to work
in the area. She noted that there was no other place on the property for covered
parking. She explained that the porte-cochere was needed for sheltered parking
and security. She referred to other structural encroachments in the area.
Chairman Gray expressed concern with the proposed encroachment to the front
property line. He stated that he would have a hard time supporting the variances as
proposed. He stated that he could possibly support an amended application, moving
the structure further back from the front property line. The issue of amending the
application was discussed. Ms. Smith noted that she might need additional time to
consider possible alternatives.
Vice -Chairman Francis also expressed concern with the proposed encroachment.
He noted that he would support a five (5) foot front setback and explained.
Chris Wilbourn concurred with Gray and Francis. He explained that the proposed
porte-cochere structure could be moved back from the front property line, and
maintain the same structural appearance.
Ms. Smith noted that she wished to defer the application. A motion was made to
defer the application to the January 31, 2005 Agenda. The motion passed by a vote
of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred.
3
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
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: B
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 reduced
separation, 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.
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
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.)
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 anew 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)(s) 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 increases 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 recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following
conditions:
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.
K
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.)
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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 20, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3
CLEMENTS
ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTURE, INC.
.-L- --- -
- e'
:2-- 7753
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.
4CH'son
507 Main Street • North Little Rock, AR 72114
T.1-11 na lR011 47R_'1gQn. Conoimil.. 1.1411 01. ono --6..+B.....,.....
November 5, 2004
To whom it concerns:
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.
I1'�/ i
ter• �/ ��
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: Z-6681 -B
Owner:
Arkansas Maxillofacial Surgery Center
Applicant:
Randal B. Frazier
Address:
5400 Highland Drive
Description:
Lot 4, Candlewood East Addition
Zoned:
O-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
281 to allow a building with a reduced rear setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Undeveloped
Proposed Use of Property: Medical Clinic
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. No comments regarding reduced rear yard setback.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
A portion of the width of the proposed landscape strip along the western
perimeter is less than the 6 -feet 9 -inch minimum allowed by the Landscape
Ordinance.
An irrigation system to water landscaped area will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide
landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1 ICON'T.
C. Staff Analysis:
The 0-3 zoned property at 5400 Highland Drive is currently undeveloped. Site
work has been done on the property in preparation for new building
construction. A two -car wide driveway from Highland Drive will be constructed
with the property's development. A new branch location of Twin City Bank is
located on the property immediately south (northwest corner of Cantrell Road
and Highland Drive), with site work for a multifamily development taking place
on the property to the north. The Kroger development occupies the property to
the west. The property across Highland Drive to the east is currently
undeveloped.
The applicant proposes to construct a clinic/surgery center building within the
north half of the property as noted on the attached site plan. Paved parking will
be located on the east and west sides of the building, with a driveway along the
south side of the building. A covered parking/drop-off area will be located at
the west end of the new building. The applicant is also proposing a 30 foot by
30 foot accessory building at the northwest corner of the property. The
accessory building will be located 10 feet from the side (north) property line and
approximately 3.5 to 4 feet from the rear (west) property line. The accessory
building will be used for records storage.
Section 36-281(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear
yard setback of 15 feet for 0-3 zoned property. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow a reduced rear yard setback for the proposed
accessory building. All other building setbacks meet or exceed the minimum
requirements.
Staff is supportive of the requested setback variance. Staff views the request
as relatively minor. The property immediately to the west is at a lower elevation
and occupied by a commercial development. Any future building expansions
on that lot would likely have a side or rear building orientation to this 0-3 zoned
property. Staff feels that the reduced rear setback for the proposed 30 foot
wide accessory building will have no adverse impact on the adjacent property
or the general area.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to
compliance with the landscape and buffer issues as noted in paragraph B. of
the staff report.
2
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3
Randal B. Frazier
rfrazier@ggtb.com
Mr. Monte Moore
Zoning Administrator
City of Little Rock
Quattlebaum, Grooms, Full & Burrow
A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
111 Center Street
Suite 1900
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
November 19, 2004
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Variance Application for Arkansas Maxillofacial Surgery Center
Dear Monte:
(501) 379-1700
Telecopier
(501) 379-1701
Writer's Direct Dial
(501) 379.1771
I represent Arkansas Maxillofacial Surgery Center. In that capacity, enclosed please find
the enclosed documents for filing a variance with the Board of Adjustment on property located at
5400 Townsend Street:
1. Application;
2. Affidavit;
3. Six (6) copies of Survey;
4. Six (6) copies of Site Dimension Plan; and
5. Check in the amount of $205.00.
The applicant is requesting an 11.5 foot setback variance from the rear setback
requirement of the 0-3 District for a storage building to be constructed on the lot. The property
will be developed as a medical clinic and surgery center. A drive -up patient pick up and drop off
area is necessary for surgical patients. A storage facility is also necessary for clinic purposes.
