boa_04 28 2003LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
APRIL 28, 2003
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 Meetings
The Minutes of the March 31, 2003 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
William Ruck, Chairman
Scott Richburg, Vice Chairman
Fred Gray
Terry Burruss
Andrew Francis
None
City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
APRIL 28, 2003
2:00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEM:
A. Z-7379 Southeast corner of West 3 I and Chester Streets
NEW ITEMS.-
1.
TEMS:
1.
Z -3520-A
7525 Cantrell Road
2.
Z -5569-A
4816 Stagecoach Road
3.
Z -7079-D
8921 Fourche Dam Pike
4.
Z-7383
2501 West 2nd Street
5.
Z-7384
4923 Stonewall Street
6.
Z-7385
15 Ranch Valley Road
7.
Z-7386
1423 Pine Valley Road
8.
Z-7387
5 Bent Tree Court
9.
Z-7388
302 Hickory Creek Court
10.
Z-7389
53 Pebble Beach Drive
11.
Z-7390
500 President Clinton Avenue
April 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: A
File No.:
Z-7379
Owner:
Jason Adams
Address:
925 West 3rd Street
Description:
Southeast corner of West 3' and Chester
Streets
Zoned:
UU
Variance Requested:
An appeal is requested from the
administrative procedure/policy regarding
the restrictions for displaying and selling
items from a transient location.
Justification:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:
Vacant
Proposed Use of Property:
Commercial catering trailer
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The property at 925 West 3`d Street is occupied by a small commercial
building at the southeast corner of the property. The remainder of the
property is partially paved. A used car business once occupied the
property for a number of years.
Adams Catfish catering has been setting up a mobile catering trailer on
the property several days per week for approximately four (4) years.
Adams has recently begun leaving the trailer on the site overnight 2 to 3
April 28, 2003
Item No.: A (Cont.)
nights per week. The applicant's explanation of this is found in an
attached cover letter.
Adams Catfish catering was recently issued a notice from the City's
Zoning Enforcement Staff, based on the fact that the concession trailer
does not comply with all of the administrative restrictions for displaying
and selling items from a transient location. These restrictions are
provided on an attached form for Board of Adjustment review. This form
is given to all peddlers when a privilege license is approved.
The concession trailer in question conforms to all of the restrictions for
displaying and selling of items from a transient location, except for
restriction #8 which reads as follows:
"8. At the end of each business day all related materials,
equipment and vehicles must be removed from the site."
Adams Catfish Catering asks that they not be required to remove the
concession trailer from the property at the end of each business day.
They note in the attached letter that the trailer would be left overnight on
the property for 2 to 3 nights per week. They note that the trailer will
never be left on the site for more than two (2) days in a row, as it has to
be taken back to Conway for cleaning. Therefore, Adams Catfish
Catering is appealing the administrative procedure/policy regarding the
restrictions for displaying and selling of items from a transient location.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 31, 2003)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting the
application be deferred to the April 28, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the
deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 28, 2003
agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 28, 2003)
Jason Adams was present, representing the application. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the application to the Board.
Jason Adams addressed the Board in support of the requested appeal. He
explained how the property was used for his catering business. He discussed
the reasons for needing to leave the catering trailer on the site overnight, two to
2
April 28, 2003
Item No.: A (Cont.)
three nights per week. He noted that leaving the trailer on the site overnight
would save him money on gas. He also noted that it would allow his catering
business to operate more efficiently. He explained that when he had other
catering jobs in and around Little Rock after hours, that he occasionally needed
to stop by the catering trailer and pick up more supplies.
Chairman Ruck asked if the catering trailer could be taken to another nearby
location for storage and cleaning. Mr. Adams explained that it could not without
installing a power pole. Andrew Francis reiterated and clarified Chairman Ruck's
question. Mr. Adams stated that he wished to leave the trailer on this site and
would not find another nearby site for storage. He stated that he would take the
trailer back to Conway every night instead.
Fred Gray commented on the need for leaving the trailer on the site for use with
other catering jobs. This issue was briefly discussed.
Mr. Adams noted that a typical week might mean leaving the trailer on the site
Monday, Tuesday and Thursday nights. He explained that every week may be
different, depending on what other catering jobs he has. Mr. Gray stated that it
would be very difficult to regulate and enforce this issue.
Terry Burruss asked Mr. Adams if he only went back to the trailer after hours for
supplies. Mr. Adams responded that he only went back for supplies.
Chairman Ruck made comments relating to the reasons the code does not allow
peddlers to stay on property after hours. He asked Mr. Adams if the trailer could
be moved to the back corner of the lot, behind the existing building, at the end of
each business day. Mr. Adams noted that he could and explained. He stated
that it could be moved behind the existing building. He also noted that he took
good care of the property.
Fred Gray asked if the trailer could be hooked up to the power pole if it were
moved to the back corner of the lot. Mr. Adams stated it could.
Chairman Ruck asked Mr. Adams if he wished to amend his application to
include moving the trailer behind the existing building on the 2 to 3 nights per
week that the trailer stays on the site. Mr. Adams stated that he would amend
the application.
Andrew Francis stated that he was not in favor of the appeal and explained. He
stated that the applicant needed to find another site to store the trailer. He
suggested that the Board place a deferral on enforcement (possibly 6 months) to
allow Mr. Adams time to find a place to store the trailer.
3
April 28, 2003
Item No.: A (Cont.)
Fred Gray discussed the issue of Mr. Adams finding another place to store the
trailer. He stated that he was not comfortable with the appeal as requested.
Mr. Adams explained that he only occasionally has a need to go to the trailer
after hours for supplies.
