boa_01 27 2003LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
JANUARY 27, 2003
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 Meetings
The Minutes of the December 23, 2002 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
William Ruck, Chairman
Fred Gray, Vice Chairman
Terry Burruss
Andrew Francis
ScottRichburg
City Attorney Present: Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
JANUARY 27, 2003
2:00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.
Z-7330
B.
Z-7338
C.
Z -5943-A
D.
Z-7342
E.
Z-7320
II. NEW ITEMS:
1.
Z -3459-D
2.
Z -3645-C
3.
Z -5430-C
4.
Z -6659-A
5.
Z-7352
3209 Katherine Street
7312 Debbie Drive
5713 Kavanaugh Blvd.
5119 Sherwood Road
7 Southmont Circle
10400 Mabelvale Plaza
11601 Rodney Parham Road
2501 Barrow Road
600 Interstate 30
5423 Stonewall Road
M
O
N
3Ad
lt312VlLi
A �
■ �
// �
� llnY9lHl
' `
N
/7 CO
.W\
yy \�
CO3
q
g
Qj
'� ..A
171'/1iL7J
A
�
as
—
A MQVt)11
H�NY
�t�bl
CL
1S3
� 1DH3Hp F� �
DNU
as 3
i
R MO
3AId t,
s
In
0
NOl UOOS
�br
(f7
z
�
Y
Of
A1MMM
€ A16Y3IIHn
�4
snHa ds �t3�
Q
3HJnH
Q
wins In
r MIND
LaJ
MpyWB NHq' m
3
�
0ll0iilM]1'HS S
� SIOIIVs
s _
w
12
06
silml Alp
N
SLY1n Allo
t
SIM Allo
3
6� WAMns
1x+M3ls
W
OOT
s M
SAKI
& �
Alp
a
g
b MAW
o
O
QQ
l.
January 27, 2003
ITEM NO.: A
File No.: Z-7330
Owner: James E. Weaver
Address: 3209 Katherine Street
Description: Part of Lots 9 and 10, Block 24, John
Barrow Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an
accessory carport structure with reduced
separation and front 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 Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 3209 Katherine Street is occupied by a one-
story brick and frame single family residence. There is a single car
driveway from Katherine Street which serves as access. A 12 foot by 20
foot metal carport structure covers a portion of the driveway.
The metal carport structure existed on the site when the current owner
purchased the property in April 1997. The structure is located
approximately 14 feet back from the front property line and flush against
the front wall of the single family house. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the
City's Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory structures in R-2 zoning
be located at least 60 feet from a front property line. Section 36-
156(a)(2)b. requires that accessory structures be separated from principal
January 27, 2003
Item No.: A (Cont.)
structures by a minimum of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting variances from these ordinance standards.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff's support is based
primarily on the fact that the carport structure has been in place for years,
with no complaints from neighbors. The City's enforcement staff observed
the carport during a neighborhood inspection. Therefore, staff feels that it
is reasonable to place the carport structure over the existing driveway.
Although staff supports the variance requests, given the fact that the
carport structure is not on a permanent foundation, staff feels that the
variances should be approved for this property owner's use only.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances for reduced front
yard setback and building separation associated with the accessory
carport structure, subject to the following conditions:
The variances be approved for the property owner, James E. Weaver
and his son, Reginald Weaver, only.
2. If the property is sold or the Weavers vacate the property, the carport
structure must be removed from the site or moved to meet the
minimum required setbacks.
3. The carport structure must remain unenclosed on the north, south and
west sides.
Staff will inspect the property every five (5) years to verify the ownership
and occupancy of the property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 23, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the notices to property owners within 200 feet of
the site were not completed as required. The Board determined that the item
needed to be deferred to the January 27, 2003 agenda to allow the applicant
time to complete the required notifications. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 27,
2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
0
January 27, 2003
Item No.: A (Cont.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 27, 2003)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be
deferred to the February 24, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 24,
2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3
4--� A
doT-) F
a /
749 R, 1 ✓t,2 X12 t E� t� 1 A?j j)
s iTCXi-aC: b�Fi3 �i��°''Jr� / !! G CF1'f�f'�` � i •� f/fi"S r�� nJ �L1iC�' i� ICI��
x Toic1�1=j_fvlcx�S
--i f-iZE
4
Two
7
3
�3.
U
5-i
23
1�
3' d i
January 27, 2003
ITEM NO.: B
File No.: Z-7338
Owner: Cedric Raulston
Address: 7312 Debbie Drive
Description: Lot 202, Brookwood Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a
deck addition with a reduced rear yard
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 Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 7312 Debbie Drive is occupied by a one-story
brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from
Debbie Drive which serves as access. A 12 foot by 28 foot room addition
was recently constructed on the rear of the structure. There is other
remodeling work currently being done on the structure.
The property owner proposes to construct a 16 foot by 28 foot deck
addition on the rear of the structure where the building addition was
recently constructed. The property slopes downward from the north wall
of the structure to the north property line, and there is a door on the north
wall of the structure. The property owner is proposing the deck addition to
provide safe access to the rear of the house and maximize the usable rear
January 27, 2003
tem No.: B (Cont.
yard area. The owner has noted that there is a small, level yard area on
the west side of the building, which is used as a play area for his children.
The proposed deck addition will be unenclosed and uncovered, with a
setback of 12 feet from the rear (north) property line. Section 36-
254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 25 foot rear
yard setback for principal structures located in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the
property owner is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard.
Staff is supportive of the variance request. With the rear portion of this lot
unusable due to the existing slope, staff feels that it would be reasonable
to construct a deck in this area, leaving the level yard space on the west
side of the house as a play area for the property owner's children. The
proposed deck being unenclosed and uncovered will minimize any impact
on the adjacent properties. Staff feels that the proposed deck will have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the rear yard setback variance, subject to
the proposed deck remaining unenclosed and uncovered.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 23, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the notices to property owners within 200 feet of
the site were not completed as required. The Board determined that the item
needed to be deferred to the January 27, 2003 agenda to allow the applicant
time to complete the required notifications. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 27,
2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JANUARY 27, 2003)
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
November 21, 2002 733 9
Mr. & Mrs. Cedric Raulston
7312 Debbie Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
To Whom It May Concern:
We are writing this letter in the hope of getting permission to build a deck in our
backyard. We are a family with four children, ages 10 months to 14 years old, and
are in need of more lawn space for family activities. We do no allow our children
to play in the front lawn due to safety concerns. The house floor plan is designed
where the rear door sits on a hill that has a 7 -foot drop on 24 feet. We have an
area on the west side of the house that is used as a playground and a landscape
area around the A/C unit and electric power panel.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We sincerely hope that you
will grant permission for us to build a deck at the rear of our house.
Sincerely,
The Raulston Family
January 27, 2003
ITEM NO.: C
File No.: Z -5943-A
Owner: Fields -Williams Family Partnership
Address: 5713 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Description: South side of Kavanaugh Blvd., between
Pierce and Fillmore Streets
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: The request is to amend a previously
approved parking variance (Spaule
Restaurant) by removing a condition that
limited the hours of operation of the
restaurant.
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
Q
Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Restaurant (dinner and Sunday lunch)
Restaurant (lunch and dinner)
The Board of Adjustment approved a parking variance for Spaule
Restaurant at 5713 Kavanaugh Blvd. on February 13, 1995. The
restaurant proposed to locate in a 2,200 square foot building which has no
off-street parking, and was previously occupied by a retail establishment.
Changing from a retail use to a restaurant use required that the applicant
provide 15 off-street parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant filed a
parking variance which was approved by the Board conditioned on the
restaurant only being open 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Sunday 11:30
a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The hours of operation were proposed by the restaurant
owner (amended application) at that time.