To allow sufficient room for the patient pick up and drop off area, the storage building
will be detached from the clinic building. It would create an undue hardship on the property if
the storage building interfered with or did not allow for the pick up and drop off area. The
applicant is requesting to move his storage building to the rear of the property in a location that
will facilitate enough space for vehicular traffic to access the pick up and drop off area and make
two left turns to return to the main driveway. The variance is requested because of the hardship
imposed by the configuration of the lot and the necessity to safely service medical patients
entering and exiting the building.
4271.8699
Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow PLLC
Your attention to this matter is appreciated. Please schedule this matter for the December
20, 2004, Board of Adjustment meeting. If you have any questions regarding this matter, feel
free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Quattlebaum, Grooms,
Tull & Burrow PLLC
,f
Randal B. /'razier
RBF/kdr
Enclosures
4271.8699
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.: Z -6957-C
Owner: Leonard Boen
Applicant: McGetrick and MCGetrick Engineering
Address: Colonel Glenn Road at Interstate 430 and Talley Road
Description: Colonel Glenn Centre Subdivision
Zoned: C-4, C-3, 0-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-
555 and 36-553 to allow signs which exceed the maximum height and area and off -
premises signs.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Undeveloped
Proposed Use of Property: Mixed Use
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. No Comments — no signs are shown in the right-of-way
B. Staff Analysis:
The C-4, C-3 and 0-3 zoned property bounded by Colonel Glenn Road, 1-430
and Talley Road (east and south) is occupied by the Colonel Glenn Centre
Subdivision. The new Remington College development is located on Lot 14 of
the Subdivision, at the end of Remington Drive (the Subdivision's only new
street). A car dealership is being developed on Lot 1, at the southeast corner
of Colonel Glenn Road and 1-430 (northwest corner of the Subdivision). The
remaining lots are currently undeveloped.
The applicant proposes to place one (1) development sign and two (2) off -
premise directional -type signs within this subdivision. The development sign is
proposed to be placed at the northwest corner of Lot 1, and will advertise the
various future businesses within this subdivision. The sign is proposed to have
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
a height of 58 feet and an area of 525 square feet. The two (2) off -premise
directional signs are proposed to be located at the northeast corner of Lot 4
(corner of Colonel Glenn and Talley Roads) and the southeast corner of Lot 8
(corner of Talley Road and Remington Drive). The directional sign on Lot 4
will advertise a Holiday Inn which will be located on Lot 19. This sign will have
a height of 35 feet and an area of approximately 260 square feet. The
directional sign on Lot 8 will advertise Value Place which will be located on Lot
12. This sign will have a height of 10 feet and an area of 20 square feet. The
development sign will be located on C-4 zoned property, the Holiday Inn sign
will be located on C-3 zoned property, and the Value Place sign will be on 0-3
zoned property.
The City's Zoning Ordinance contains no provisions for allowing the type of off -
premise directional -type signage as proposed. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow this type of signage.
Section 36-553(a)(2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows freestanding signs
in office zoning to have maximum heights of six (6) feet and maximum areas of
64 square feet. Section 36-555(a)(2) allows freestanding signs in commercial
zones to have maximum heights of 36 feet and maximum areas of 160 square
feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances for increased height and
area for the development sign, increased area for the Holiday Inn sign, and
increased height for the Value Place sign.
Staff is not supportive of the requested sign variances. Given the design of the
subdivision, staff does not feel that the request is reasonable. The subdivision
is made up primarily of smaller lots which will likely contain individual
businesses. Staff believes that each business will likely want their own
ground -mounted signage, on their individual lots. This could result in up to
four (4) signs along Colonel Glenn Road, with several additional signs along
Talley Road and 1-430. Staff recently met with representatives of the car
dealership which will be located on Lot 1. It is staff's understanding that the
dealership desires to have ground -mounted signage on both the Colonel
Glenn and 1-430 Street frontages. One of the purposes of the sign section of
the zoning ordinance is to "control and coordinate the type, placement and
physical dimensions of signs within the various zoning classifications." Staff
believes that a main intent of this purpose is to prohibit visual clutter where
commercial signage is concerned. Staff believes that the signage as proposed
will add to the possibility of visual clutter along the street frontage of this
subdivision, when added to the ground -mounted signs that are allowed by right
for each individual lot. Additionally, the two (2) off -premise directional signs
proposed are very much beyond the size typically allowed for off -premise
directional signs. The ordinance allows directional signs with a maximum area
of two (2) square feet and a maximum height of six (6) feet. The signs
proposed as off -premise directional signs for Holiday Inn and Value Place
2
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
have heights, dimensions and designs of primary site signage. Staff feels that
the signs proposed will have an adverse visual impact on the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variances.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the
January 31, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 31, 2005
Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3
12-08-204 ( PM FROM MCGETRICK 15012239293
WGMICK WOEMICK
i='1VGiN1^t:"R5 - PL�4NN�r�v - �tl�Yi:Y0s�5
November 22, 2004
Monte Moore
.Zoning Administrator
Dept, of Planning &.Development
723 West Markham St,
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Colonel Glenn Centre
Sign Easements
Dear Mr, Moore,
P.2
.T��-4 z-
9
9 --6157 - c,
We are herewith asking for a variance on the size and location of three (3) signs
for the Colonel Glenn Project. Sign 41 will be the sign for the entire caimrnercial
property. It will be located as shown and serve several different lots owned by different
owners. We feel that the size and location of the sign are necessary for visibility to the
overall project. Sign 42 located at the intersection of "Palley Rd. and Colonel Glenn will
be a directional sign to serve lot 9, It will be located off-site in the sign easement as
shown. Sign 03 located at the entrance to Remington Rd, will be a directional sign to
serve lot 12. It will be located off-site in the sign easement as shown.