Chairman Ruck asked staff about the issue of enforcement. Kenny Scott, of the
Planning Staff, expressed concern with other peddlers requesting appeals if Mr.
Adams' application is approved. He noted that staff could work with Mr. Adams
and monitor the site.
A motion was made to approve the appeal as amended by the applicant, and as
follows:
1. The trailer will be left on the site no more than 2 to 3 nights per week.
2. When left on the site after hours, the trailer must be parked behind the
existing building on the property.
The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes and 2 nays. The appeal was approved.
There was additional brief discussion regarding the trailer issue.
10
Adams Catfish Catering has been setting up a mobile catering unit at the corner of third and chester
streets in down town Little Rock for about 4 years. I recently had a power pole put in this location so
I would be able to leave the trailer in Little Rock from time to time. 75 - 90% of my business is in the
Little Rock area and it just makes sense to not have to drag my catering wagon back and forth from Conway
every day. Fuel prices are going through the roof and it saves me at least $300 per month in fuel expenses
to leave my catering wagon in Little Rock 2-3 days per week The, trailer will never be left at this location
for more than 2 days in a row because I must take it back to Conway and clean it at least that often. Also
there are times when my truck must be serviced and I don't have any other way to pull the trailer back to
Conway. People in Little Rock expect me to be open every day and I intend to provide them with that servuce.
Sincerely,
ason Adams
owner, Adams Catfish
April 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: Z -3520-B
Owner: Max Mehlburger
Address: 7525 Cantrell Road
Description: Southeast corner of Cantrell Road and
Mississippi Avenue
Zoned: C-4
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign
provisions of Section 36-557 to allow a wall
sign without street frontage.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
None.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Vacant commercial building
Coffee shop
The C-4 zoned property at 7525 Cantrell Road contains a vacant
restaurant building and paved parking area. The C-4 zoned property is a
lease parcel and part of the C-3 zoned Tanglewood Shopping Center
property. There is an existing driveway (on this property) from Cantrell
Road and a shared driveway from Mississippi Avenue which serve as
access to this property.
The applicant is currently remodeling the building for a Starbucks Coffee
Shop. With the building remodel, new signage is proposed to be placed
on the north, east and west sides of the building. The signage will be
placed on the building's mansard.
April 28, 2003
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
The proposed signs conform to ordinance standards with the exception of
the sign on the east side of the building. Section 36-557(a) of the City's
Zoning Ordinance requires that all on -premises wall signs face required
street frontage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this
ordinance standard.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. As noted in the applicant's
cover letter, the TCBY restaurant which was previously on the site had a
wall sign on the east side of the building on a false fagade along the top of
the building. Staff feels that signage on the east side of the building will
provide better visibility for west -bound traffic on Cantrell Road than will
signage on the north side. Additionally, signage on the east side of the
building will help identify this small building which is part of a large multi -
building development. The proposed signage should have no adverse
impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The mansard signs must be enclosed (boxed -in) on all sides.
2. Sign permits must be obtained for all signage.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays.
1►
C �
C j Chandler Signs, L.P.
March 7, 2003
Monty Moore
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Starbucks Coffee
7525 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
Dear Mr. Moore:
As the authorized sign company and at the request of Starbucks Coffee Company, please find copies of
design #03-0437r1 for the proposed Starbucks Coffee at Cantrell and Mississippi.
I am requesting your assistance and determination of signage on the East elevation of the existing building
at 7525 Cantrell. We are proposing the placement of one set of stacked copy 18" channel letters on
raceways, these to be covered per your code requirement, and one 1'-6" x 6' single face 'Drive Thru' sign
cabinet.
The former occupant was TCBY, they did have signage on the East side elevation, but it was on the lattice
work tower on top of the building and above the roof line.
In the remodel of this building Starbucks Coffee is removing this upper latticework and requests the approval
of letters on the mansard on the East elevation. These letters would be visible to the West bound traffic on
Cantrell/Highway 10.
With the removal of the latticework tower there is no applicable location for this proposed signage on the
front or North elevation. The only sign location available on the North elevation will be a small 36" round
logo sign. _
I appreciate your consideration of our request for signs on the East elevation. If you have any questions or I
can be of assistance in your determination please do not hesitate to call me at 972-739-6534.
Sincerely,
Mffonty Sanderson
Account Coordinator
Cc: Rick Westmoreland, Starbucks Coffee
3201 Manor Way Dallas, TX 75235
214-902-2000 Fax 214-902-2044
www.chandlersigns.com
April 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Z -5569-A
Farmer's Association
4816 Stagecoach Road
Description: West side of Stagecoach Road, south of
the Stagecoach Road/Colonel Glenn Road
intersection
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
C-4
A variance is requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-302 to allow a
building addition with a reduced front
setback.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Commercial
Commercial
1. A franchise agreement will be required for any parking or other
private facilities located within the right-of-way.
2. The right-of-way widths, driveway aprons and other public
improvements as now being constructed by the Arkansas Highway
and Transportation Department are acceptable.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
Since the proposed expansion is under ten (10) percent of the existing
structures, no upgrade in landscaping is required.
April 28, 2003
Item No.: 2 (Cont.
C. Staff Analysis:
The C-4 zoned property at 4816 Stagecoach Road is occupied by a multi -
building commercial development (Farmer's Association). Office, retail
and warehouse (with small engine repair) uses occupy the existing
buildings. The buildings are concentrated primarily along the Stagecoach
Road property line, with existing paved parking between the buildings and
the street. The primary access to the property is from Stagecoach Road.
There is a secondary, gated access from Colonel Glenn Road, along the
north property line.
