boa_05 28 2003LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
MAY 28, 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 April 28, 2003 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
Members Present:
Members Absent
William Ruck, Chairman
Scott Richburg, Vice Chairman
Fred Gray
Andrew Francis
Terry Burruss
City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
MAY 28, 2003
2:00 P.M.
I. NEW ITEMS:
1.
Z -1428-B
105 N. Rodney Parham Road
2.
Z -6919-A
South end of S. Katillius Road
3.
Z -7262-A
2710 Kavanaugh Blvd.
4.
Z-7402
7424 Debbie Drive
5.
Z-7403
15 Tanglewood Lane
6.
Z-7404
1915 Shadow Lane
7.
Z-7405
19 Keswick Cove
8.
Z-7406
29 Inverness Circle
9.
Z-7407
9203 Chicot Road
10.
Z-7408
32 Bellegarde Drive
11.
Z-7409
1812 S. Fillmore Street
j
M
O
N
3 Nd
■
llfIY81Hl
EMU�
(�J
♦ ` `�
a
nVW830
�
a
AMNO Hody
ft*o,,
CL
M
s
sMM I
H3H3U0 d
LO
g
f
5522 M
Nd 1�
�
e
MOlYMV llOJs
uaa3nMn
.— AISM1Mn
r
L4 8
s�aaas a3A3�
Q
H
\
WES M
Qj
t�
•
1006p
A102Qf/S NHOP
3
U
DW
00
ONOHWVHS $
Y 205
Sim
� � � �
HN/d A3HOOa
c�
NV 06 SIM Alp
� a
3;10 ANA
5y'
�
siwtn Alp S
SLM(I Alp
N 1?
L
Hvn ms
n�n``
L
IMAMS
y
W
aoc
M H
& 1 sl11Ml
Alp
0
27 MAW
4<
o
M
O
`6MP'£0-8Z-9osdewyola>s\Ho9
m
d9( 1dH Ad 9 4�4
£0/6Z/4 £O-SZ-SO\sal!d£0
Hog\H08\1aP!o�4ale�S\:�D
May 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
MN
Mayer Family
105 N. Rodney Parham Road
Northeast corner of Rodney Parham Road
and West Markham Street
C-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-301 and the buffer
provisions of Section 36-522.
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Commercial
Commercial
The Zoning Ordinance requires a land use buffer along the northern
perimeter with a nine (9) foot minimum width. The proposed kiosk
projects over into this area. The Landscape Ordinance requires a
minimum width of six (6) feet and nine (9) inches. However, this area has
been paved and nonconforming for many years and the applicant
proposes to install a sizable landscaping buffer strip immediately to the
west.
C. Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned property at 105 N. Rodney Parham Road is occupied by a
large commercial shopping center building located at the northeast corner
May 28, 2003
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
of the property. There is a vacant fast food restaurant building near the
property's southwest corner. Drives from Rodney Parham Road and
West Markham Street serve as access to the development. There is a six
(6) foot high brick and concrete wall along the north property line, between
the existing parking area and the single family property to the north.
The existing clothing store tenant (Puff's) at the northwest corner of the
commercial building will be leaving, and the applicant is proposing to
replace them with a major drug store chain (USA Drug). The new tenant
is requesting to construct a two-lane prescription pick-up kiosk within the
parking area, near the southwest corner of the commercial building. The
kiosk would have underground tubes to the pharmacy service window at
the southwest corner of the building. The prescription pick-up kiosk would
operate from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
The proposed kiosk will be located adjacent to the brick and concrete wall
which runs along the north property line. The kiosk canopy will have a
setback of approximately four (4) feet from the north property line. The
low-level mechanical structure will be set back approximately two (2) feet.
Additional new landscaping will be added along the north property line,
west of the proposed kiosk structure.
Section 36-301(e)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
side yard setback of 15 feet. Section 36-522(b)(3) requires a minimum
land use buffer width of nine (9) feet along the north property line.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance
standards.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the addition of
the kiosk to the overall commercial development as very minor in nature.
As noted previously, there is an existing brick and concrete wall along the
north property line (with evergreen shrubs and trees on the adjacent
property) which should provide adequate screening of the kiosk from the
adjacent single family property. Although the minor building construction
does not require an upgrade in landscaping, the applicant is proposing a
new landscaped area along the north property line, west of the proposed
kiosk. This should prove to be a nice landscape upgrade for the site. As
long as the hours of operation do not extend past those proposed, and
the speakers are kept at a relatively low volume, the proposed prescription
pick-up kiosk should have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or
the general area. Given the current configuration of the existing building
and existing parking lot, the proposed location for the kiosk is probably the
only place on the site where it could be located without disrupting the
internal flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
�A
May 28, 2003
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
D. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and buffer
variances, subject to the following conditions:
1. Speakers are to be low-volume and directed away from the adjacent
property to the north.