January 27, 2003
Item No.: C
The current restaurant owners, Shawna and Danny McGill, request to
amend the previous approval by allowing the restaurant to open during
the lunch hours. Please see the attached letter from the McGills, which
explains their justification for the request. They feel that there has been a
dramatic change in circumstances in the area since 1995.
Staff does not support the requested amendment to the previously
approved parking variance. Although staff supported the applicant's
amended application in 1995, staff did not support the original submittal
which included the restaurant being open during the lunch hour (see
attached February 13, 1995 minute record). Staff recognized that there
was a parking problem within this area of the Heights, which was a
concern not only to staff but also to neighborhood residents and other
business owners. To staff's knowledge, there has been no substantial
change in the parking situation since that time. If the applicants can
provide specific information showing that, "due to a drop in area traffic that
the circumstances from then to now have changed dramatically," staff
might have a different opinion of the situation.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not support the amendment to the previously approved parking
variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(NOVEMBER 25, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be
deferred to the December 23, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral
request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 23,
2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 23, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the notices to property owners within 200 feet of
the site were not completed as required. The Board determined that the item
needed to be deferred to the January 27, 2003 agenda to allow the applicant
time to complete the required notifications. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 27,
2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
January 27, 2003
Item No.: C (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 27, 2003)
Danny and Shawna McGill were present, representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of
denial.
Danny McGill addressed the Board in support of the application. He submitted
photos of the area to the Board. He stated that he has two (2) parking spaces at
the rear of the building. He noted that the photos were taken around noon on
January 27, 2003, and gave a brief explanation of them. He noted that the
change in the area since 1995 was that there is a lull in business activity in this
immediate area during the lunch hours. He stated that he had an agreement
with an adjacent business to use six (6) parking spaces.
Chairman Ruck asked if the spaces dedicated from the other business will be
marked for the use of Spau16 Restaurant. Mr. McGill indicated that they would.
Chairman Ruck asked how the Spau16 customers would find the parking in the
rear. Mr. McGill stated that signage could be placed on the front of the
restaurant indicating parking at the rear of the building. There was a brief
discussion pertaining to the parking agreement. Staff noted that the neighboring
business could only allow Spaule to use parking spaces in excess of the
minimum ordinance requirement for their business.
Vice -Chairman Gray asked what would be the anticipated traffic during the lunch
hours. Mr. McGill noted that it would probably be 40 to 45 persons. Vice -
Chairman Gray asked what the seating capacity of the restaurant was. Mr.
McGill noted that it was 60 to 70 seats. There was discussion related to the
number of vehicles which would come to the site during the lunch hours.
Chairman Ruck asked about past history of parking issues in the areas along
Kavanaugh Blvd. and if conditions were imposed on other businesses. Staff
explained that there had been parking variances in the past which the Board had
approved with conditions, and gave examples.
Vice -Chairman Gray asked how many other restaurants in the area served
lunch. Mr. McGill explained that there were three (3) others. There was
additional discussion pertaining to the parking issue in this immediate area.
Shawna McGill addressed the Board in support of the application. She noted
that other businesses in the area had explained to her that they experience a lull
in customer traffic during lunchtime.
Vice -Chairman Gray expressed concern that additional parking will be needed in
the near future with the retail space, which will be constructed on the north side
3
January 27, 2003
Item No.: C (Cont.
of the new Kroger Store. This issues was briefly discussed. Mr. McGill noted
that he should not be penalized by the future retail space.
Andrew Francis concurred with Vice -Chairman Gray's concern. He suggested
that the Board approve the amended parking variance for 12 months, and review
the issue again after that time. This issue was briefly discussed.
There was a motion to approve the amended variance and allow Spaule
Restaurant to open during the lunch hours for 12 months, with additional Board
review after that time. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and
1 absent. The amended variance was approved.
C!
•
September 23, 2002
SPAU LE'
Members of the Board of Adjustments
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham — S`j —
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
Dear Members,
In reference to the parking ordinance in place for the area of 5713 Kavanaugh, we
would like to apply for a variance for Spaule' Restaurant during the hours of 11:30 a.m. ..
to 1:30 p.m.
Spaule' has been established at 5713 Kavanaugh for a period of seven years. During
this time, we have had the opportunity to serve our patrons from all. over the state of
Arkansas and the country. We have created a good rapport and have enjoyed working
with the people of Little Rock as well as many dignitaries from abroad. We would also
like to fulfill the city's need for fine dining during the lunch hour. Our customers, who
are mostly successful business men and women, have expressed to us their desire for a
place where they can bring business prospects or corporate executives to dine in style and
prospectively gain that persons' business for their firm. This in turn will drive more
revenue into the local economy. It is for these reasons. that we submit our application to
you at this time.
We are aware of an application filed by the previous owner, Scott Swander, in 1995.
We feel that due to a drop in area traffic that the circumstances from then to now have
changed dramatically. We have been reviewing the parking availability in our area for
the past two months and have concluded that there is more than ample parking to
accommodate the volume of customers we can capacitate. Our neighboring merchants
either have their own designated parking areas, or have a lull in customer base during that
time because everyone is eating lunch in other parts of the city. We have attached the
signatures of our neighbors for your review. They too have expressed a great desire for
us to open for lunch to increase lunch hour business.
Spaule' Restaurant has generated a huge amount of revenue for the Heights area and the
city during our evening dining hours. This variance is sure to bring even more revenue
not only for us, but to the neighboring merchants by bringing more consumers by their
windows.
We ask that you diligently consider our request for the variance. Any questions or '
suggestions you may have regarding this matter will be greatly appreciated. Please feel
free to contact us at the number below.
Respectfully,
�J
Shawna and Danny McGill
Owner and Operators of Spaule' Restaurant
5713 KAVANAUGH BLVD. • LITTLE ROCK, AR 72207 • IN THE HEIGHTS • 501.664 -FOOD • FAX 501-664-4041
February 13, 1 y y 5
Item MnA 4
File NO. -
Z -5943
Owner: Fields Family Ltd.'Partnership
Address :n 5713 Kavanaugh.Blvd.
Lot 7, :Block 6, Mount ain...P'&rk-. _
Addition
Zn: C-3
variance Requested:
JustifiCStion:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
From the off-street parking.
regulations of.9ection 36-502 to
Permit a restaurant with no .on-site'
parking. The Ordinance. requires a
2,200 square. foots restaurant to
Provide 22 on-site parkirig spaces.
As is true of -many of the
properties In the Heights
Commercial District, the building
occupies the entirety of ..the lot.
There is no"portion.of the propert y.
available for use as parking...
a
Vacant commercial 'building
Restaurant �..
Staff Report -
A. Engineering issues
..The pavement adjacent -to the curb is cracked and sagging,.
repair is recommended.
B.: Staff.Analysis-
The applicant' p .
.. .. _ PP .nproposes .to locate a..restaurant..in . _this. . ....._........_...._.... _
existing; 2.,200 square foot, C-3 zoned building. .. The
restaurant will occupy a portion of a building which was
formerly occupied by a retail shoe store. I There is no on-
site parking available and the occupant is requesting a.
variance from the Ordinance Parking Requirements to allow
the restaurant to occupy this former retail space. When the
2,200 square foot area was used as a retail shoe store, it
had a.parking requirement of 7 spaces. This same square_
footage, when used as s restaurant, requires 22 parking
spaces: The property, as is true of many in the.Heights
commercial area, has a non -conforming status in relationship
February -13, 19.5 '
Item No. A (Cont
to its parking requirement. If another retail use were
proposed for this site, .that' non -conforming status would be
continued and no parking. variance would be required. The.
increase in parking requirement generates the request for a
variance. _.