The applicant proposes to remove the 3,290 square foot portion of the
retail building closest to Stagecoach Road and construct a new 4,600
square foot retail addition at the same location. The enclosed addition will
eliminate an existing outdoor patio area. The existing retail building is
located 16 to 26 feet from the front (Stagecoach Road) property line. The
new addition will be located 12 to 21 feet from the front property line.
Section 36-302(e)(1) of the City's zoning ordinance requires a minimum
front setback of 45 feet for C-4 zoned property. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement for the new retail
addition.
There are currently 50 paved parking spaces between the existing
buildings and Stagecoach Road. The total building area and uses on the
site, including the new retail addition, require a minimum of 49 parking
spaces. According to the proposed site plan, none of the existing parking
spaces will be disturbed by the new construction. There is additional
paved area along the north side of the existing buildings for truck parking.
Staff is supportive of the requested front setback variance. The proposed
building addition will move only slightly closer (approximately 4 feet) to the
front property line. Public Works notes (in paragraph A. of this report) that
the existing right-of-way widths, driveway locations and other
improvements as being constructed by the State are acceptable, with no
additional right-of-way required. Additionally, the width of the new addition
(80 feet) represents only a small portion of the overall 535 linear feet of
street frontage along Stagecoach Road. Staff feels that the proposed
building addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or
the general area.
A small portion of the existing paved area and the landscaping are located
in the Stagecoach Road right-of-way. Public Works notes in Paragraph A.
of this report that a franchise agreement needs to be obtained by the
property owner.
2
April 28, 2003
Item No.: 2 (Cont.)
D. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested front yard setback variance,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the approved site plan.
2. A franchise agreement must be obtained from Public Works for the
paved parking and landscaping located in the Stagecoach Road right-
of-way.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3
11
914orris 6t.Assoaates
./architects, Environmental Consultants
March 27, 2003
Little Rock Board of Adjustments
Little Rock Department of Planning and Development
723 E. Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas
RE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES AT
FARMERS ASSOCIATION
4816 STAGECOACH ROAD
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
Dear Board of Adjustments:
I -�� 1� 2 -
Please find enclosed six (6) sets of plans which reflect existing site and
building conditions and proposed site and building modifications.
The proposed modifications will be to remove the existing retail building
as indicated on sheet C-2 enclosed and rebuild a new retail building as
indicated on sheets C-3 and A-1 enclosed. The highway department has
already modified Stagecoach Road to five (5) lanes as well as providing
new sidewalks along this property.
Also we are requesting a franchise for existing asphalt parking areas
indicated on sheets C-1 and C-2 enclosed.
Sincerely,
MORRIS & ASSOCIATES
ARC ITECTS/ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Stephen A. Morris, AIA
5005 9TUY. 161 * P. 0. Box 242 Scott, _AX 72142
(501)961-1003 * Eax (501) 961-1239 * m,orrisassoc@ucmaircom
April 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.:
Z -7079-D
Owner: Crackerbox, LLC
Address: 8921 Fourche Dam Pike
Description: Part of Tract C, Area 203, Little Rock Port
Authority
Zoned: C-3 and 1-2
Variance Requested: The applicant requests to amend a
previously approved parking variance by
removing one (1) of the conditions of
approval.
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:
1. Public Works supports a variance for the additional driveway, provided
the new parking lot is paved within one year of construction. The width
of driveway must not exceed 36 feet.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
At such time that the gravel area is to be paved, then landscape and
buffering requirements must be satisfied prior to obtaining a construction
permit.
April 28, 2003
Item No.: 3 (Cont.
C. Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned property at 8921 Fourche Dam Pike is occupied by a
convenience store with gas and diesel pumps which was recently
constructed. There are access drives from Lindsey Road and Fourche
Dam Pike which serve as access to the site.
On September 30, 2003, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance from
Section 36-508 to allow overflow, gravel, truck parking on the 1-2 zoned
strip (100 feet wide) immediately east of the convenience store site. The
gravel parking variance was approved with the following conditions:
1. No direct access to Lindsey Road from the gravel parking area will be
allowed. All access must be through the convenience store
development.
2. The front twenty-one (21) feet along Lindsey Road must be reserved
for the street buffer landscaping area. This area will be required to be
irrigated.
3. If, in staff's opinion, the overflow, gravel, truck parking area becomes a
problem (dust, maintenance, etc.) the issue will be brought back to the
Board of Adjustment for further consideration, and possible paving
requirement.
As of this date, the overflow, gravel, truck parking has not been
constructed.
The applicant notes that since the convenience store has been open, they
have been experiencing internal traffic flow problems during peak times.
Therefore, the applicant would like to amend the previous approval by
removing condition #1 (as noted above) and constructing a driveway onto
Lindsey Road. The applicant has been working with the Public Works
Department on this issue, and agrees to construct the driveway to
ordinance specifications and pave the overflow truck parking area within
12 months.
Staff supports the amended variance as requested. Staff feels that the
agreement reached by the applicant and Public Works is an acceptable
solution to the internal traffic flow problems. Additionally, the applicant
has obtained a letter from the Little Rock Port Authority agreeing to the
proposed driveway location. The amendment to the previously approved
2
April 28, 2003
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
variance should have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or
general area.
D. Staff Recommendations:
Staff supports the requested amendment to the previously approved
parking variance subject to the following conditions:
1. The driveway width must not exceed 36 feet.
2. The overflow truck parking area must be paved within 12 months after
the driveway construction is completed.
3. Compliance with the landscape comment as noted in paragraph B. of
this report.
4. Compliance with previous conditions (#2 and #3) as noted in
paragraph C. of this report.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays.