2. Compliance with the hours of operation as noted in paragraph C. of
this report.
3. A building permit must be obtained for the construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3
® WHITE. - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
24 Rahling Circle
0 Little Rock, Arkansas 72223
April 25, 2003
Mr. Monte Moore, Zoning Administrator
City of Little Rock Planning Department
723 W. Markham St.
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
RE: USA Drug
Rodney Parham & W. Markham St.
Mr. Moore,
Attached please find six copies of the site plan for the above referenced project. Dickson Flake
and Gain Robinson of USA Drug met with Jim Lawson on this issue last week. USA Drug is
attempting to locate to the existing "Puff's" store in the north portion of this development. To do
so, they need to install a "prescription drug kiosk" as indicated on the attached site plan.
The prescription drug center would be located in the southwest corner of the existing building. A
service window would face the kiosk. The kiosk would allow two lanes of pick up. The layout
eliminates nine parking spaces along the northwest property line.
The application consists of a multiple building site plan with two variances. The building setback
for the proposed kiosk is less than required by ordinance. Also, the landscape buffer along the
north property line is less than allowed. Currently, the north property line has an existing brick
fence along the area of the proposed kiosk. There is also an existing evergreen buffer along the
north line that should screen the existing residences from the proposed kiosk.
Please place this item on the next available Board of Adjustment hearing. Do not hesitate to call
should you have any questions or require additional information.
Your help ire this matter is greatly appreciated.
Best regards,
Joe D. White, Jr.
Cc: Mr. Gain Robinson — USA Drug
Mr. Dickson Flake — Dickson Flake Partners
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING
May 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z -6919-A
Various Owners
South end of S. Katillus Road
Valley Falls Estates Subdivision
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence
height provisions of Section 36-516 to allow
eight (8) foot high fences around the
perimeter of numerous lots within the
subdivision.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Subdivision
Single Family Subdivision
In accordance with Section 32-8. no obstruction to visibility shall be
located within a triangular area 50' back from the intersecting right-of-way
(or intersecting tangent lines for radial dedications) at street intersections.
As proposed, this would apply to lots 87R, 78, 3, 361, 32, 13.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at the south end of S. Katillus Road is occupied
by the Valley Falls Estates, a single family residential subdivision. The
subdivision consists of 99 lots and is currently under development. There
are several new single family homes in the subdivision, with several
currently under construction. The developer previously received approval
from the Board of Adjustment for an eight (8) foot high brick wall (with 12
foot high columns) along the Katillus Road subdivision frontage.
May 28, 2003
Item No.: 2 (Cont.
The subdivision developer, along with several individual lot owners, is
requesting to construct eight (8) foot high fences/walls along the perimeter
of 76 individual lots within the subdivision. The fences/walls could be
constructed along all lot sides, to within 10 feet of the street rights-of-way.
The fences/walls constructed between the front of each individual house
and the front property line would be constructed of wrought iron or all
brick. Fences/walls enclosing side and rear yards will be constructed of
all wood, wood with brick columns, all brick or wrought iron. The
fence/wall type will be selected by each individual lot owner. The lots
where eight (8) foot high fences/walls are not requested are those lots
adjacent to the water features, which run north/south within the west
portion of the subdivision.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows fence/wall
heights in residential zoning as follows:
"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 applicants are requesting a variance to allow the eight (8)
foot high fences/walls around the perimeter of the lots as shown on the
attached plan.
Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Whereas staff
has supported eight (8) foot fence heights for other gated subdivisions in
the past, those fences typically do not extend into the front yards of the
residences. However, staff recognizes that this gated subdivision is
unique in that the lot sizes are rather large (ranging from .72 acre to 2.85
acres) and the houses being constructed within the subdivision are very
large, as compared to the typical lot and home sizes in west Little Rock.
Staff feels that the only possible impact the fences will have will be on
other lots within this gated subdivision. If the fence/wall variance is
approved, staff is confident that the subdivision developer will inform
prospective lot buyers of the fence requirements. Otherwise, staff feels
that the proposed fence heights will have no negative impact on
properties abutting the overall subdivision.