If you have any question or problems please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
McGetrick & McGetrick, Inc.
Patrick M. McGetrick, P.E.
PMM:rm
10 Otter Creek Court, $utw A
Little Rock, Arkansas 72210
50-456-&&)9 4w .50A -455-"W
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.: Z-7762
Owner: David and Candace Chappell
Address: 912 McAdoo Street
Description: Lot 15, Block 1, H.F. Buhler's 12th Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section
36-156 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow an accessory building
with reduced setbacks 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 912 McAdoo Street is occupied by a one-story brick
and frame single family residence. The property is located at the southwest
corner of McAdoo and "I" Streets. A two -car wide drive from McAdoo Street
serves as access. An existing 6 foot high wood fence extends into the right-of-
way of "I" Street at the northwest corner of the property. An elementary school
is located to the north across "I" Street. Single family residences are located to
the south, east and west.
The applicants propose to construct a 12 foot by 28 foot accessory storage
building near the northwest corner of the property. The structure will be one
(1) story in height and located between a 25 foot street side platted building
line and the north property line. The proposed accessory structure will be
located five (5) feet (corner relation) from the north (street side) property line,
51.5 feet from the front (east) property line and 10 feet from the rear (west)
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.
property line. The accessory structure will be separated from the principal
structure by six (6) feet.
Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
front setback of 60 feet and a minimum street side setback of 15 feet for
accessory buildings in R-2 zoning. Additionally Section 36-12(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 accessory building with reduced front and street side
setbacks, and to cross the 25 foot platted street side building line.
Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff does not view the
request as reasonable. An inspection of the area revealed no similar
encroachments along "I" Street to the west. All of the structures along "I"
Street between McAdoo Street and Shamrock Street appear to adhere to the
required minimum 25 foot setback. Staff feels that the proposed structure will
be out of character with the adjacent properties and the overall neighborhood.
Additionally, ample space exists within the rear yard of the property to
construct a storage building and comply with the ordinance required minimum
setbacks.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to
complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted side building line
for the proposed accessory building. The applicant should review the filing
procedure with the Circuit clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a
revised Bill of Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested setback and building line variances
associated with the proposed accessory building.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
To whom it may concern,
I am requesting a zoning variance for my residence located at 912 Mcadoo st. itn Little Rock, Ar. I
would like to have a storage building located on the premises. I do not have a garage , therefore; I have no
way to secure certain items such as lawn mower, bicycles, weed eater, and other lawn and maintenance
equipment. As recent as 1 month ago a neighbor down the street had some stuff stolen from the side of there
house. I am a landscaper by trade, so the building would be landscaped around and kept up to the same
standard as my house. The building would be painted to match the house, as well as the same roof as my
house. I honestly believe that this building will help clean up the appearance of my house simply having a
place to put everything.
ThankYou
David Chappell
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z-7763
Owner: James and Linda Harvey
Address: 6 Ledgelawn Drive
Description: Lots 2 and 3, Block 7, Hickory Ridge Addition, Phase III
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section
36-516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed and which is
located in the public right-of-way.
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 fence should extend no more than five (5) feet into the public right-of-
way.
2. A franchise agreement must be obtained from Public Works.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 6 Ledgelawn Drive is occupied by a two-story brick
and frame single family residence. A two -car wide driveway from Ledgelawn
Drive serves as access. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and contain
single family residences.
The applicants propose to construct a five (5) foot high wrought iron fence on a
one (1) foot high masonry base as noted on the attached site plan. The fence
will be located in the right-of-way, between the front property line and the
street curb. The fence will also extend along a portion of the west and south
side property lines. The applicants note that the fence is requested in order to
provide security and protection for water features which will be constructed on
the property.