Section 36-506 of the Code of Ordinances states:
When a building or structure erected prior to or
after the effective date of this chapter shall
undergo any increase in number of dwelling
units, gross f.loor area, seating capacity,
number of employees or other unit of measure
used in determining required parking'. f acilities,
and when the increase would result in a
requirement for additional. parking. fac ities,.
such additional facilities shall be accordingly,
Provided as a condition for obtaining a building
permit or privilege license. In computing the
number of spaces required for such a building,
however, only the increase in unit measure shall
be considered.
Based on this Section, the restaurant must provide for the
increasedrequirement of 15 on-site parking spaces.
Based on data submitted by the applicant, the restaurant.--..
will generate the following numbers for lunch and .dinner
service:
Lunch - 65 to 70 persons per day
Dinner - 80 to 100 persons per day
The restaurant will accommodate approximately 60 seats at
one ,time
The issue of .parking in the Height's -:is of great -concern -to
staff, neighborhood residents and adjacent commercial uses.
Staff recognizes that there is a shortage of available
parking and is concerned about how this shortage affects not
only existing businesses but proposed businesses as well.
There is no easy solution to this dilemma. Until such time
as this issue is addressed on a broader scope; staff feels
that a more conservative approach must be taken when
addressing the question of parking in the Heights.
While it is true that many of the adjacent commercial uses
are not open during this proposed restaurant's dinner hour
(5:30 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.), and more parking would be
available in the area, the additional traffic generated
during the lunch hours (11;30 a.m._ - 2:00 p.m.) would only
exacerbate an already difficult situation.
2
February 13, 1990
Item No.: A (Cont-.)
As such, staff cannot.suppor.t the requested parking
variance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested parking variance..
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JANUARY 30, 1995) -
Scott Swander was present representing the applicant. There were
no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of denial. .Staff also made reference to three
letters which had been presented to the -Board. One letter was in
support of the variance from the Heights Merchants and
Professional Association. Two letters were in opposition to-thevariance; one from Ron Tunnell, Attorney representing the owners
of the property at 5717 and 5719 Kavanaugh Blvd. and one letter
from Flake, Tabor-, Tucker, Wells and Kelley, a property
management company representing the owners of the Heights Theatre -
at 5600 Kavanaugh, Harvest Foods at 550'1'Kavanaugh and the
commercial center at 1818 North Taylor.
Mr. Swander presented a map of the area around the 5700 block of
Kavanaugh Blvd. He pointed out the availability of 60.parking
Spaces,,counting on street parking as well as some private, off, -
street -parking.
Chairman Borchert asked what the seating capacity of the
restaurant would be. Mr. Swander responded that the seating
capacity would be approximately 60.
After further discussion, Jeff Hathaway asked staff to give a
history of the nonconforming status of parking in the Heights.
Richard Wood responded by stating that the majority of the
commercial area in the Heights was developed prior to the parking
requirement, being placed"in the Zoning'Ordinance in 1958 or 1959.
Since that time, new commercial development has had to comply
with the on-site parking requirement.
Andrew Melton addressed the Board in support of the variance. He
stated the Heights Merchants and Professional*Association was
concerned about businesses leaving the area and was in support of
the proposed restaurant. Mr. Melton stated he did not understand'
the Board's opposition to granting the variance since there is
park'ng`available in the vicinity of the proposed restaurant.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, reminded the Board that the
letters of opposition came from the owners of parking lots in the
vicinity of the proposed restaurant. Some of the parking which
Mr. Swander .had indicated as available for use -by the restaurant
was in fact parking which is required by other businesses.
3
February 13, 1995 -
Item No.: A (Cont.)
Chairman Borchert stated that he was concerned about parking and
traffic in the area.
Jeff Hathaway asked how many neighborhood businesses were members
of the Heights Merchants and Professional Association'.
Mr. Swander responded that nearly' .100% of the businesses had
membership in the Association.
During the ensuing discussion, several board members indicated an
inclination to approve the variance but also expressed concerns
about. the._impact on neighboring businesses which have -on-site
parking.
Paul Hickey.then addressed the Board'in,support of the variance.
Several board members then urged the applicant to try to find .a
business with excess parking which would allow the restaurant to
use some of its parking spaces:
A motion was made to defer the item to the February 27, 1995
Board meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to.locate"
some available -parking. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
(NOTES TO<FILE)
After the January 30., 1995 Board meeting, the applicant approached
staff with an amended application which limited the proposed
restauraiit's-opening hours to only the dinner hours of 5:30 p.m.
to 10:OOp.m. and a Sunday lunch from 11:30 a.m. to 2:Q0 p.m. in
addition to amending the application, the applicant requested a
special meeting of the Board. The reason, being, if -the applicant
failed to get the approved variance by February 15, 1995, then the
property would be up for lease consideration to another party.
Staff approached Chairman Borchert who gave approval to poll the
Board members about a special meeting to review the amended
application. After polling the Board members and receiving
unanimous consent, a special meeting was set for February 13, 1995
at 1:30 p.m.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 13,'1.995)
Scott Swander was present representing the applicant. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and advised
the Board of the amended application which eliminated the
restaurant's lunch hours. The hours of the -restaurant would be
5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a Sunday lunch from 11:30 a.m. to
2:00 p.m. The applicant's reasoning behind the amended
application is that most of the businesses in the immediate
vicinity close by 6:00 p.m. and are not open at all on Sunday.
Therefore, by eliminating the lunch hour, the proposed restaurant
4
February 13, 1995
Item No.: A (Cont.)
should not create a parking conflict with the other businesses.
Staff advised the Board that they agreed with this assessment and
were offering a recommendation of approval of the amended
application.
Mr. Swander -addressed the Board and confirmed the amended.
application.
Chairman Borchert asked Mr. Swander if he had made contact with
the.two individuals who wrote letters in opposition to the
parking variance. Mr. Swander responded that he had spoken with
both Mr. Wells and Mr. Tunnell and neither appeared to have any
objections to the amended application.
Chairman Borchert asked if.staff had received any comment -on -the
item. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that letterz
had been -sent to both Mr. Wells and Mr. Tunnell advising them of
the amended. -application and the February 13, 1995 Special -Board
meeting. Mr.. Carney stated that there was no response -to the
letters.
Chairman Borchert stated that he and other Board members had
received a phone call in opposition -to the variance request from
Sam -Anderson -of the firm of Barnes, Quinn, Flake and Anderson.
A motion:.was then made to approve the amended application.for.a
parking variance subject to the restaurant being open onlyfor
the dinner hours of 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the Sunday lunch
hours of 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The motion was approved with -a
vote of.8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open position.
5
r
October 16 2002 -� r
We, the below listed Heights business owners, believe it would be
beneficial to our community for Spaule'.to open for lunch. The added
revenue to the area would male it a welcome addition to our shopping
district'.
Nam -e Business pate.;
?) L
MARY HEALEY'S
FINE JEWELRY
October 18, 2002
C
-'4
Members ofBoard'of
Department of Planning & Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 12202
Dear Members:
I have learned that Spaule'.a neighbor. business is seeking permission to open for lunch. I
am very hopeful that this request is approved for I believe this addition to. the service for
the area would definitely be positive for.the Heights neighborhood.
I appreciate your time and consideration, I- anticipate your decision with great interest.
A sincere "thank you" to each of you.
Trulv.
P
.. .. .- , = ... '�'TA
"'�� .i-•' " -- •��`'{.•:' _. __ is ... .