The Little Rock Fire Department has reviewed the requested fence
heights. The Fire Department has no objections to the request, subject to
the following conditions.-
1.
onditions:
1. Any gated or walled entrance to an individual lot must have a minimum
width of 20 feet (includes both gates/entrances for a circular drive).
K
May 28, 2003
Item No.:
2. Individual lot gate codes must be unified and the same as the code on
the main subdivision gate.
3. The fencing plan for each individual lot must be reviewed and
approved by the Little Rock Fire Department.
4. Driveway widths will be constructed to accommodate fire trucks (20
foot minimum width).
5. Individual spindles for wrought iron gates will be spaced 4-5 inches
apart to allow a fire hose to be pulled through.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works requirement, as noted in paragraph
A. of this report.
2. Compliance with the Little Rock Fire Department requirements, as
noted in paragraph B. of this report.
3. Any columns must not extend more than two (2) feet above the
fence/wall height.
4. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction on each
individual lot.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3
35/19/2003` 24 921166t, WHI-E RATERS "%GE 61'01
IM WHITE - RATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
10 24 Rahling Circle
K3 Little Rock. Arkan."S 72223
April 25, 2003 - -
Mr. Monte Moore, Zoning Administrator
City of Little Rook. Panning Department
723 W. Markham St,
Little hock; Arkansas 72201
RE: Valley Falls Estates
Fence `ariancc
Mr, Moore,
Please find attached six copiss of the fencing plan fnr the above referenced project. The
developer would like. to request a fer!oe variance which meets the foilowitigr conditions:
As agreed upon ire the meeting, the following will apply to the proposed fences:
1) Lots 1-13, 13A -131D, 14-35, 35A -35C, 36, 36A.-36149-69, 78 and be
included in the various .request
2) 8 ft. fences of brief, wrgnght iron, or wood will be allowed along the rear and side 3 Std
up to the front of the main structure
3) 8 fl. fences of bride and, wrought iron will be allowed along the front slid side yards :'t7>rrt
the main, structure for+vard
4) No fence described above will be closer than 10 fl, from the street right -of --way.
5) Two 20 ft. wrought iron gates will be required on circular driveways
6) Knox boxes will be required with the same code as the subdivisian entry gate
?) The driveway turning radius -,rill accommodate a fire truck, aiortg with a 20 ft. interl :-.r
driveway
8) The individual spindles for the wrought iron gates will be spaced to allow a fire hos: G)
be pulled through the gate.
9) The Bill of Assurance will'be revised to require the gates described above
10) Any'owner wishing to install a fence under the descr� red gaidelines a;ll be regrdrec to
obtain a sign off from the Fire DT. arthnent.
Please place this item on the next available Board of Adjustment agenda. Do not hfttate to :...11
shoutd you have arty questions or require. additional i;afbimation.
Your help in taus matter is greatly appreciated.
Best regards;
/woe D. White, y.
G \
CIVIL ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING & DEVELOP4AENT. SURVEY;NG
May 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 3
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 -7262-A
Pulaski Heights Masonic Lodge
2710 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Northwest corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. and
Ash Street
C-3
An appeal is requested from the
administrative procedure/policy regarding
the restrictions for the placement of
temporary buildings on commercial
property.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Masonic Lodge
Masonic Lodge and snow cone stand
The property at 2710 Kavanaugh Blvd. is zoned C-3 and contains a two-
story Masonic Lodge building within the west half of the property, with a
paved parking lot within the eastern portion of the site. The parking lot will
accommodate approximately 16 vehicles. There is also a temporary
structure (snow cone stand) located at the southwest corner of the parking
lot.
On July 29, 2002 the Board of Adjustment granted Jason Files, owner of
the snow cone stand, an administrative appeal and allowed the issuance
May 28, 2003
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
of a permit for the temporary snow cone building with the following
conditions:
1. The temporary building is to be no closer to the street (Kavanaugh
Blvd.) than the fagade of the existing Masonic lodge building.
2. None of the seating (tables, chairs, benches, umbrellas, etc.) is to
obstruct the public right-of-way (sidewalk).
3. The temporary structure must be removed by October 1, 2002.
The issue was originally before the Board based on the fact that staff was
unable to administratively approve Mr. Files' application for temporary
placement of the snow cone stand, because the site does not conform to
the minimum standards for the placement of temporary buildings. Staff's
procedure guidelines, including the minimum siting standards for the
placement of temporary buildings, are provided on an attached form for
Board of Adjustment review.