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.)
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum
height of four (4) feet for fences on walls located between a required building
setback line and a street right-of-way. There is a 25 foot front platted building
line along the Ledgelawn Drive frontage. Therefore, the applicants are
requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot high fence structure to be located
between the front platted building line and the street.
Staff is not supportive of the variance as requested. Staff would have no
problem supporting a variance for the six (6) foot high fence if it were located
on the front property line. However, staff can see no good reason for locating
the fence in the right-of-way, extending across the front property line by
approximately six (6) feet. Staff cannot support this type of right-of-way
encroachment which could have a negative impact on future utility or street
maintenance operations. If the Board approves the requested fence height
and location, the applicant will need to obtain a franchise agreement from
Public Works prior to any construction.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested fence variance, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004)
Jim Harvey was present, representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Mr. Harvey addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained why the
fence was requested to be located in the right-of-way.
Chairman Gray explained that he could not support the encroachment into the right-
of-way. He noted that the fence needed to be put on the property line.
Vice Chairman Francis concurred with Chairman Gray. He noted that he was
reluctant to support right-of-way encroachments.
There was a discussion about amending the application. Mr. Harvey amended the
application to locate the proposed fence/wall on the front property line and out of the
right-of-way.
There was a motion to approve the fence/wall height variance (6 foot overall height),
with the fence/wall being located on the front property line. The motion passed by a
vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The amended application was approved.
FA
Linda and Jim Harvey
6 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
Board of Adjustment
500 West Markham St.
Little Rock, AR, 72202
Subject: Decorative Fence
-'7?43
P e--rs
October 31, 2004
As owners of a home at 6 Ledgelawn Drive, lots 2 and 3 Block 7 Hickory Ridge Addition
Phase 1II, we are asking for a variance to allow us to install a 6' wrought iron, see-
through, decorative fence.
Lot 3 is vacant and we are planning to build some water features on both lots, 2 and 3.
We strongly believe that a 6' fence will be required to protect young children and pets
from wondering into the area. We now have a City permit to build a driveway and
garage on lot 3.
We are proposing the 6' fence in the utility easement. We have the approval of the three
utilities that have facilities in the easement, and signed letters from owners within 200
feet of our property stating that they do not object.
The fence will not distract from the neighborhood, will not hamper traffic in any way,
will protect young children and will enhance the appearance of the area.
We respectfully request that you approve the construction of the fence.
a Harvey
Linda and Fun Harvey
6 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
Homeowner !I 4ed5e,&u , bY-
++int Drive October 31, 2004
Little Rock, AR 72212
Re: Decorative Fence
We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of
our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young
children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see-
through, wrought iron.
The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet
high_ We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being
attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance.
We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a
decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb_
Linda and Jim Harvey
I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to
consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance.
Signature ,�-�-
Address
Linda and Tun Harvey
6 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
Home owner
15 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Re: Decorative Fence
October 31, 2004
We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of
our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young
children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see-
through, wrought iron..
The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet
high_ We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being
attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance.
We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a
decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb_
Linda and Jim Harvey
I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to
consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance.
Signature
Address
pocr-,a
q171��
Home owner
186 Pebble Beach Drive
Little -Rock, AR 72212
Re: Decorative Fence
Linda and Jim Harvey
6 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
October 31, 2004
We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of
our home_ With the features we know there will be need for protection for young
children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence_ The fence would be see-
through, wrought iron_
The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet
high_ We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being
attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance.
We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a
decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb_
Linda and Jim Harvey
I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to
consider this variance_ I have not objection to the variance.
Signatm
Address
Linda and Jim Harvey
6 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
Home owner -- __..-
7 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Re: Decorative Fence
October 31, 2004
We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of
our home_ With the features we know there will be need for protection for young
children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see-
through, wrought iron.
The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet
high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being
attracted to and endangered by the features_ The fence would not detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance.
We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a
decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb.
Linda and Jim Harvey
I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to
consider this variance_ I have not objection to the variance.
Signature '
Address 4J fin
Linda and Tim Harvey
6 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
Home owner
16 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Re: Decorative Fence
October 31, 2004
We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of
our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young
children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence_ The fence would be see-
through, wrought iron.
The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet
high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being
attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance.
We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a
decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb_
Linda and Jim Harvey
I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to
consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance.
Sigriature�_ 2?Z&Y� —
Address
Linda and Tim Harvey
6 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
Home owner
18 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Re: Decorative Fence
October 31, 2004
We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of
our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young
children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see-
through, wrought iron.
The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet
high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being
attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance.
We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a
decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb.
Linda and Jim Harvey
I. have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to
consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance.