9
WAGINEERED
il
NEWROCK
PARKING
DECK
a
TRAVELERS
INSURANCE
BUILDING
a
HOWARD
JOHNSON
RESTAURANT
a
VI LLAGE
SHOPPING
CENTER
I®
STORYBOOK
VILLAGE
H
GLENWOOD
HEIGHTS
a
HOWARD
JOHNSON
MOTEL
0
SCHOOLWOOD
a
ALLENDALE
is
JAMESTOWN
APARTMENTS
WI NDAMERE
APARTMENTS
PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE
BUILDING
BUSINESS
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
SPECIALISTS
P E,LP- E_T tiiT
IJ,EN:
PUTNAM REALTY INC.
SUITE 1820 UNION NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
Board of Adjustment
Little Rock Planning
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Board Members:
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
March 24, 2003
N PHONE AC 501 376-3616
RE: Crackerbox L.L.C.
8921 Fourche Dam Pike
Crackerbox LLC originally ask for a variance on Auxili-
ary Parking Lot on August 9, 2002. This variance was grant-
ed at September 30, 2002 meeting. We did not ask for a
driveway at that time, since we did not open until October
15, 2002.
We have only one exit for trucks to Fourche Dam Pike
during peak times. We are having traffic jams and are
requesting a driveway to Lindsey Road.
My client agrees to pave the parking lot within 12
months, after driveway is completed.
The driveway would be constructed to City Specs, a copy
is attached.
JH/hjh
Attachment
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS
i DIVESTMENTS 8 ACQUISITIONS
i
'� cec APPRAISALS
PORT AUROTHORI
March 12, 2003
Mr. Jim Hill
Putnam Realty Company
1829 Union National Bank Building
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Jim:
_T1 -e,- --�fS
2-- 70 7 � -6
In your telephone call to me today, you noted that the Crackerbox owners were planning
to build a driveway on their far eastern border, adjacent to property owned by the City of
Little Rock/Little Rock Port Authority.
The Port Authority would have no objection to a driveway.
Please let me know if you need further clarification.
Sincerely yours,
P 1 Latture
Executive Director
INDUSTRIAL PARK PORT RAILROAD RIVER TERMINAL.
7500 Lindsey Road a Little Rock, Arkansas 72206
(501) 490-1468 , Fax: (501) 490-1800 0 E-mail: Irpa@�,Yte.ne-
FOREIGN TRADE _.
April 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.:
Z-7383
Owner:
William Lamar and J. S. Cochran
Address:
2501 West 2nd Street
Description:
Southwest corner of West 2nd and
Rice Streets
Zoned:
R-3
Variance Requested:
A variance is requested from Section
36-516 to allow a wood fence with a
height ranging from 7 to 8 feet.
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-3 zoned property at 2501 West 2nd Street is occupied by a one-
story frame single family residence. There is a two-story
garage/apartment located in the rear yard near the west property line. A
driveway from West 2nd Street serves as access to the property, with a
paved alley along the west property line. The property slopes downward
from west to east.
The applicant proposes to construct a wood privacy fence to enclose the
rear and south side yards. The fence will be seven (7) feet in height,
except along the south property line where the fence varies from seven
April 28, 2003
Item No.: 4
(7) to eight (8) feet in height because of the slope of the lot. The applicant
has submitted a fence elevation showing the stepped fence along the
south property line. The wood fence columns will extend approximately
one (1) foot above the fence height. Portions of the fence are located
within the minimum required building setbacks along West 2nd and Rice
Streets, as noted on the attached site plan.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows maximum
fence heights in residential zones as follows:
"a. Between a required building setback line and a
street right-of-way, the maximum height shall be four (4)
feet. Other fences may be erected to a maximum height
of six (6) feet."
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance
standard.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance for increased fence height.
Staff feels that the requested fence height is reasonable and not out of
character with the neighborhood. The property across the alley to the
west has a rather tall stone wall/fence combination along its north, south
and east property lines. This wall/fence is approximately 11 feet above of
the grade of the alley and was approved by the Board of Adjustment in
1998. Staff feels that the proposed fence will have no adverse impact on
the adjacent properties or the general area. The proposed fence should
create no sight -distance problems along West 2 ndor Rice Streets.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance,
subject to a building permit being obtained for the fence construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
T4
!March 27, 2003
To: Little Rock Board of Adjustment
Re: Variance for Fence Height
73 9-3
l
1 _ In 1998 the Board of Adjustment granted me a variance for fence height for my home at 201 Thayer St. MY
wife and I recently bought the house directly behind our home at 201 Thayer for the purpose of moving our in-home
offices out of our home into the new house, located at 2501 W. 29-1 St. We plan to enclose the backyard with a fence
identical to the one we built around our backyard at 201 Tlaa)w; for the same security and aesthetic reasons as
before. To do so will require another variance for fence feta aswe would like the new fence height to match the
fence height at 201 Thayer since these fences will be adjacent to each other, dives only by the alley between them.
As before, we think a fence that stairsteps down the slope, w.th a level top, rather than sloping with the grade is a
more aesthetically pleasing fence and more historically appropriate, which is important to us. With a height of seven
(7) feet at its lowest, the fence gains height as the bottom follows the sloping grade, resulting in a fence eight (8) feet
high in some places, at which point we step down the height (see the attached draWng ).
Therefore, we request a variance for a fence height of seven (7) feet minimum to approximately eight (8) feet
maximum for the backyard fence.
Thank you for your consideration of our need.
Respectfully,
William Lamar and J. S °ZDe" Cochran
2-73ff3
April 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.:
Z-7384
Owner:
Creative Heights Partners, LLC
Address:
4923 Stonewall Street
Description:
Southeast corner of Stonewall and
Jackson Streets
Zoned:
R-2
Variance Requested:
Variances are requested from Section
36-254 to allow a building addition with
reduced front and side yard setbacks.