As noted in paragraph C. of the attached procedure guidelines, staff's
review of the application ceases at the time certain circumstances exist.
This particular site does not conform to items 2, 3 and 6 as noted in
paragraph C. The site is less than one (1) acre in size, and contains less
than 50 parking spaces. Additionally, the temporary building as placed on
the site does not meet the minimum 25 -foot front yard setback as required
in C-3 zoning.
It was noted in the previous public hearing that the snow cone stand was
approved for the 2002 season only, and that Mr. Files would need to file
another appeal request to the Board of Adjustment if he wished to locate
on the same property in 2003. Therefore, Mr. Files asks that he be
granted another permit to allow the placement of his snow cone stand at
2710 Kavanaugh Blvd. He notes in the attached letter, "We feel that the
Board can look beyond the technical requirements and see that our
proposed use is in keeping with the feel of the neighborhood and will not
be a detriment in any way." Therefore, Mr. Files is requesting an appeal
from the administrative procedure/policy regarding the restrictions for the
placement of a temporary building on commercial property. If the Board
decides to allow the use of the temporary building on this site, the
standards listed in paragraphs D and E of the attached procedure
guideline will still apply, and Mr. Files and staff will need to follow through
the application procedure. To staff's knowledge, no complaints about the
snow cone stand were received from area residents last year.
2
May 28, 2003
Item No.: 3 (Cont.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 28, 2003)
Jason Files was present, representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff described the requested appeal and briefly reviewed the history of
the property.
Jason Files addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that
there were no changes proposed from his application in 2002 (building
placement, operation, etc.).
Chairman Ruck noted that the snow cone stand was in place before the
application was filed. He noted that a permit should be obtained in the future
before the temporary building is located on the site. He discussed this being a
possible condition of approval. Staff suggested a condition that would require
the building to be removed from the site at the end of each season.
Fred Gray asked Mr. Files if he expected any changes to the operation of the
snow cone stand in the near future. Mr. Files indicated that there would be no
changes.
Andrew Francis discussed a possible time limit for the application. He indicated
that he was not opposed to a long-term approval (for Mr. Files only), as long as
there were no changes to the operation of the snow cone stand. This issue was
briefly discussed. A three (3) year time limit was discussed.
There was a motion to approve the requested appeal for three (3) years, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The temporary building is to be no closer to the street (Kavanaugh Blvd.)
than the fagade of the existing Masonic lodge building.
2. None of the seating (tables, chairs, benches, umbrellas, etc.) is to obstruct
the public right-of-way (sidewalk).
3. The temporary structure must be removed by October 1 (2003, 2004 and
2005).
4. A permit must be obtained before installing the stand each year.
5. There is to be no expansion of the scope of the business operation.
The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application
was approved.
3
43
CAJUN SNOW -7,2-6 L
211 Spring Street
Little Rock, AR 72201 J
680-0555
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: permit application
To the Board of Adjustment:
Along with this letter please find my application for an interpretive request of the current
city ordinance regarding placement of temporary structures. I have also included a copy of my
original application which includes photos of the site as well as a diagram of the location. I am
asking that the Board interpret the current ordinance in such a way as to allow for the proposed
use. This proposed use will be exactly the same as the use approved by this Board last year.
Cajun Snow is a seasonal business which sells shaved ice (snow cones). The proposed
site for the business is 2710 Kavanaugh Boulevard, in the parking lot of the Masonic Lodge. This
site is zoned C-3, general commercial, and is in an area composed of restaurants and retail stores.
Directly across the street are "Damgoode Pies" and Moose drycleaners, and Bossa Nova
restaurant. The zoning of the property allows for the proposed use. The Department of Planning
and Development has been unable to approve the permit because of guidelines set up in
interpretation of the city ordinances concerning temporary structures.
Planning and development currently rejects any application if it does not meet certain
guidelines. Our proposed site does not meet the guidelines in two respects: it is not one acre in
size, and it does not contain 50 parking spaces. Because of the unique use of the permanent
structure on the lot, we believe that the ordinance should be interpreted to allow the use of a
temporary structure. The guidelines are not specifically tailored to any particular business. They
require 50 parking spots regardless of the type of business proposed for the structure. In our case,
we can only fantasize about needing 50 parking spots at one time. We do not attract quite that
level of business. In addition, many of our customers are pedestrians— children from the
neighborhood, dog walkers, and windowshoppers. Also, the primary structure in our case is not a
public building. The lodge is a masonic temple, open only to members. It.generates no traffic of
its own from the public and is only infrequently used by the members for meetings.