Signatur
Address
Linda and Jim Harvey
6 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
Home owner
187 Pebble Beach Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Re: Decorative Fence
October 31, 2004
We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of
our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young
children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence_ The fence would be see-
through, wrought iron.
The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet
high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being
attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance.
We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a
decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb.
Linda and Jim Harvey
I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to
consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance.
Signature
Address 10 /rai c- A4 4 ,l%`
Linda and Tim Harvey
6 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
Home owner
191 Pebble Beach Drive
Little. Rock, AR 72212
Re: Decorative Fence
October 31, 2004
We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of
our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young
children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see-
through, wrought iron.
The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet
high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being
attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance.
We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a
decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb.
Linda and Jim Harvey
I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to
consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance.
Linda and Tim Harvey
6 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
Home owner
192 Pebble Beach Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Re: Decorative Fence
October 31, 2004
We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of
our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young
children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see-
through, wrought iron.
The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet
high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being
attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance.
We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a
decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb.
Linda and Jim Harvey
I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to
consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance.
Signature__,Z 5 k vc, Abe A
Address I i 2� p p b� le gP-A C
Linda and Tim Harvey
6 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
Home owner
193 Pebble Beach Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Re: Decorative Fence
October 31, 2004
We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of
our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young
children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence_ The fence would be see-
through, wrought iron.
The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet
high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being
attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance.
We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a
decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb.
Linda and Jim Harvey
I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to
consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance.
Signature r ES 1 V�1 l9a RT
Address q e_� biz G e, d, D r r V e
L- Q 7 /V P- 1-ZZ11
Home owner
190 Pebble Beach Drive
Little Rock, AR 7221'2
Re: Decorative Fence
Linda and Jinn Harvey
6 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
October 31, 2004
We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of
our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young
children and pets_ Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see-
through, wrought iron_
The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet
high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being
attracted to and endangered by the feabmes_ The fence would not detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance.
We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a
decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb.
Linda and Jim Harvey
I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to
consider this variance_ I have not objection to the variance.
Address C
-' CLQ
Linda and Tian. Harvey
6 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
Home owner
17 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Re: Decorative Fence
October 31, 2004
We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of
our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young
children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see-
through, wrought iron.
The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet
high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being
attracted to and endangered by the features_ The fence would not detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance.
We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a
decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb_
Linda and Jim Harvey
I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to
consider this variance_ I have not objection to the variance.
Signature
Address
Linda and Jim Harvel
6 Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
- - - - -- - - --- - --October--31, 2004 _ .
Home owner
S Ledgelawn Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Re: Decorative Fence
We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of
our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young
children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see-
through, wrought iron.
The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet
high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being
attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance.
We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a
decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb.
Linda and Jim Harvey
I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to
consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance.
Signator,
n Address
V
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.: Z-7764
Owner: David and Tracy Rhodes
Address: 30 Menden Lane
Description: Lot 12, Block 120, Chenal Valley Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section
36-156 to allow an accessory building with reduced front setback and separation.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residence Under Construction
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Issues
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 30 Menden Lane contains a one-story single family
residence which is under construction. The property is located at the
southeast corner of Menden Lane and Maisons Drive. There will be two (2)
driveways on the property, one (1) from Menden Lane and one (1) from
Maisons Drive. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2. Several single
family residences are currently under construction within this subdivision.
As part of the new home construction, the applicants propose to construct a
15'-8" X 21'-8" accessory garage structure with porte-cochere at the northwest
corner of the lot. The garage/porte-cochere structure will be located
approximately 26 feet from the front (west) and street side (north) property
lines, behind a 25 foot platted building line. The structure will be located
approximately five (5) feet from the principal structure (corner relationship),
and connected to the principal structure by an 8 foot high masonry wall.
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.)
Section 36-156(a)(2)b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum six
(6) foot separation between an accessory building and a principal structure.
Section 36-156(a)(2)c. requires a minimum front setback of 60 feet for
accessory structures in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the applicants are requesting
variances from these ordinance standards to allow the accessory
garage/porte-cochere structure with a reduced front setback and separation.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as
reasonable. As noted previously, the proposed garage/porte-cochere structure
will be located behind the 25 foot front platted building line which runs along
the north and west property lines. Although the design of the residence (with
the accessory garage/porte-cochere structure) will be slightly different from
other homes being constructed in this subdivision, staff feels that the structure
will have no adverse impact on the adjacent structure or the general area.
Staff will request that the applicants submit a letter from the Chenal Valley
Architectural Review Committee approving of the design and placement of the
garage/porte-cochere structure.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with the
garage/porte-cochere structure, subject to submittal of a letter of approval from
the Chenal Valley Architectural Review Committee prior to a building permit
being issued for the structure.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 20, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays.