CERTIFIED GEMOLOGIST
AMERICAN GEM SOCIETY
5600 Kavanaugh • Old Heights Theater Building • Little Rock, ,Arkansas 72207
11-1\ iii. ISI /. - /enl\ T'.___
C�
October 28, 2002
Members of Board of Adjustments
Dept of Punning and .Development
'723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Board Members,
I am writing to express my support for the McGill's request to open their restaurant,
Spaule, during daytime.hours. An increase in Heights pedestrian traffic can only serve to
benefit surrounding retailers like myself.
I understand that a particular store owner has concerns regarding the parking situation; I
do not share that concern. Street parking on Kavanaugh Blvd. is rarely full and I do not
foresee any problems with parking. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions regarding this letter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Melissa Rowland, Owner
The Great Southern Sauce Company
5705 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Little Rock, AR 72207
663-3338
KECEIVED
OCT 8 12002
January 27, 2003
ITEM NO.: D
File No.: Z-7342
Owner: Mr. and Mrs. Alan Warrick
Address: 5119 Sherwood Road
Description: Lot 82, Prospect Terrace Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: " A variance is requested from Section
36-156 to allow an accessory building with
a reduced separation.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
U
Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
New single family residence under
construction
Single family residential
The R-2 zoned property at 5119 Sherwood Road contains a two-story
single family residence which is under construction. Vehicular access will
be by way of an existing alley on the south property line. In addition to the
new residence, the applicants propose to construct a 22 foot by 22 foot
detached garage at the southwest corner of the property.
The proposed house and accessory garage meet or exceed all ordinance
required minimum building setbacks with the exception of the separation
between the two (2) structures. The applicants propose a 3.5 foot
separation between the house and garage. Section 36-156(a)(2)b. of the
City's Zoning Ordinance requires that single family residences be
separated from accessory buildings by at least six (6) feet. Therefore, the
applicants are requesting a variance from this ordinance standard.
January 27, 2003
Item No.: D (Cont.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the variance
request is reasonable, given the fact that the lot has a 30 foot front platted
building line and a four (4) foot easement along the rear property line. If
the lot had a 25 foot front platted building line as is typically allowed in R-2
zoning and/or the four (4) foot easement did not exist along the rear
property line, then the house could be shifted up or the accessory building
could be shifted back to the property line which would provide ample
space for the required separation. Staff feels that the proposed
development for this lot will not be out of character with other properties in
this area, and have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. Staff
feels that it would be reasonable to require that the Little Rock Fire
Department sign off on the proposed building separation to assure that no
fire codes are violated.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to the Little
Rock Fire Department approving the proposed building separation.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 23, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be
deferred to the January 27, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 27,
2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JANUARY 27, 2003)
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
Alan & Ann Warrick
5500 Edgetivood Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
December 3, 2002
Mr. Monte Moore
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Residence of Alan and Ann Warrick
5119 Sherwood Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
Dear Mr. Moore,
� 4� D
We are requesting a rear yard setback variance for our residence located at
5119 Sherwood Road.
We are constructing a new home and desire a detached garage with rear
alleyway access. The proposed plans reflect our need to encroach north of
the rear building line as noted for detached outbuildings.
We believe our proposed plans are consistent with many other homes in
Prospect Terrace and ask for your consideration of our variance request.
Sincerely,
Alan & Ann
',Warrick
Moore, Monte
1-2 — -7 2—
From:
Kinney, Don
Sent:
Friday, December 20, 2002 1:48 PM
To:
Moore, Monte
`�`
Cc:
Johnston, Phil
��
Subject:
Property variance
We concur with your staff recommendation in regards to approval of the requested zoning
variance at 5119 Sherwood Road. If we can be of further assistance, please do not
hesitate to let us know. I will be out of the office next week, but will check my voice mail. If you
need more immediate attention, contact Fire Chief Phil Johnston at 918-3740.
January 27, 1003
ITEM NO.: E
File No.: Z-7320
Owner: Dr. Richard A. Dennis
Address: 7 Southmont Circle
Description: Lot 15, Richmond Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-156 to allow a
satellite dish with a reduced front yard
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
0
Public Works Issues:
1. Public Works does not support the mounting of private equipment in
the public right-of-way or on public utility poles.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 7 Southmont Circle is occupied by a one-story
brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from
Southmont Circle which serves as access. The property owner recently
attached an eighteen -inch satellite dish to the utility pole in the right-of-
way, near the southwest corner of the property. The City's Zoning
Ordinance classifies a satellite dish as an accessory structure, with
minimum required setbacks.
Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front
yard setback of 60 feet for accessory structures. The satellite dish is
located on a utility pole approximately 10 feet into the right-of-way of
Southmont Circle. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from
January 27, 2003
Item No.: E (Cont.)
this ordinance standard. The applicant notes in the attached letter that
there is no alternate location for the satellite dish, given the large trees
within other portions of the property which would obstruct the dish's
receiving ability.
Staff does not support the variance request. As noted in paragraph A. of
this report, Public Works does not support the placement of private
equipment in the public right-of-way on public utility poles. This type of
use of the public right-of-way,is not a policy that staff wishes to establish
in any form.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the setback variance as associated with the
satellite dish.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(NOVEMBER 25, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be
deferred to the December 23, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral
request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 23,
2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 23, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be
deferred to the January 27, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 27,
2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JANUARY 27, 2003)
Richard A. Dennis was present, representing the application. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Richard A. Dennis addressed the Board in support of the application. He
requested to amend the application to place his own pole in the right-of-way next
to the utility pole and place the satellite dish on that pole. Stephen Giles, City
Attorney, noted that a franchise would have to be granted by Public Works.
2
January 27, 2003
Item No.: E (Cont.
Andrew Francis noted that the Board of Directors was working on an ordinance
to prohibit private encroachments into public rights-of-way.
Andrew Francis asked if the dish could be moved back and placed on the private
property. Mr. Dennis noted that it could not and explained. Staff noted that the
satellite dish would only have to be moved back approximately 10 feet to place it
on the private property. Mr. Dennis noted that it could not be moved back that
for and maintain reception.
There was additional discussion related to the location of the satellite dish and its
installation. Mr. Dennis noted that he installed the dish.
Chairman Ruck asked if tree limbs could be cut to improve the reception. Mr.
Dennis noted that the tree which would interfere with the dish's reception was on
the adjacent property and not his.
Vice -Chairman Gray stated that he would like a professional to look at the
satellite placement. Andrew Francis suggested deferring the application so that
Mr. Dennis could explore moving the dish out of the right-of-way and onto his
property. Mr. Dennis noted that he did not want the application deferred. There
was additional discussion related to moving the satellite dish out of the right-of-
way.
There was a motion to approve the application, as filed. The motion failed by a
vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent. The application was denied.
3
October 25, 2002
Mr. Monte Moore
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Mr. Moore,
. -� E
2--73-2-0
I am writing to request a residential zoning variance relating to CourtesyNotice 5662 that I
was issued on 9/4/02 due to a code violation on myproperty. I have an eighteen -inch
satellite dish attached to the light pole in front of my home. The notice indicated "accessory
structures could not be located closer than 60' to the front property line".. I have lived on
Southmont Circle longer than any other resident and I would not want to do anything to
detract from our properties. I make this appeal because: .
1. There is not an alternative location for placement of the satellite dish. The satellite
dish must have a clear view of the south-east skyto function. Myyard, as wellas my
neighbor's, contains many large trees which obstruct this view everywhere except
from the light pole. Please see the included photos.
2. The dish is well above the line of sight and does not detract from the property's
appearance.
3. It is also well below the street lamp. The dish is properly grounded and does not
present a safety issue.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this appeal. I understand that there are rules that
must be followed to protect the rights of my neighbors, but I am also thankful that
reasonable exceptions can be made.