Justification:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:
Single Family Residence
(under reconstruction)
Proposed Use of Property:
Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. The picket fence extends 12.2 to 15.4 feet into the public right-of-way
and should be removed, or a franchise permit should be obtained.
B. Staff Analysis:
The property at 4923 Stonewall Street contains a frame single family
residence which is currently under reconstruction. There are driveways
from Stonewall and Jackson Streets which serve as access. The property
slopes downward from west to east. The driveway from Stonewall Street
serves a lower -level garage.
With the reconstruction, the applicant proposes to extend the garage at
the northeast corner of the structure approximately eight (8) feet toward
April 28, 2003
Item No.: 5
the front (north) property line. The resulting front setback will be 20 feet,
with a side setback (east side) of 7.8 feet which is in line with the existing
house. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a
minimum front yard setback of 25 feet, and Section 36-254(d)(2) requires
a minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting variances from these ordinance requirements.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the requested
variances as minor. The resulting front and side yard setbacks will not be
out of character with other single family structures in this general area.
Additionally, Stonewall Street has a wider than normal right-of-way (80
feet) for a residential street. If the excess right-of-way were ever
abandoned, the front yard setback would conform to ordinance standards.
Staff feels that the proposed garage extension will have no negative
impact on the adjacent properties or general area.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works Comment as noted in paragraph A.
of this report.
2. A building permit must be obtained for the garage extension.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
73
Dept. Of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
To Whom It May Concern,
We are applying for a front set back variance for a house we are remodeling on 4923 Stonewall.
The lot configuration is unusual. This lot is actually a part of 3 different lots and the 25 foot
setback requirement is making our remodel very difficult. In addition, due to the old trolley runs
on this street, the easement is rather large and will still leave substantial front yard if our propsed
variance is approved.
We are asking to extend the garage approxiately 3.1 ft off the current house foundation in the
front. We have worked hard to preserve the current footprint of the existing house and have
managed to maintain it with the exception of the garage. I have included copies of the survey
with the proposed variance. The house remodel has already been approved and a permit issued.
We appreciate your consideration for this variance.
Sincerely,
Cathy Pursell
Creative Heights Partners
April 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.: Z-7385
Owner: Matthew and Susan Jeter
Address: 15 Ranch Valley Road
Description: Part of Lot 29, Pine Manor Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from Section 36-
254 to allow a carport addition with reduced
side and rear yard setbacks.
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The property at 15 Ranch Valley Road is occupied by a 1 Y2 story brick
and frame single family residence. A circular driveway from Ranch Valley
Road serves as access. The applicant proposes to construct a 20 foot by
26 foot carport addition on the east end of the existing structure. The
proposed carport will be constructed to match the existing house, with the
north, south and east sides of the carport structure being unenclosed.
The carport will have a side yard setback ranging from one (1) foot to 1.7
feet, and a rear yard setback of 20 feet (same as existing house). Section
36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard
setback of eight (8) feet and Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum
April 28, 2003
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
rear yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
variances from these ordinance standards.
Staff does not support the variances as requested. Although staff has no
problem with the requested rear yard setback, staff cannot support the
proposed side yard setback. Staff feels that the proposed carport
structure should be set back at least three (3) feet from the east side
property line in order to address issues related to maintenance, overhang
and water run-off. The applicant has obtained a letter from the property
owner to the east (Nancy Monroe), who approves of the proposed carport
addition. A copy of the letter is attached for Board of Adjustment review.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends denial of the setback variances as requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 28, 2003)
Matt Jeter was present, representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff briefly described the application, noting a recommendation of
denial of the requested side yard variance. Staff expressed no problem with the
requested rear yard variance.
Staff noted that the applicant had not completed the notifications to surrounding
property owners as required. Staff noted that Mr. Jeter had hand -delivered
copies of the notice form to the surrounding property owners, but had not
obtained their signatures. Staff also noted that 5 of the 15 property owners were
notified two (2) days late.
Mr. Jeter explained his process to the Board and why he completed the
notification as he did. He stated that he had to go out of town and was two (2)
days late in notifying some of the surrounding owners.
Chairman Ruck asked Mr. Jeter if he did notify all property owners within 200
feet of his property. Mr. Jeter noted that he did and explained.
There was a motion to waive the Board of Adjustment Bylaws and accept the
notification as completed by Mr. Jeter. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes
and 0 nays.
Chairman Ruck expressed concern with the proposed side yard setback. He
asked Mr. Jeter what his reasons were for requesting the reduced side yard
setback.
2
April 28, 2003
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
Mr. Jeter explained that there was not enough driveway (maneuvering) space to
use the existing garage on the east end of the house. He stated that he could
provide a two (2) foot sideyard.
Fred Gray stated that a three (3) foot side setback would give approximately 18
feet of carport width. He asked Mr. Jeter if he could work with that dimension.
Mr. Jeter responded that he could.
Fred Gray, Andrew Francis and Chairman Ruck indicated that they could support
a three (3) foot side setback.
Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, explained that Mr. Jeter would need to amend his
application to provide the three (3) foot side setback. Mr. Jeter stated that he
would amend his application accordingly.
There was a motion to approve the amended application, providing a three (3)
foot side yard setback, with the following conditions:
1. The carport structure must remain unenclosed on the north, south and east
sides.
2. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto adjacent property.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The amended application
was approved.
M
7 - 7-3 Y5
March 27, 2003
To Whom It May Concern:
I am requesting a variance to construct an attached carport to cover my existing parking
pad. This carport will be attached to the house on one side and the remaining three sides
(north, south, and east) will remain open. The carport shall be constructed to match the
existing home. This shall be accomplished by using the same colors, trim, and
architectural appearance of the current structure.