--r- IG -,--mss
COVER LETTER FOR VARIANCE
November 1, 2004
ADDRESS: 30 MENDEN LANE, - THE MAISONS - LR, AR
LEGAL: LOT 12 BLK 120 - THE MAISONS - CHENAL
We are requesting a variance for a front garage. Noted as an accessory building with
reduced front setback and separation. This affects the area provisions of section 36-156
of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit..
The front garage is attached to the main structure by an eight -foot tall wall. The wall
gives the perception that the two structures are one. Attached you will find pictures of
how the wall will look.
The front garage is necessary to complete the look of the house. The front garage is
being used to create a Port -a -co drive thru and a small courtyard for the homeowners.
7 CII C N A L CLD1 0O1, L L V A K D
LITTLL n0CX, AA 7?223
-2-7-261
Friday, May 07, 2004
David and Tracy Rhodes
c/o Meredith Homes
P. 0. Box 13160
Maumelle, AR 72113
RE: Lot 12, Block 120 - The Maisons
The site and budding plan for Lot 12, Block 120 in The Maisons submitted at the
regularly scheduled Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee meeting on May 5, 2004 was
approved with the following: 1) Submit photos of exterior finishes for approval. Roofing should
meet or exceed those requirements speaSed in Paragraph 8.4 of the Chenal Valley Design
Guidelines. All curbs must be saw -cut. • Landscaping plans must be submitted prior to installation.
Please call with any questions.
Sincerely,
Chenal Valley Architectural
Control Committee
TR:jw
501-521-5737
aoo-e4a-9ss9
FAX: 501-821-50b5
M W Y. CM LN AL. COM
T4:An--4,S
;Z-
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.: Z-7765
Owner: EZ Financial Management, LLC/Greg Daney
Address: 923 Broadway Street
Description: Lots 5 and 6, Block 109, Original City of Little Rock
Zoned: UU
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the development provisions of
Section 36-342.1 in association with construction of a new commercial building.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Office
Proposed Use of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. No comments regarding building setbacks. The general site plan for
access and circulation is acceptable subject to review of detailed
construction drawings during future permit review.
2. The 10th Street right-of-way must be abandoned by the Board of Directors
prior to placement of private parking or building in the right-of-way.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
The proposed width of the on-site landscape strip along Broadway Street is
less than the 6 -feet 9 -inch minimum allowed by the Landscape Ordinance.
Additionally, the Landscape Ordinance requires the width of the northern,
southern and western perimeters be increased to an average of 6 -feet 9 -
inches and at no point less than 5 -feet. A total of 6 -percent of the interior of
the vehicular use area must be landscaped with interior islands of at least 112
square feet in area and 5 Y2 feet in width. A variance of these standards will
require City Beautiful Commission approval.
This review takes into account the reductions allowed within the designated
mature area of the City.
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.)
C. Staff Analysis:
The UU zoned property at 923 Broadway Street is occupied by a small one-
story commercial/office building located near the center of the property. The
property is located at the northeast corner of Broadway Street and Interstate
630. A driveway from Broadway Street serves as access. Paved parking is
located on the north, south and west sides of the building. An alley right-of-
way is located along the east property line. Undeveloped West 10th Street
right-of-way is located along the south property line. All surrounding properties
are zoned UU and contain a mixture of office and commercial uses.
The applicant proposes to remove the existing small commercial building from
the property and construct a new 5,500 square foot commercial building within
the east half of the property. The new building will be located 68 feet back
from the front (west) property line, 10 feet from the side (north) property line
and four (4) feet from the rear (east) property line. The building will extend
approximately six (6) feet onto the undeveloped West 10th Street right-of-way
which will be petitioned for abandonment in the near future.
The existing curb cut on Broadway Street will be the primary access point.
The alley along the east property line and West 10th Street will also be used as
access. Paved parking will be located on the west and south sides of the
proposed building, extending into the undeveloped West 10th Street right-of-
way. A drive-thru window will be located on the north side of the building for a
food service type use.
The applicant is requesting several variances from the Urban Use
development standards of Section 36-342.1 of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
The requested variances are as follows:
1. Section 36-342.1(c )(3) states that no new drive-in or drive-through
facilities may be visible or take directed access from a primary street. The
proposed drive-through located on the north side of the building will be
visible from Broadway Street.
2. Section 36-342.1(c )(10)b. states that surface parking lots must be located
behind or adjacent to a structure, never between the building and abutting
street. As noted previously, there will be a surface parking lot located
between the proposed building and Broadway Street and 1-630.
3. Section 36-342.1(f)(1) requires a zero (0) foot front setback. The
proposed building will be located approximately 68 feet from the west
(Broadway Street) property line.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the proposed
redevelopment of the property is reasonable, given the location of the property.