Sincerely,
T11., V 14
Dr. Richard A. Dennis
7 SOUTHMONT CIRCLE
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72209
501-568-6711
5�1-9�0-R0�.4
t
January 27, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: Z -3459-D
Owner: Twin City Bank
Address: 10400 Mabelvale Plaza
Description: South side of Interstate 30, approximately
800 feet west of Baseline Road
Zoned: C -3/C-4
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the buffer
requirements of Section 36-522 to allow a
reduced interstate buffer.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
With Building Permit:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Undeveloped
Bank
1. Construct road frontage improvements to match adjacent development
on the 1-30 frontage.
2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in
accordance with Sec. 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master
Street Plan.
3. On-site stormwater detention is required unless it can be
demonstrated that the developer is to provide area -wide facilities.
4. Provide the direction of flow and all stormwater flows (2) entering and
leaving the property.
5. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. Provide
drainage break at apron.
January 27, 2003
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements with the exception of the proposed buffer along Interstate
30. The zoning and landscape ordinances both require a thirty (30) foot
wide on-site landscape buffer when abutting an expressway. Therefore, a
variance from the City Beautiful Commission will also be required in this
regard.
The impact of the reduced buffer landscape width along Interstate 30
could be lessened with the use of berming and additional evergreen trees
and shrubs.
C. Staff Analysis:
The C -3/C-4 zoned property located on the south side of Interstate 30,
approximately 800 feet west of Baseline Road, is currently undeveloped
and partially wooded. The majority of the property is zoned C-3, with a
small sliver of C-4 along the west property line. The property is part of the
Mabelvale Plaza commercial development. The property owner, Twin City
Bank, is proposing to construct a branch bank facility on this site. The
proposed development will consist of a 3,700 square foot branch bank
building with drive-thru, and associated drives and parking. One (1)
access point from the 1-30 service road is proposed.
Section 36-522(a)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
30 foot street (interstate) landscape buffer for this site. The proposed site
plan provides a 12 foot buffer along the majority of the north (interstate)
property line. Therefore, the property owner is requesting a variance from
this ordinance standard.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The proposed street buffer
is very close in width to the buffers provided with the newer commercial
developments to the east (Pizza Hut, branch bank, Sonic). The proposed
buffer should align nicely with these sites, which were developed prior to
the current street (interstate) buffer requirement. Additionally, the
applicant has submitted a landscape plan which shows a berm and
additional landscape plantings within the proposed buffer area to help
lessen the impact of the reduced buffer width. The reduced buffer width
should have no negative impact on the general area. As noted in
paragraph B. of this report, the property owner will also need to request a
variance from the City Beautiful Commission.
2
January 27, 2003
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance for reduced buffer
width subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph
A. of this report.
2. Approval must also be obtained from the City Beautiful Commission.
3. Provide berming and additional evergreen landscape plantings within
the street buffer area.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 27, 2003)
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
-
-GGART FOSTER CURRENCE
TGRAY " ARCHITECTS, INC.
~ rs��mse
r
ARCHITECTURE j
Dedember 20, 2002
PLANNING ,
i
INT•E-RIORS �
Little Ro&-City .Board of Adjustment +~Lo
i
-. P41A -�
Department-of.Planning.and Development '
723 West,Markham
;
Little Rock, Arkansas 722-01-1334:
F'o u iv D E Rs
Re Request for•30-Foot Landscape Buffer Variance
I�
I" James Burt dT
I 83..1r:. A.LA. ,
Twin City Bank, Mabelvade Branch ..
(Retired) i
Kenneth "Buck" Matthews
I,�30 Frontage Road and Baseftne Road,
Little Rock,' Ark , as
Charles D:'Foster, A.LA
Ci • of Little Rock: Board of Ad'ustrnent
I.
LA3
PRTNERS
_
On behalf of the Owner, Twin City Bank, North Little=Rock, Arkansas, submitted herewith is
"documents,
- . Charles D. Foster, A.I.A. ?
.an Application for honing Variance with' required supporting for. the above
Jeny E. Curzence, A.T.A.
referenced project.
„
The•purpose of this, application is to request a variance .to the existing. 30400t.1andscape
George W "Bill" Gray, A.I.A.
Buffer, which- is required between the 1-30 Frontage Road' Right -Of -Way and any
MIP rovementS.(parking lot and structures). I
Ass .o c I tiT E j .
The" Owner proposes to provide a TZ -foot wide Landscape Buffer with. a30=inch, high Earthen
Paul.Mjchael Callahan, A.I.A..
Berm'arid increased landscaping, The "increased landscaping -will be. in the formof providing '.
trees: to equal ahe amount required as if planted at 20 -feet on. center in lieu of an amount equal
to 30 -feet on center as required.
Justification and reasons for requesting,a variance in the 30 -Foot T:andscape.Buffer can -be
summarized as follows: .
ADDRESS
L.. This requirement would •place our' site improvements approximately 60 -feet back
4500 Burrow Drive
from the pavement of the 1-30 Frontage Road.. a
'North uttie Rock, AR 721 16
2. This requirement would force the front of the proposed structure to be approximately
30 -feet .further- .back from the •1-30 Frontage : Road. Right -Of Way than- existing:" i
r H o N E
structures on either side of this. subject property:.
t
.. .50-1 '758',7443
3: This requitement forces the Owner to purcTiase an additional strip of land along the.
i
Right -Of -Way, which, is: an increase of 40.percent. in the totalproperty'required for
this project..
FAX ;
501 ' 753 ' 7309
INTERNET
wwra.TagaArch.com
FQS T ER-CURRENCE-GRAV
.11M
- yt.r .a. amYM.:
January 27, 2003
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.: Z -3645-C
Applicant: Little Rock Fast Cash, Inc.
Address: 11601 Rodney Parham Road
Description: Southeast corner of Rodney Parham Road
and Green Mountain Drive
Zoned: C-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from Section
36-555 to allow additional incidental
signage.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Commercial
Proposed Use of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT
/a
Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The C-2 zoned property at 11601 Rodney Parham Road is occupied by a
commercial strip center. One of the tenants, Little Rock Fast Cash, was
recently issued a courtesy notice by the City's Zoning Enforcement Staff
based on the fact that more incidental signage than allowed had been
placed on the business' front windows. Approximately 42 square feet of
incidental signage is located in the front windows and door of the
business. A sign permit was issued for the 2 foot by 16 foot wall sign
located at the top of the building's facade.
Section 36-555(a)(2)d. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a total of 20
square feet of incidental signage for each business occupancy.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance
standard.
t
January 27, 2003
Item No.: 2 (Cont.
Staff does not support the requested variance. Staff feels that the amount
of incidental signage is out of character with the other businesses in this
strip center and the general area. The permitted wall sign represents 10
percent of the approximate 320 square feet of building fagade for this
business. This is the maximum amount of wall signage allowed by
ordinance. Therefore, staff does not feel that the applicant has any
justification for requesting more than the 20 square feet of incidental
signage allowed by ordinance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 27, 2003)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be
withdrawn. Staff supported the withdrawal request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn by a vote of 4 ayes,
0 nays and 1 absent.
2
1 1,, --42-
Z - 3
LITTLE
2 -
LITTLE ROCK FAST CASH, INC.'
11601 N. Rodney Parham Road
Suite 4
Little Rock, AR 72212
(501)312-2274 Phone
(501)954-7752 Fax
December 20, 2002
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
To Whom It May Concern:
Enclosed please find an Application for Zoning Variance (Signs). This
application is requesting additional incidental signage (on the front
windows) of the business. Please see attached picture of window signage
and layout of front of the building, including the measurements of the
windows and letters on them.