Our proposal is for one temporary structure, measuring 6 by 10 feet, to be allowed on the
site along with the attendant seating. Normally we use three park benches, a picnic table, and
several chairs under two umbrellas. The operation has been reconfigured so as not to require any
equipment outside the structure. We believe that the operation adds to the ambience of the area,
which already has a large amount of foot traffic. Cajun Snow provides a place to sit and watch
the people go by while cooling off and relaxing.
Planning and Zoning has requested that the building be placed at least 25 feet back o the
property line to comply with setback provisions. Our current setup allows for this, and actually
places our building farther from the property line than the majority of buildings in the area. This
commercial district was developed long before the adoption of a unified zoning plan and has a
hodgepodge of uses, often with no setback between the street and business other than the
sidewalk.
While the proposed site may not meet the guidelines set up by the Department of
Neighborhoods and Planning, these guidelines are not required by the Ordinance. The guidelines
are meant to give general guidance in approving or disapproving a site so as to maintain the
integrity of the neighborhood. We feel that the Board can look beyond the technical requirements
and see that our proposed use is in keeping with the feel of the neighborhood and will not be a
detriment in any way. We have been told by area business people and residents alike how glad
they are that we are in the neighborhood, and the feeling is certainly mutual.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jason Files
PhZJC, , I
ph- gyp, 42
phz,iL dH
Revised 01-04-94
PROCEDURE OUTLINE
The following procedural guideline is for the placement of
temporary building on properties zoned C-4, C-3, C-2.
:A. Applicants will submit to zoning/privilege license staff a
written request for the use placement. The request shall
consist of a photo or graphic depiction of the structure
with dimensions, plus a survey of the existing site with all
buildings shown or a detailed site plan by a design
professional. The application shall.be submitted in four
(4) copies.
The payment of a filing fee is required in the amount of
$50.00 and is non-refundable. This fee may be applied to an
appeal.
This application shall be forwarded to Building Codes and
Traffic for their review
B. The applicant shall quantify his/her project by the
submittal.of a written request. The information shall
include, but not be limited to: floor area; building height;
number of parking spaces required; hour of operation; number
of employees; number of take out or drive thru windows; and
the date that unit will be removed from the site.
C. Staff review will cease at the time when one of the
following circumstances exist:
1. The .chosen site is not zoned C-2, C-3, C-4..
2. The. chosen site is .less. than one acre in area..:
3. The chosen site,contains fewer than 50 parking spaces.
4. The'chosen site contains an existing freestanding
ancillary structure/building containing a business.
5. The use is proposed to be housed in any fashion other
than a transportable structure with hard roof,'walls
and floor.
6. Fails to comply with district building setback.
standards.
7. The building is proposed for placement on a site which
does not contain an existing permanent building.
8. Residential use is proposed for any,portion of the
structure.
9 Failure to include a date the building will be removed
from the site.
D. The staff shall review the..site for:
1. Vehicle access to a•public street.'
2. Circulation conflicts on and off site, whether created
by the intended business or existing.
3. Utility access and easement conflict.
4. Total parking needs of the chosen site.
5. Structural integrity of the building.
6. Pedestrian safety...
7. Signage
8. Noise, dust odor, smoke or other noxious emissions.
9. Certification of approval by State Health Department.
10. Provision of sanitary facilities.
E. The following conditi.on.s.shal.l be 'places on the approval of
applications.
1. Approval of.permits to-locate shall run with permit
holder and shall not run with.the land or be
transferrable.
2. The permit authorizes the use to occupy the site for a
period of six (6) month and shall be reviewed upon
renewal of privilege license. Permits may be revoked
for violation of permit standards.
3. The use is limited to a single module structure.
No multi-sectionals are permitted.
4.. The structure is limited to a maximum of one hundred
(100) sq. ft. of ground coverage including areas
beneath canopies or awnings attached to the building.
5. The site may not be fenced with opaque materials.
6d The temporary unit must-be removed by the end of the
sixth (6) month period.
Approved as to form and content.
Date
Neighborhoods and Planning
May 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z-7402
Owner: Theodis and Joyce Smith
Address: 7424 Debbie Drive
Description: Lot 194, Brookwood Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-254 to permit
carport and deck additions with a reduced
side 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:
1. A special Development Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required
per Sec. 8-283 prior to construction of the storage building. Contact
Vince Floriani at 371-4817.