I am requesting that the carport be 20 feet in width (to accommodate two cars). I am also
requesting that I be allowed to build the carport with a depth of 26 feet. I also plan on
using gutters to direct any water flow down my driveway and into the street. The carport
is towards the back of the house to allow access around a gas meter that is towards the
front (north and east) side of my home.
Thank you very much for your consideration. You may contact me at 221-63 57 during
the day or 666-7516 during the evening.
Sincerely,
att eter
7 3 P�
March 27, 2003
To Whom It May Concern:
I am aware that my next door neighbor Matt Jeter who resides at 15 Ranch Valley Drive
is applying for a variance to construct a carport attached to his existing home. I have
reviewed his letter to the board and find that his carport addition meets my approval.
Sincerely,
/X-41r'�
Nancy Monroe
April 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.: Z-7386
Owner: Sam Cooper and Tracy Wilbourn
Address: 1423 Pine Valley Road
Description: Lot 11, Kingwood Place 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 building addition with reduced
setbacks and which crosses a platted
building line.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 1423 Pine Valley Road is occupied by a one-
story frame single family residence. A driveway from Pine Valley serves
as access to the property. The property slopes slightly downward from
north to south.
The applicant proposes to construct a 23 foot by 27 foot master bedroom
addition at the northeast corner of the existing residential structure. The
addition is proposed at this location because of the existing location of the
April 28, 2003
Item No.: 7 (Cont.
rear door to the structure and a large tree. The addition will be located
five (5) feet back from the side property line.
The applicant also proposes to construct a 15 foot by 19 foot carport
addition on the south side of the proposed master bedroom addition. The
proposed carport addition will cross a 30 foot platted building line. The
carport will be located 19 feet back from the property line. The applicant
will remove the existing driveway and replace it with a new drive at the
location of the proposed carport.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
side yard setback of eight (8) feet and Section 36-254(d)(1) requires a
minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. Additionally, Section 31-12(c) of
the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that any platted building line
encroachment be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance
standards.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the
proposed building additions are reasonable and not out of character with
the overall neighborhood. Both the master bedroom addition and carport
addition encroach into the required setbacks at structural corners, thereby
minimizing the amount of the structures which are actually over the
minimum setbacks. Only approximately 133 square feet of the total 871.5
square foot total building addition area is encroaching into required
setbacks. Staff feels that this will have no negative impact on the
adjacent properties or 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 front building line for
the proposed carport. The applicant should review the filing procedure
with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised
Bill of Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and building line
variances, 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 carport addition must remain unenclosed on the south, east and
west sides.
2
April 28, 2003
Item No.: 7 (Cont.)
3. A building permit must be obtained for all construction.
4. The existing driveway must be removed when the new drive is
constructed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3
L .4 44 7
March 27, 2003
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: 1423 Pine Valley Rd. / Variance — Zoning, Residential Property
To Whom It May Concern:
We are seeking the board's approval for improvements and an expansion on the
property above. The purpose for the project is simply that our family is growing
(2 children and more being considered) and additional space is necessary. Also,
the property offers no protective parking. We'd like to add a carport.
There are two items in our plans that involve your consideration for a variance; 1)
Master Bedroom addition, and 2) Addition of a carport and new driveway.
1) A master bedroom will be added onto the rear of the house (the northeast
corner). Because we're on a corner lot, the property & build -to lines on the
side narrow as they approach the back of the lot. This will require the
addition to go beyond the 8' build -to line, however, staying within the 5 ` utility
easement (according to the diagram on the attached survey). We've
considered other options, however, due to an existing doorway on the rear of
the house, a huge tree on the west side of the house, and less available
space on the northwest corner — the northeast corner (as planned) is our best
option for an addition.
2) The carport will be added on the east side of the home (not a garage). The
existing driveway will be removed and the yard re -sod in it's place. A new
driveway will be added according to the diagram on attached survey.
Thank you for your consideration. Our family would enjoy these improvements,
to the property.
Sincerely,
Sam Cooper
5417 Country Club Blvd.
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone 907-5119
April 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 8
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7387
William and Susan Roerenbeck
5 Bent Tree Court
Lot 35, Longlea Estates Phase III B
M
A variance is requested from Section 36-
516 to allow a 10 foot high privacy fence.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 5 Bent Tree Court is occupied by a two-story
brick single family residence. A driveway from Bent Tree Court serves as
access to the property. There is an existing six (6) foot high chain link
fence with barbed wire along the south property line. Additionally, there is
an eight (8) foot high wood fence with brick columns along the majority of
the property's south boundary. This fence was constructed by the
property owners to the south.
The applicant proposes to remove the existing chain link fence and
replace it with a 10 foot high wood privacy fence along the entire south
property line. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance
allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet in residential zones.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance
requirement.
April 28, 2003
Item No.: 8 (Cont.)
Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the
requested 10 foot fence height will be out of character with other existing
fences in this general area. In the past, staff has supported fence height
variances up to eight (8) feet in height for this general area, and would
recommend a maximum fence height of eight (8) feet for this property
also. However, staff does question the need for another fence along this
property line given the existing eight (8) foot high fence which was
installed by the property owners to the south. Staff feels that an option
may be for the applicant to tie-in to that fence for the balance of his south
property line, maintaining the same fence height.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the fence height variance as requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 28, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff noted that
the applicant had amended the application to be a fence height not to exceed
eight (8) feet.
Staff recommended approval of the amended application, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The fence must not exceed a height of eight (8) feet.