We feel like the signage has been done in a tasteful manner. We also
feel that it is necessary because the location of the office is set back off of
Rodney Parham Road, therefore, larger lettering is necessary to capture
the drive-by traffic on Rodney Parham as well as Green Mountain
Drive.
We are currently in possession of a permit for the 2' X 16' sign on the
top of the building (Permit #22605).
Your sincere consideration for a variance would be greatly appreciated.
Si cerely,
Rhonda Gunter
Supervisor
l
January 27, 2003
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
/.\
Public Works Issues:
Z -5430-C
Little Rock School District
2501 Barrow Road
East side of Bowman Road, at Tanya Drive
A variance is requested from Section 36-
543 to allow the permanent placement of
banner signs.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
High School
High School
Hanging of signs and banners on traffic control poles is prohibited under
City code and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control. No banners can be
hung on the three poles that hold signal and warning devices on Barrow
Road. Banners are allowed at all other locations within the property.
Entergy approval may be required if the poles are not owned by the
School District.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 2501 Barrow Road is occupied by the Parkview
High School campus. The school is requesting to permanently install
banner signs to 19 utility/light poles to enhance and identify the campus.
Three (3) of the poles are located in the Barrow Road right-of-way and
contain City of Little Rock traffic control and warning equipment. Two (2)
of the poles are utility poles located along the north property line. The
remaining poles are light poles or utility poles located within the interior
school parking lots. The school proposes to place one (1) banner (30" X
January 2i, 2003
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
60") near the top of each pole. Attached is a photo showing the proposed
typical banner placement and design.
Section 36-543(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits the use of
banner signs, except for the temporary placement as allowed with a
special event permit as noted in Section 36-557 of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the school is requesting a variance from these sections to
allow the permanent placement of the banner signs.
Staff supports the variance for the banner signs to be placed on the 16
light poles and utility poles within the interior of the site. However, as
noted in paragraph A. of this report, placement of banner signs on traffic
control poles is strictly prohibited under City code and the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control. Therefore, staff cannot support the placement of
the banner signs on the three (3) poles within the right-of-way.
Additionally, if banners are to be placed on the two (2) utility poles along
the north property line, the school must verify that the poles are on their
property and have permission from the utility company (Entergy). This
also applies to any other interior poles which may be owned by the utility.
Otherwise, staff feels that the banner signs located within the interior of
the site will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the
general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance subject to the
following conditions:
No banner signs will be allowed on the traffic control poles within the
Barrow Road right-of-way.
2. The applicant must verify that the two (2) utility poles along the north
property line are on school property.
3. The applicant must have permission from Entergy for banner
placement on any of the poles owned by the utility.
4. The wording on the banner signs will be limited to that as shown on
the graphic design submitted.
5. If any of the banner signs become torn or damaged, they must be
removed or replaced immediately.
2
January 27, 2003
Item No.: 3 (Cont.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 27, 2003)
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
9 -
PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE
MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL
2501 BARROW ROAD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204 (501) 228-3000
To: City of Little Rock
Board of Adjustment
December 19, 2002
From: Dr. Linda Brown, Principal ''Y?
Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School
Little Rock High School
RE: Request for Variance
We at Parkview Magnet High School are requesting a variance to Section 36-543 of the
Little Rock Code of Ordinances, so that we might permanently install banners to existing
poles on our campus. These banners would be attached to poles on the north and south
corners of the entrance to Patriot Manor Drive on Barrow Road, up Patriot Manor Drive,
on the LRSD light poles in both the teacher and student parking lots and in front of the
auditorium, and on one utility pole at the south border of the campus on the east side of
Barrow Road. The 18 banners will be 30" wide by 60" long and would be attached at the
uppermost part of the poles.
These banners will enhance and identify our campus, will remind motorists that they are
in a school zone, but they will not obstruct vision. Banners such as these are flown with
pride at many other schools around the country and they will invoke a spirit of pride in
our students and their parents as they arrive at an otherwise unidentified campus.
LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT
January 27, 2003
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z -6659-A
Owner: Carpenter Hotel Group, LLC
Address: 600 Interstate 30
Description: West side of 1-30, between East 6t" and
East 8t" Streets
Zoned: ., UU
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from Sections 36-
342.1 and 36-553 to allow a ground -
mounted sign which exceeds the maximum
size allowed.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
0
Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Hotel (under renovation)
Hotel
The UU zoned property at 600 Interstate 30 is occupied by an eight -story
hotel which is currently being remodeled. The hotel building is located
within the north one-half of the property, with parking within the southern
portion. There are existing access drives along the east and west
property lines. With the property renovation, the applicant is proposing to
install new signage. All of the signs proposed by the applicant conform to
ordinance standards with the exception of the ground -mounted sign
proposed to be located at the northeast corner of the property. The
existing ground -mounted sign near the access drive along the east
property line will be removed.
January 27, 2003
Item No.: 4 (Cont.
The proposed ground -mounted sign will have a height of 25 feet and an
area of 116 square feet. The main sign area is 92 square feet, with a 24
square foot reader board (changeable copy) located on the sign's support
structure. According to Section 36-342.1(c)(11) of the City's Zoning
Ordinance, signage permitted in the UU zoning district shall be the same
as that permitted in the institutional and office zones (Section 36-553).
This section allows a maximum sign height of six (6) feet and a maximum
sign area of 64 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
variances from these ordinance standards.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the
requested ground -mounted sign will not be out of character with the other
taller ground -mounted signs located to the north, south and across 1-30 to
the east. This interstate location gives the property a different character
from other commercial properties in the pedestrian -oriented downtown
area (UU zoning district), where lower -level signage is more desirable.
Therefore, staff feels that the proposed sign is appropriate for this
location, and will have no adverse impact on the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances subject to the
following conditions:
1. The sign will have a maximum height of 25 feet and a maximum area
of 116 square feet.
2. The ground -mounted sign must be located at least five (5) feet back
from any property line (to the closest edge of the sign).
3. Sign permits must be obtained for all signage.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 27, 2003)
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
C,alj�ie�
HOTEL
GROUP;,
LiC,
January 13, 2003
Mr. Monte Moore
Zoning and Enforcement Administrator
City of Little Rock Planning & Development
723 West Markham Street
2nd Floor
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Dear Monte and Honorable Board Members:
We are excited to be approaching the completion of a landmark renovation here
within your city at 600 Interstate 30 (1-30 @ 6 completion
Our new facility "The Holiday
Inn Presidential Conference Center" will provide one hundred and fifty (150) new
rooms and suites for the benefit of the Downtown Central Business District. The
entire project is located within the UU (Urban Use) Zoning District, with its structure
and zoning enforcement favorable for this type of new development. This is my first
appearance before the Board in which I humbly request your support and
understanding of our current signage difficulties.
Our signage problem and topographical challenge results from the following:
The high 1-30 service road embankment completely blocks the view
corridor from 1-30 Northbound traffic.
This same high-level embankment partially prohibits sign visibility from
Southbound traffic. The State Highway Department's need to create
the approximate forty (40) feet embankment was to accommodate two
(2) overpasses located at 6th Street and 91h Street.
Our proposed variance request is for the opportunity to remove the existing
monument and pole sign from where it is currently; relocate it to the North
approximately one hundred forty-two (142) feet and increase the sign area to
accommodate the new 21St century Holiday Inn corporate medallion logo. The
replacement sign carries a dimension of ninety-two (92) square feet with a small
changeable copy board of twenty-four (24) square feet underneath totaling one
hundred sixteen (116) square feet in area. This sign is not as large as Holiday Inn
1/13/2003 Confidential
400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE • SUITE 1700 • LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
(501) 372-7446 • FAX (501) 372-7447 • carpenterandco @sbcglobal.net
Corporate prefers; however, we feel it would meet our minimum need at a height of
twenty-five (25) feet. We have kept the height as low as possible at twenty-five (25)
feet, which is substantially lower than the Exxon signage on our North Property line
which is approximately fifty (50) feet.