The property is located on the fringe of the UU Zoning District, where the uses
E
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.)
become less pedestrian -oriented and more vehicular -oriented. Fast food
restaurants are located north and northwest (across Broadway Street) of the
property. A convenience store is also located to the northwest at the
southwest corner of Broadway and West 8th Streets. A drive-thru bank facility
is located directly across Broadway Street to the west, with a new branch bank
being constructed at the northwest corner of West 8th and Broadway Streets.
Staff feels that the proposed redevelopment of the property is a quality one,
and will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or this general
area along Broadway Street, south of West 6th Street.
As noted previously, a small portion of the proposed building is located in the
undeveloped West 10th Street right-of-way. Although a petition to abandon this
section of West 10th Street will be filed with the Planning Commission in the
near future, Staff feels that the Board of Adjustment should not act on this
application until the applicant has approval letters from each of the five (5)
public utility companies, addressing the proposed building construction.
Therefore, staff will recommend that the application be deferred to the January
31, 2005 agenda. The applicant has been notified of this issue and agrees
with the suggested deferral. The deferral will also allow the applicant time to
adjust the proposed site plan to comply with the minimum landscape
requirements as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report.
D. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances from the UU Zoning
District standards, 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.
3. Letters from each of the five (5) public utility companies approving of the
proposed building placement must be submitted prior to Board of
Adjustment review and approval.
4. The West 10th Street right-of-way must be abandoned prior to a building
permit being issued.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the
January 31, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
3
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.)
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 31, 2005
Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
n
Broadway and 1-630 Commercial Center
(Block 5 and 6, Block 109, Original City of Little Rock)
The Owners of the property at the northeast corner of 10"' Street and Broadway wish to
impme this prQperty from its existing condition an undermsod, non-cQmpiying PrQperty
that is an expanse of asphalt with a 1,000 s.f. structure in the center.
The proposed development includes a 5,500 s.f. commercial center with 21 parking
spaces, circulation through the property for a drive-thru window and street trees along
Broadway and the 1-630 access road to the south.
The development hopes to include 2 tenants that could be service or food service
related. This proposal will utilize the existing Broadway Street curb cut, will be contingent
on the ability to acquire and use the short section of 10th street to the south and will have
access to the alley to the east for traffic ingress and egress as well as access to a
proposed drive-thru window.
The quantity of traffic on Broadway, the speed of traffic on adjacent 1-630 and the slope
of the sidewalk grade along the property frontage, all suggest that placing the proposed
building to the rear of the site is more appropriate for this property.
The Owner feels that this property, with its proximity to 1-630 and its distance from the
City Center is more appropriately designed as a vehicular oriented property rather than
the pedestrian oriented property that the "UU" zoning anticipates. There is also the
desire, by the Owners to orient the building and the available parking toward the
intersection of 1-630 and Broadway. The Owners wish to provide multiple methods of
entry to the property as well as adequate stacking space for the proposed drive-thru
window.
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.: Z-7766
Owner: Joseph Graham
Address: 2923 N. Grant Street
Description: Lot 1 and the North 1/2 of Lot 2, Block 11, Park View Addition
Zoned: R-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 and the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a garage addition with reduced
setbacks and a fence/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 wall/fence should line up with the existing wall on the property
immediately to the east.
2. A franchise agreement must be obtained from Public Works.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-3 zoned property at 2923 N. Grant Street is occupied by a one-story
frame single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner
of N. Grant Street and Grandview Road. A two -car wide driveway from
Grandview Road serves as access. A detached two -car carport is located
along the north property line. Two (2) accessory buildings are located within
the rear yard, along the east property line. All surrounding properties are
zoned R-3 and contain single family residences.
The applicant proposes to remove the existing carport structure and two (2)
accessory buildings and construct a one-story garage addition on the east end
of the residential structure. The garage addition will be approximately 22 feet
by 24 feet in size and located two (2) feet from the rear (east) property line and
11 feet from the side (south) property line, maintaining the same rear setback
as the existing house. With construction of the garage addition, the existing
1
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.)
driveway will be removed, with a new driveway constructed at the northeast
corner of the property.
The applicant is also proposing to construct a short retaining wall with a six (6)
foot high picket fence (not opaque) on it along a portion of the side (north)
property line. The retaining wall will have a height of 2.5 feet at it's east end,
running west approximately 60 feet back to the existing grade. Therefore, the
overall height of the wall/fence structure will be approximately 8.5 feet at the
east end and six (6) feet at the west end. The wall/fence structure will be
located approximately four (4) feet into the Grandview Road right-of-way in
order to align with an existing wall on the property to the east.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
setback of eight (8) feet, and Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear
setback of 25 feet. Additionally, Section 36-516(e)(1)a. allows a maximum
fence height of four (4) feet for fences/walls located between a required
building setback line and a street right-of-way. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting variances from these ordinance requirements to allow the garage
addition with a reduced rear setback and the wall/fence with an increased
height.