2. The support columns must not extend more than one (1) foot above the fence
height.
3. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as amended by the
applicant and recommended by staff, by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
6
March 26, 2003
Mr. Monte Moore
Zoning Administrator
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, Ar 72201
Re: Variance Request
April 28, 2003 Meeting
Dear Monte:
Enclosed please find the documents for the Variance for Fence Height provision of
section 36-516 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit a 10 foot wooden fence
to be constructed at rear of my property.
The reason for the request is to have the fence be consistent with two of the neighbor's
fence's that are the same height and back up to my property. Additionally, there exists an
inferior rusting chain link fence just on the other side of my property line and the
neighbor's fences identified above. This would allow my property to be more
aesthetically pleasing, maintain consistent fence height and yet not impact my neighbors
as a result of the variance being granted.
I have included the search by American Abstract to identify all neighbors that have
property that falls within the 200 feet of my property. I have also attached the Affidavit
with the various neighbor's signatures. In seven cases the neighbors were out of town and
certified letters were sent to their property addresses. ( Copies attached.)
I have included six copies of our survey and indicated by marker the location of the
proposed fence to be constructed. (Just inside the property line.)
I have also attached my check in the amount of $85.00 payable to the City of Little Rock.
I would appreciate the Variance being granted as requested.
Sincerely,
am 0beck
5 Bent Tree Ct
Little Rock, Ar 72212
501-227-7411 Home
501-379-7012 Work
Attachments
April 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 9
File No.:
Z-7388
Owner:
Jon P. Underhill
Address:
302 Hickory Creek Court
Description:
Lot 14R, Hickory Creek Addition
Zoned:
R-2
Variance Requested:
A variance is requested from the fence
provisions of Section 36-516 to allow an 8
foot high brick fence.
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. It should be noted that the brick fence will block access from the
adjacent property to the platted utility easement. In this case, Public
Works does not have any apparent public drainage facilities located in
this easement.
B. Staff Analysis:
The property at 302 Hickory Creek Court is occupied by a two-story brick
single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from Hickory Creek
Court which serves as access. The applicant is proposing to construct an
eight (8) foot high brick wall along the lot's north property line and small
portions of the east and west property lines. The proposed brick wall will
tie-in to similar existing brick walls on the adjacent properties to the east
and west.
April 28, 2003
Item No.: 9 (Cont.)
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum
fence/wall height of six (6) feet in residential zones. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. As noted in the applicant's
cover letter (with photographs provided), the proposed eight (8) foot high
brick wall will tie-in to existing brick walls of similar size on the adjacent
lots to the east and west. These lots have received past approvals from
the Board of Adjustment for the existing wall height. Staff feels that the
proposed wall will be consistent with existing walls and fences not only on
the adjacent properties, but also in this general area. The proposed brick
wall should have no adverse impact on properties in this area.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence/wall height variance,
subject to a building permit being obtained for the fence/wall construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays.
K
March 28, 2003
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning & Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72202
Dear Department of Planning & Development:
2- 739
302 Hickory Creek Ct..
Little Rock, AR
U.S.A. 72212
I am the owner of 302 Hickory Creek Court. I am seeking permission and approval to construct
a brick wall, 8 feet high, across the back of my property. This wall would be consistent to my
contiguous neighbors existing walls. The wall would be constructed to the same specifications
to match the existing wall at 303 Hickory Creek Court. ( a photograph of each of the contiguous
walls are enclosed, for your review.)
I think this would not only enhance the aesthetics of the neighborhood, but it would also provide
more security than the existing chain link fence.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Jon P. Underhill
Attached:
Photograph of proposed wall
Survey of lot
Z�n
�F7 x
r�. w
r
�'1P
k
'
Z�n
�F7 x
r�. w
r
,
S, y
.tea
Z�n
April 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 10
File No.: Z-7389
Owner: John and Aelicia Orsi
Address: 53 Pebble Beach Drive
Description: Southeast corner of Pebble Beach Drive
and Lin Court
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the building
line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow an
addition which crosses a platted building
line.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The property at 53 Pebble Beach Drive is occupied by a 1 Y2 story brick
and frame single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from Lin
Court which serves as access. The property slopes downward from south
to north. There is a 40 foot platted building line along the north and west
property lines.
The applicants propose to construct a 25 foot by 38 foot addition to the
west end of the single family structure. The addition will have the same
height as the existing structure, with a three -car garage on the ground
April 28, 2003
Item No.: 10 (Cont.
floor and living space above. The proposed addition will cross the platted
building line along Lin Court from three (3) to thirteen (13) feet.
Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that any
platted building line encroachment be reviewed and approved by the
Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for
the proposed encroachment.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The proposed building
addition will maintain a setback from the west property line of 27 to 37
feet. The Zoning Ordinance would typically require a 25 foot platted
building line along this street side property line. Additionally, the proposed
addition does not encroach into the front 40 foot platted building line along
the Pebble Beach Drive property line, and therefore does not create a
misalignment of the houses along this main neighborhood street. Staff
feels that this variance request is very minor in nature, as Lin Court serves
only four (4) residential lots. The proposed building line encroachment
should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or 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 side building line for
the proposed building addition. The applicant should review the filing
procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires
a revised Bill of Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line variance,
subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the side
platted building line as approved by the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays.
K
Jay ON
53 Pebble Beach Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
(501) 225-6284
March 27, 2003
City Of Little Rock
Board of Adjustment
RE: Zoning Variance: 53 Pebble Beach Drive
To the Board:
.,-4- iC--)
I am requesting a variance in order to build a new three car garage with living
space above on my property. The existing two car garage will be enclosed and integrated
with the current living space of he structure. The proposed garage would be attached the
west end of the existing structure. The interior layout of the structure, combined with the
terrain of the lot does not allow for the proposed garage to go on the back of the house.