2. The driveway apron must be concrete and be located five feet from the
property boundary measured at the right-of-way line of Debbie Drive.
Within the private property area, the drive can flare out to match the
carport width.
3. A residential curb cut permit must be obtained from Traffic
Engineering. Contact Derrick Bergfield at (501) 379-1817.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 7424 Debbie Drive is occupied by a one-story
brick and frame single family residence. There is a driveway from Debbie
May 28, 2003
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
Drive and a driveway from Carolina Drive which serve as access. There is
a 25 foot platted building line along the south and west property lines (two
street frontages).
The property owners propose to enclose the existing carport at the
southeast corner of the house and construct a 9 foot wide carport along
the east side of the structure. The carport will be unenclosed and be
located three (3) feet from the side (east) property line. The owners also
propose to construct a 16 foot by 16 foot deck on the east side of the
house at the structure's northeast corner. The deck will be uncovered and
unenclosed and also be located located three (3) feet from the side (east)
property line.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
eight (8) foot side yard for this property. Therefore, the owners are
requesting a variance for the proposed three (3) foot side yard setback
associated with the carport and deck additions. The owners are also
planning to remove the existing accessory building located where the
proposed deck addition is proposed, and construct a new accessory
building further north. The proposed new accessory building conforms to
the minimum required ordinance setbacks.
Staff is supportive of the requested side yard setback variance for the
proposed deck and carport additions. Given the fact that the lot narrows
from south to north, with a 25 foot platted building line along Carolina
Drive, the buildable area of this lot is somewhat less than a standard
single family lot. The three (3) foot side yard as proposed is typically the
minimum side yard setback staff will support unless other circumstances
exist. The proposed carport addition is to be unenclosed and the
proposed deck is to be unenclosed and uncovered. Therefore, staff feels
that the additions will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties
or general area.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback variance,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The carport addition must remain unenclosed on the north, south and
east sides.
2. The deck addition must remain unenclosed and uncovered.
3. Guttering must be provided on the carport to prevent water run-off onto
adjacent property.
4. Building permits must be obtained for all construction.
5. Compliance with Public Works Comments as noted in paragraph A. of
this report.
K
May 28, 2003
Item No.: 4 (Cont.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
9
April 8, 2003
Theodies & Joyce B. Smith
7424 Debbie Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
To The Board of Adjustments:
We are submitting written documentation in reference to our request for a variance in the city's building
code. We wish to extend our existing carport 10 feet East toward the property boundary, reducing the
current 12 feet easement to 2 feet.
The purpose for this request is to provide shelter for us as well as our vehicles when we travel back and
forth to them. We wish to make our home as comfortable as possible within reason and fmance.
We also wish to build a deck off the back of our garage. This would require us tearing down the existing
storage building, which is presently in need of repair. We wish to rebuild it further North of its existing
location which will be in the far Northeast corner of our lot.
Please note that the construction of this addition will meet the city's building code and in no way will the
completed project take away from the existing or neighboring structures in our community.
We thank you for your consideration as well as time spent on this matter.
Respectsubmitted,lly submitted,
,t(
Theodies & Joyce B. Smith
Ms. Tanya L. Parker
7418 Debbie Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
April 29, 2003
To Whom It May Concern:
RE: Mr. & Mrs. Theodore Smith
7424 Debbie Drive
The Smith family has been instructed to collect the signature(s) of any neighbors that are
within 200 feet of their property or construction area. In which I have consented upon in
the later part of March 2003.
At your request, please accept this letter of communication as agreement to the additions
and/or renovations (e.g: garage & covered carport) that are being constructed at 7424
Debbie Drive. The Smith family has expressed that these improvements, although
adjacent to, 7418 Debbie Drive, would not change the aesthetics to my property nor cross
property lines.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to reach me at 501/905-5379.
Sincerely,
nya Parker
TLP/
May 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.: Z-7403
Owner: Andrew and Lisa LaGrone
Address: 15 Tanglewood Lane
Description: Lot 15, Club Terrace Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a
building addition with a reduced 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 15 Tanglewood Lane is occupied by a 1 1/2
story rock and frame single family residence. There is a two -car driveway
from Tanglewood Lane which serves as access. The property slopes
downward from west to east (front to back).