Staff supports the variance for a reduced rear setback associated with the
proposed garage addition. Staff feels that the proposed garage addition will
not be out of character with the overall neighborhood. Staff believes the
garage addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the
general area. However, according to ordinance requirements, residential
driveways must be located at least five (5) feet from property lines. Therefore,
the applicant must relocate the drive to meet the minimum setback from the
rear (east) property line.
Staff does not support the wall/fence height variance, as requested. Staff does
not support the proposed height of the wall/fence structure, nor its location in
the right-of-way. Staff believes the proposed location of the fence would result
in the potential for future interference with utility and Public Works street
maintenance operations. Staff could support a wall/fence with a maximum
overall height of six (6) feet located on the side (north) property line.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to
the proposed driveway being located at least five (5) feet back from the rear
(east) property line.
Staff recommends denial of the requested wall/fence height variance, as filed.
I•
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the
January 31, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 31, 2005
Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
9
74C
November 15, 2004
Board of Adjustment:
The purpose of this letter is to request three property variances for the residence at 2923
N. Grant. Our goal for these projects is to provide green space in our "back / side" yard
so that our two small children have a place to run and play. The current green space in
our back yard is very limited and primarily not visible as there are no windows along the
very back Eastern part of the house. It is our desire to remove the carport and incorporate
it into green grass that is fenced and in view of the main part of the house. It is also
important to note the property has a sunroom with two walls of arched windows that
would overlook the proposed green space and deck rather than the carport and deck.
1. Variance at the back of the property to build a two -car garage with entry from
Grandview. This garage would be 22 x 24 feet and would have a second floor
with a small room to serve as a playroom or small office.
2. Variance on the Grandview side of the property to build a short retaining wall to
level out the back yard. The wall would begin at a height of zero feet at the
concrete walkway and grow to approximately 2.5 feet toward the back of the
property ending at the proposed driveway. The variance request is to build this
wall 4 feet into the easement, which is approximately 8 feet currently. The
property has no sidewalk or curb.
3. Variance to build a 6 -foot fence to contain our two small children (ages 3 and 5),
rather than the 4 -foot limit current zoning requires.
We appreciate your consideration to these matters.
fs�
Joseph L. Graham.
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 8
File No.: Z-7767
Owner: Jim and Marla VanWyk
Applicant: Richard Harp
Address: 67 Bellegard Drive
Description: Lot 3, Block 38, Chenal Valley Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section
36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow 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 Residence Under Construction
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Issues
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 67 Bellegard Drive is occupied by a two-story brick
single family residence which is under construction and nearing completion.
There will be a two -car wide driveway from Bellegard Drive which will serve as
access. The property slopes upward from front to back (south to north). The
front door of the new residential structure is approximately 12 feet above
grade. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and contain single family
residences or residential structures which are under construction.
The applicant is requesting to construct a step structure (21 steps) from the
front door/porch, as noted on the attached site plan. The step structure will
extend across a 25 foot front platted building line by nine (9) feet, resulting in a
16 foot front setback.
DECEMBER 20, 2004
ITEM NO.: 8 (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.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances associated with the proposed
front step structure. Staff views the request as reasonable. Staff feels that
given the design of the house and its placement on the lot, the proposed step
design is the best and least intrusive 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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays.
P51
t ism Home
Conaacdng &' Remodeling
#3 Brandon Centre
61oo West 12th Street
Little Rock, AR 722o4
501.661.1800 ofc..
501.690.4277 cel.
501.661.1777 fax
harphomesaall tel.net
�- 7.76c�%
November 22, 2004
Mr. Monte Moore
City of Little Rock
Planning Department
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Variance Request
67 Bellegarde
Dear Mr. Moore:
My name is Richard Harp, registered builder of Richard Harp Homes, Inc.,
city licensel.925, State of Arkansas license 0114180905.
With this letter I am respectfully requesting a variance from the. required set-
back limitations for 67 Bellegarde Drive, Lot 3, Block 38, LaMarche Place,
Chenal Properties Subdivision, City of Little Rock.
The reason for this needed variance is due to extreme grade requiring our front
steps to protrude approximately 8 to 9 feet into said building set -back as
depicted on the plot plan herein attached.
Your approval of this requested variance would be most appreciated.
Sincerely,
Richard Harp Homes, Inc.
By: ,-?
Richard S. Harp
President
Attachment
O
U
w
w
W
H
O
H
w
i
0
a
LL
O
Lf.
a
O
m
2i
n
w
W
..i
�r
z
W
CO
co
Q
W
z
December 20, 2004
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:29
p.m.
Date: ->CJS