The existing structure sits at an angle in relation to the building line in question. The
proposed new garage would cross the building line approximately 2 feet at the shortest
point and approximately 12 feet at the longest point. The current building line is 40 feet
from the lot line, and the lot line is 11.5 feet from the curb. Thus, the proposed new
garage would be set back approximately 39 feet from the curb at the corner nearest the
curb, and 49 feet at the corner farthest from the curb.
I do not think that the proposed addition would in any way detract from the
neighborhood or decrease property values. I would greatly appreciate the board's
positive response to this request.
S' erely,
J y Orsi
April 28, 2003
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z-7390
Walter Hussman
500 President Clinton Avenue
Northeast corner of President Clinton
Avenue and St. Vincent Plaza
UU
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from Sections 36-
353 and 36-357 to allow a new awning and
awning signage, which does not conform to
the River Market Design Overlay District
standards.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Mixed Use
Mixed Use (new restaurant)
The UU zoned property at 500 President Clinton Avenue is occupied by
the existing Museum Center building. A new restaurant (Boscos) will
occupy Suite 105 of the building, which is at the building's northwest
corner. Boscos Restaurant proposes to install a new retractable awning
over the outside dining area along the north side of the building. The
awning will have an 11 foot projection from the building and a clearance of
8 feet. It will be motor driven and have wind sensors, which will
automatically withdraw the canopy in the event of potentially damaging
winds.
April 28, 2003
11 (Cont.
The restaurant is also proposing to place two (2) signs on the existing
canopy which is on the west side of the building over the entrance. The
signs will be located on the west and south sides of the canopy and total
approximately 29 square feet. The proposed sign graphics are attached
for Board of Adjustment review.
Section 36-357(c)(1) of the City's zoning ordinance requires retractable
canvas awnings in the River Market District to extend no more than five
(5) feet from the building and maintain a clearance of nine (9) feet.
Additionally, Section 36-353(a)(2)d. of the ordinance requires that awning
signs not exceed six (6) square feet per awning. Therefore, the applicant
is requesting variances from these ordinance standards.
The River Market Design Review Committee reviewed and approved the
requested variances on April 16, 2003. A copy of the DRC's approval
letter is attached. Therefore, staff will support the DRC's decision and
recommend approval of the requested variances. Staff feels that the
variances associated with the retractable awning are reasonable, based
on the fact that the awning is located over an outdoor dining area and not
a public right-of-way. Therefore, there should be no pedestrian circulation
issues. Staff has also received written approval from the Little Rock Fire
Department for the proposed awning, as the property is in the fire district.
Staff also recommends approval of the variance associated with the
proposed awning signage. These awning signs will be the principal signs
identifying the business. The only other possible sign will be located on
the entry door. Staff feels that the variances as requested are reasonable
and will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the River
Market District.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the
following conditions:
1. A building permit must be obtained for the awning installation.
2. A sign permit must be obtained for each sign.
3. The retractable awning must not extend more than 11 feet from the
building and must maintain a minimum clearance of 8 feet over the
outdoor dining area.
2
April 28, 2003
Item No.: 11 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3
arch'tec ure
rea� gate
consul ing
Mr. Monte Moore
Zoning and Enforcement Administrator
Department of Planning & Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Mr. Moore,
73 ,� c,
The owners of the new Boscos Restaurant located at 500 President Clinton Ave., Suite
105, request approval of new retractable awnings for the outside dining area associated
with this space. As you will note from the attached drawings, the awnings will be located
on the north wall of the Museum Center overlooking Riverfront Park. They will have an
11' projection with a clear edge height of approximately 8'-0", be motor driven and
provided with wind sensors to automatically withdraw the canopy in the event of
potentially damaging winds. Because of their balcony location, there is little or no
chance that these awnings will.interfere with pedestrian or vehicular circulation.
We feel this is a reasonable adjustment to the current awning restrictions. The
protection provided by these awnings will enhance the use of this area and help create a
unique dining location and experience.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
G�
CANINO PECKHAM & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Greg R. Peckham, AIA
v 501 .227.7777 E f 501 .227.8888 3 10,401 WEST MARKHAM 0 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72205 M WWW.ELEVATION.COM
River
Market
Design Greg Hart, Chairman
Millie Ward, Member
Review Patty Wingfield, Member
Committee Tim Heiple, Member
Shannon Jeffery -Light, Member
Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 •501-371-4790 • fax 501-399-3435
April 16, 2003 J } --/ � /�
Board of Adjustment _ -7 0
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Boscos Restaurant
500 East President Clinton Ave.
Chairman and Members,
The River Market DRC reviewed the signage and awnings at 500 East President
Clinton for Boscos. The DRC did approve the variances as specified in the
Board of Adjustment writeup. The final vote was 5 yes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
Thank you,
i
Brian Minyard
River Market DRC Staff
0
O
W
w
LU
H
O
H
z
W
H
LL
O
Q
O
m
El
o
r-
F-
�
aha
n�
a�
c
L
0
Q
c�
w
OfG�
i-
o
z
F
w
oC6
Q
J_
LLI
m
U
z
U)
D
Of>-
Lj-
m
Y
z
E
LL
m
U
=
E
n�
a�
c
L
0
Q
z
CO
m
Q
cL
z
LU
m
Q
w
Q
z
IZJ
0
w
w
h
W
U)4
oz
z
Q
w
--�
W
Z
U
?
D
Q
w
z
ry ry
<
=
Y
LL
m
ry
D�
April 28, 2003
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
2:50 p.m.