The applicants propose to construct a 22 foot by 28 foot building addition
(two-story) at the northeast corner of the existing house. The addition will
be located approximately 17 feet from the rear (east) property line. The
addition will include a bedroom, full and half baths, and storage space.
Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
rear yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a
C
May 28, 2003
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
variance from this ordinance requirement. The applicants explain in the
attached cover letter why the addition needs to be located as proposed.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The topography and shape
of this lot limit the amount of buildable area. The lot was platted with a 15
foot front building line, as per the ordinance allowed hillside standards.
However, because of the narrowness of the front portion of the lot, the
house had to be located 60 plus feet back from the front property line.
This limits the amount of remaining buildable area in the rear yard.
Additionally, the overall slope of the property makes it more feasible to
construct the building addition at the northeast corner of the existing
structure, since it is at a higher elevation than the southeast corner. Staff
feels that the requested variance is reasonable and should have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, subject to
a building permit being obtained for the proposed construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
2
I
- 7Vc3
April 23, 2003
City of Little Rock
Board of Adjustment
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Re: Application for a Residential Zoning Variance
15 Tanglewood Lane
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please find enclosed an Application for Zoning Variance on our personal residence at 15
Tanglewood Lane in Little Rock. In addition, we have enclosed six (6) copies of a recent
survey, which shows all existing and proposed improvements properly dimensioned and
labeled. Finally, we have enclosed checks in the amount of $80.00 and $5.00 payable to
the City of Little Rock to cover our filing fee and sign fee, respectively.
Please note that the proposed addition to our house is contemplated for a number of
reasons. These include the modernizing of our kitchen facilities (30 years old), the
addition of one bedroom and bath, the addition of a half bath near our primary living
space, and the addition of much needed storage space. We anticipate the addition of
approximately 1,100 square feet of new space and the renovation of approximately 320
square feet of existing space. The new bedroom space will initially serve as a home
office and guest quarters, but as our children grow older will provide a means to separate
bathroom space (for one boy and one girl).
We regret that a zoning variance is necessary, but after discussion with various architects
and builders, it became obvious that the new space was best positioned near our kitchen
and the "common" area of the house. Alternatives for building up or off of our current
bedroom wing posed a number of structural, efficiency, and economic challenges that
could not be justified.
In exploring the possibility of buying another house or building a house, we realized how
much we value our neighborhood (Sherrill Heights) and our school district (Forest Park),
which reinforced our desire to work out an alternative with our existing home.
Page Two
Board of Adjustment
April 23, 2003
Our construction will be consistent with the style and quality of our existing house, and
will be compatible with the other houses and remodels in our neighborhood. It should
not in any way detract value from our house, that of our immediate neighbors, or the
neighborhood in general. In fact, we believe it will add value to all.
We appreciate your consideration of this variance, and encourage your questions or
requests for additional information as appropriate.
Sincerely
Andrew A. LaGrone Lisa E. LaGrone
15 Tanglewood Lane
Little Rock, Arkansas 72202
501-666-0950
501-227-4930 (work)
lagrone2@arkansas.net
May 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.:
Z-7404
Owner:
Henry and Mary Hodges
Address:
1915 Shadow Lane
Description:
Lot 126 and the South Y2 of Lot 127,
Shadowlawn Addition
Zoned:
R-2
Variance Requested:
A variance is requested from the fence
height provisions of Section 36-516.
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 1915 Shadow Lane is occupied by a two-story
rock and stucco single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from
Shadow Lane which serves as access. There is an existing eight (8) foot
high wood fence along the north property line. The applicants propose to
continue the eight (8) foot high wood fence along their rear (east) property
line and a portion of the side (south) property line.
Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum
fence height of six (6) feet in residential zoning. Therefore, the applicants
are requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the eight
(8) foot high fence.
May 28, 2003
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. As noted
above, there is an existing eight (8) foot high wood fence along the north
property line. To staff's knowledge this eight (8) foot high fence is
nonconforming, however, there have been other variances granted in this
general area for fences which are eight (8) feet high or higher. This
proposed fence will only enclose the rear yard of the property and not
extend into any portion of the front yard. Therefore, staff feels that the
requested fence will not be out of character with other properties in this
general area. The proposed fence should have no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The fence will have a maximum height of eight (8) feet.
2. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTME
(MAY 28, 2003)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting the
application be deferred to the July 28, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral
request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 28, 2003
agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
2
Variance Request
Friday, April 25 2003
From: Mary Penick Hodges
To: Little Rock Board of Adjustment
We are requesting a variance allowing the addition of an eighi-iovt
high wooden privacy fence across the back and down the south side
of our property.