Honorable Board, without this viable interstate signage our new mid-range priced
hotel may be overlooked by tourist and business travelers with a net effect of
spending their dollars outside the city limits of Little Rock. As you probably know, the
highest traffic count of any section of interstate highway in the entire state of
Arkansas is located between 6t" Street and the Arkansas River. These traffic counts
exceed one hundred and twenty five thousand (125,000) cars per day as
documented by the Arkansas Highway Transportation Department. Please consider
our request so that we may reasonably display our hotel to the traveling public.
Lr -\l.,/ U 1 1
1/13/2003 Confidential
January 27, 2003
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.: Z-7352
Owner: Mary Ward Gans
Address: 5423 Stonewall Road
Description: Southeast corner of Stonewall Road and
Polk Street
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested to
determine that the accessory building on
the property should be classified as a
nonconforming accessory dwelling.
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 with accessory
dwelling
STAFF REPORT
V,
Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The property at 5423 Stonewall Road is zoned R-2 and contains a one-
story brick and frame single family residence within the north one-half of
the lot, with a one-story frame accessory building along the south (rear)
property line. The accessory building was converted to a dwelling in 1985
(without City approval) and used as a dwelling until 1995 or 1996. The
accessory dwelling was used as a residence for various family members.
In 1995 or 1996 the accessory dwelling was converted to a studio and
office by James E. Ward (son of the property owner), who lived in the
principal structure. Since that time, the only residential occupancy of the
accessory building was by a family member from January to June, 2002.
January 27, 2003
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-153(c), the
abandonment or discontinuance of a nonconforming use shall be dealt
with as follows:
"When a nonconforming use has been discontinued or
abandoned, and the appearance of which [such use]
does not depict the identity of an ongoing use, and
further if said situation exists for a period of one (1) year,
such use shall not thereafter be reestablished or
resumed. Any subsequent use or occupancy of such
land or structure shall comply with the regulations of the
zoning district in which such land or structure is located."
Based on the fact that the accessory structure was not utilized as a
dwelling for more than 12 consecutive months after 1995 or 1996, staff
cannot classify the structure as nonconforming.
In October 2002 a building permit was inadvertently issued for the
remodeling of the accessory structure as a dwelling. Staff feels that the
permit was issued based on miscommunication between the contractor
and City staff. When the plumber applied for a permit, the permits
personnel flagged the building permit and a stop work order was issued
on December 19, 2002.
Therefore, the property owner, Mary Ward Gans, is requesting an
administrative appeal and asking the Board of Adjustment to determine
that the accessory building should be classified as a nonconforming
accessory dwelling. The property owner notes that a significant amount of
money has been spent on the remodeling of the accessory structure since
the building permit was issued. Additionally, it has been noted that the
property owner has medical problems, and needs the accessory dwelling
for a family member who will help care for her. Please see the attached
letter from the property owner's attorney which provides additional
information and detail regarding the accessory building in question.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 27, 2003)
Ralph Downs and James Ward were present, representing the application.
There were no objectors present. Staff gave a brief description of the requested
administrative appeal.
Ralph Downs addressed the Board in support of the application. He gave a brief
history of the property and the use of the accessory building. He noted that the
accessory building had been used as a dwelling for various family members in
2
January 27, 2003
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
the past and never rented. Mr. Downs offered the following restrictions to the
Board:
1. The accessory structure will never be rented.
2. Only one (1) family member will live in the accessory dwelling.
3. There will be only one (1) vehicle allowed for the accessory dwelling.
4. If the property is ever sold, the conditions will remain the same or a
conditional use permit will be requested.
Andrew Francis noted agreement with the restrictions offered by Mr. Downs.
There was a brief discussion concerning these restrictions.
Chairman Ruck asked if there would be an instance where more than one (1)
family member would occupy the accessory dwelling. James Ward addressed
the Board in support of the application. He stated that he did not expect more
than one (1) family member to occupy the accessory dwelling, but that it was
possible. He stated that he would request a conditional use permit if there was
any change in the use of the accessory dwelling.
There was additional discussion concerning the restrictions offered by the
applicant.
There was a motion to approve the administrative appeal, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The accessory dwelling will be occupied by family members of the
property owner only.
2. The accessory structure/dwelling must not be rented.
3. Only one (1) vehicle will be allowed for the accessory dwelling use.
4. If there is a change in property ownership, the accessory structure will
cease being used as a dwelling.
The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The administrative
appeal was approved.
3
RALPH A. DOWNS, lElt1, M.A., J.D.
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
Modern Woodmen of America Building
1941 South Broadway
Little Rock, Arkansas 72246
Telephone (501) 6074416
Facsimile (501) 3'74-5175
December 23, 2002
The Board of Adjustment
City of Little Rock
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
- 735 -2 -
RE:
352 --
RE: Mary Ward (now Gans) -Application for Action on Administrative Appeals
or Interpretative Requests/5423 Stonewall, Little Rock, AR 72207
Dear Members of the Board:
I have the privilege of representing Mrs. Mary Ward (now Gans) in the above cited
matter. Please find enclosed my clients Application for Action on Administrative Appeals
of Interpretative Requests for 523 Stonewall, Little Rock, Arkansas 72207. As specified
in the directions, my client has asked me to include a $50.00 check for the filing fee.
Please consider this correspondence the cover letter detailing the applicant's proposal
providing the purpose and reasons for the request for and administrative appeal.
My client, Mary 'Ward (now Gans), seeks approval for an non -conforming
accessory dwelling in order to maintain and existing accessory building that has long been
used as an accessory dwelling at 5423 Stonewall, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. The
purpose of her request is based on her grave medical condition. By maintaining the
building, her son, James E. Ward, will be able to live in the accessory dwelling and provide
assisted living services to my client. My client has never rented the accessory dwelling and
has no intent to do so in the future. She only desires a place for her son to live in order
that he can provide care while she resides at 5423 Stonewall, Little Rock, Arkansas,
during her final years and not be forced to enter a nursing home or assisted living facility..
Prior to Ms. Ward (now Gans) inheriting the house it belonged to her mother, the
late Mrs. Mary Ethel Melton, who was born in 1897 and died in 1995. The late Mrs.
Melton lived in the home for a substantial part of her adult life. The accessory dwelling in
question, was converted from a garage to a dwelling in 1985. My client did not know
until the present circumstances arose, that when her mother, at the age of 87 years,
converted the building that she did not obtain proper permits or a zoning variance. As
previously stated, Mrs. Melton died at the age of 98 in 1995.
The accessory dwelling was inhabited by various family members, consistently
from 1985 until 1995 or 1996. Mrs. Ward (now Gans)'son, James E. Ward, lived in the
accessory dwelling from 1990 to 1995 or 1996, to provide assistance and care to his
grandmother, Mrs. Melton. After her death in 1995, he moved to the main residence. Mr.
Ward continued to use the accessory dwelling house as a studio and office. From January
2002 until June 2002, Mr. Ronald J. Dunlap, a nephew of my client, occupied the
accessory dwelling house from time to time while moving to Little Rock, Arkansas.
Based on my client's desire to maintain the building and address her own hardship,
she entered into a contract to have the accessory dwelling house remodeled in order to
maintain the existing building and to have her grandson, James E. Ward, available to
provide her much needed assistance and. care. My client's contractor applied to the City of
Little Rock for a Remodeling Permit and was granted one in order to begin remodeling the
accessory dwelling so that it could be maintained. The work began around the beginning
of November and is well over half way completed. Please consider that the following
work had been completed prior to the stop order being issued:
PLUMBING WORK
The old bathtub has been removed so that a shower unit can replace it.
The existing plumbing has been slightly adjusted to allow for shower
drainage. Some of the pipe work that was no longer viable was replaced in order to
maintain the existing plumbing system.
A gas line has been installed to accommodate the central air and heating
system that took the place of the old window air conditioning unit and non -ventilated open
fire gas heater. The air conditioning component of the replacement system is located
between the South exterior wall of the accessory dwelling and a privacy fence cornered by
shrubs; therefore, it is not readily risible to the public and more atheistically pleasing, to the
neighborhood. The beating component is located in an exiting storage room and is not
visible.
ELECTRICAL 'WORK
- The existing wiring was old and exposed; significant portions of the old
wiring were frayed and required replacement in order to maintain the accessory dwelling.
This re -wiring has added only a few ceiling lights and wall sockets.
ENTRY WAYS AND WINDOWS
The front entry way has been provided a new door to replace the existing
door that was out of trim and was soon to need replacement.
The existing back door was replaced because the old door was rotted and
not capable of any securing the property any longer.
In order to maintain the air and water integrity ofthe accessory dwelling,
the existing windows had to be replaced due to termite damage. Please note that no
windows were added; some had to be slightly enlarged to accommodate modern window
dimensions for sealing purposes.
INTERNAL WALLS
Due to termite damage, three of the internal walls had to have the studs
replaced in order to maintain the accessory dwelling.
The majority of the walls have had to have new dry wall due to water
damage.
The bathroom walls were not support structures and have been moved
slightly to accommodate the shower installation and add space for an existing closet.
All of thee above was completed before the stop order was issued on December 19,
2002. The following work remains to be drone:
Finish the remaining dry wall and paint the interior.
Paint or side the exterior of the building.
Complete the floor and installation of bathroom shower, sink, and
accessories.
- install kitchen appliances, counters, and cabinets; the old cabinets were
water damaged and required replacement in order to maintain the existing structure.
Vnaf
Again, my client has acted in good faith to try and maintain her property. In her
reliance on the existing permit she has paid out $1$,424.40; she currently owes
$10,673.87 in accrued bills for services rendered or items ordered. There is a pending
amount of $12,690.00, that would be required to complete the project. Please see
attached Exhibit " 1 " hereby included and incorporated in this letter and appeal.
My client, Mary Ward (now Gans) is now 81 year old. Prior to her medical
hardships, Mary, was able to lead a vibrant, highly productive, and independent life.
However, she has suffered numerous medical set backs. For instance, she is a two time
breast cancer survivor which has required her to undergo extensive surgical and radiation
treatment. Approximately two years ago Mary suffered a major heart attack which caused
approximately 33% damage to her heart. She now suffers from emphysema and
congestive heart failure. In addition, approximately five years ago, she had to have the
major arteries in her legs "by-passed" to try and prevent blood clots escaping to her heart,
lungs and brain. Regretfully, after the surgery she developed thrombosis in her legs and
can only walk short distances and even this limited walking requires the assistance of a
cane or walker.
Ms. Mary Ward (Gans) respectfully requests that the stop order in the above cited
matter be lifted. She bases this requests on two reasons. First, the accessory dwelling
house has been used as such since 1985, when her mother converted it from a garage.. My
client was not aware that her late mother had not recieved the appropriate approval from
the City of Little Rock, Therefore, she acted in good faith when her contractor obtained a
permit to remodel the accessory dwelling house in order to maintain the structure and
make it appear more suitable to the neighborhood. She has not tried to be avoidant or
fraudulent in her actions. She apologizes for any failures in communication with the City
of Little Rock and assures all .concerned parties that she appreciates their interest and
assistance. She further affirms that she has not ever and will not ever rent the accessory
dwelling Douse to a third party.
This brings us to the second reason Mary wishes to be allowed to complete the
remodeling that she undertook in good faith and reliance upon the permit that was issued.
To not be allowed to complete the maintenance project would cause her extreme hardship
on two fronts. First, she has accrued approximately $29,143.27 in expenditures to date.
To not be permitted to complete the maintenance project would cause her severe and
undue financial hardship. Second, and most important, if she is permitted to complete the
project, her son, James E. Ward, will reside in the accessory dwelling. and be able to
provide her with much needed assistance and care. otherwise, she faces the almost
certain fate of being compelled to enter a nursing home or assisted living facility which will
cause her to unnecessarily endure substantial emotional and financial difficulties.
In closing, I would like to express on my client's behalf, her gratitude to the Board
members for their willingness to here her appeal and the assistance of the staff of the City
of Little Rock's Planning and Development Department.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact my
office if you have any questions or require further information.
SinW44�pzde
erely yours4r4�e�
22 December 2002
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES .............. ......................
.............................................. $41 ,793.27
5,423 Stonewall Rd -':Expenditures
[Paid To Date,]
10/15/02
- First installment - Capstone Constuctlo.n [primary contractor]..$3395.00
.
11/6 &12/4/02 = One Source - doors and windows ............... .....................$17.42.56
11 /8/02 -
Capstone - Add-on - termite damage repair [living room]..............$1700.00
11/8/02 -
Capstone - Add-on -termite damage repair [kitchen] ...................
$=60.00
.11/14/02
- Advantage. Heating .& Air - partial Furnace & A/C payment .........
$2400.00
11/15/02
- Republic Industries - Deposit on kitchen cabinets ...........:.. $
....... 500.00
11/20/02
- Kyle's Electric - Partial payment [Electrician]... ......................
.........
$ 1 X90.00
12/1/02 -
Capstone -. Second installment.. .. _ ....... ........ ...............$3395.00
1.2/4/02 -
Lowe's - Bath furnishings .......:......... .....................:.... ........
...
.
$ 2:9 9 40
12/7/02 -
Curry's Termite Control - Special borate treatment .....................$
2£5.00
12/12/02
- Capstone - Add-on............................:..:....................................$
870.00
12/12/02
- Lowe's ,_ `Door, hardware ....:.............._p..........................................
$ 245.85
12/12/02
- Capstone -.Consulting fees....... ... .................... .................$
.640.00
12/15/02
- Lowe's - Bath fixtures, sink ...........:: ......................................... 506:59
12/20/02
- Ralph Downs - Attorney's fees ........................ :..............................
500.00
$� x,429.40
[Owe for Work Completed]
12/20/02
- Advantage Heating & Air - Furnace & A/C final. payment ............... $.:2407.02
12/20/02
- Kyle's Electric. - pending installation of :baseplates & final hook-up.$
1590.00
12/20/02
- Advantage Plumbing - bath & gas.'......
as.a...:....... ...................:::.......$
4213.75
12/20/02
- Republic Industries - Kichen Cabinets Jordered, - balance due] .......
$ 2463.10
`10,673.87
[Work. Pending Completion or Promised]
David Hodge -. Building shower and tiling bathroom..........::...:,........................$1
900.00
Capstone -
Completion of project [sheetrock, pailinting, finish carpentry,: etc.].$6790.00
Capstone -
Nearly_ finished add-ons [prep, walls, ceilings, windows, etc:]:.........
$4000.00
$12,690.00
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES .............. ......................
.............................................. $41 ,793.27
`]
.:
I
rr
W
Q
Z
w
Q
l
w
O
W
w
>-
~
oz�-
aU)r��
w
-oma`
- L
Z
C6
U)
LL
Z
U
�
m
1=LLm
�
:D�
U
rK
.:
I
rr
W
Q
Z
w
Q
January 27, 2003
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
3:07 p.m.
Date: ZQ, 2®D3
Chairman