The attached survey shows a rock wall on the north side of the
rrnponrty `Qrl� t^an# tC this ��a�l� i� ori p¢t7i�# fnnt Ftitrh lif^r%�-in ri�� r�tir
iJ- Vdi ce t �i div •.1—ca i is na eig � i 0 tig). � Via r4 pd d � rry
fence running the length of the adjoining property. We would like to
continue this fence across the back and up the south side of our
property.
� 1 � 1 1 t t .� a °nFi
The properly to our rear aheady has a privacy fence in place. i here
are no windows on the north side of the house to our south. There is
a dog run between that house and our existing chainlink fence.
I
have already u-,nrrnVachm`v r.di ti iav vv naVidr.,ikd ihvryr_S arvii or�#v�v
yUi dv
reservations about the fence as long as they can attach kennel gates
in order to maintain their dog run. We have no problem with this
request.
T hank- you for your time with this Issue.
Sincerely,
Mary Penick Hodges
k
May 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.: Z-7405
Owner: A. Don and Janet J. Robb
Address: 19 Keswick Cove
Description: Lot 111, Hillsborough Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a
building addition with a reduced side 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 19 Keswick Cove is occupied by a two-story
brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from
Keswick Cove which serves as access. The property slopes downward
from southeast to northwest. The existing house sits at an odd angle on
the lot due to the excessive slope and unusual shape of the lot.
The applicants propose to construct a 15 foot by 20 foot room addition at
the southeast corner of the existing home. The addition will be located at
the high side of the lot, and will be two (2) feet from the south (side)
property line. The proposed addition will have a corner relationship with
the south property line.
May 28, 2003
Item No.: 7 (C
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
side yard setback of approximately five (5) feet (10% of the lot width as
measured at the front platted building line). Therefore, the applicants are
requesting a variance from this ordinance standard.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The excessive slope and
irregular shape of the lot limit the area available for a building addition.
The applicants have located the proposed addition on the high side of the
lot, with a corner relationship to the south property line. Typically, staff will
support a minimum side yard setback of not less than three (3) feet.
However, in this case, the proposed two (2) foot side setback should be
sufficient given the corner relationship with the property line. This corner
relationship will allow room for construction and maintenance on this lot.
Additionally, the nearest structure to the south is located approximately
200 feet from the proposed building addition. The building addition as
proposed should have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or the
general area.
The applicant will need to determine if the Bill of Assurance is still in effect
for this Subdivision. If the Bill of Assurance is active and requires an
architectural review and approval, the applicant must submit an approval
letter from the architectural review committee.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, subject to
the following conditions:
1. A letter from the subdivision architectural review committee (if still
active) approving the building addition must be submitted to staff.
2. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto adjacent
property.
3. A building permit must be obtained for the proposed construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
2
-4-�
DON AND JANET ROBB � 7 �-e
#19 Keswick Cove
Little Rock, AR 72212
501-224-8709
To: Little Rock Board of Adjustment
Re: Lot 111, Phase IV, Hillsborough Subdivision, City of Little Rock
We are applying for a variance to the setback requirement in order to add a room to our
house. Due to the very steep and varied terrain in Hillsborough, a back corner of our
house was positioned very close to the south property line when built. Additionally, the
house is built at an angle on the lot again, due to the terrain of the building site.
We want to add a room to the back of the south side of the structure and will need to
extend the corner of the addition past the established setback line. Again, due to the
nature of the terrain on the building site and the way the house was designed to fit the lot,
this is the only feasible location for an addition to the structure. The proposed room
would extend 15 feet back from the Southwest corner of the structure and would be
approximately 20 feet wide. Because of the way the house is positioned on the lot in a
diagonal fashion, only a very small corner of the addition would extend past the setback
line
The addition of this family room would add approximately 300 square feet to the house,
which is currently just under 3200 sq. ft. This would add value to the home and the
neighborhood as well. The lot we are on extends 190 feet to the rear, and all the lots on
Keswick Cove are very large. Due to the large lots in our neighborhood, allowing this
variance would not give the appearance of crowding any other structures.
Please advise what additional information you may need to properly consider this request
and we thank you for your consideration of same.
Sincerely,
et and Don Rob
May 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 8
File No.: Z-7406
Owner: Joel and Kathy Gladden
Address: 29 Inverness Circle
Description: Lot 8, Block 12, Pleasant Valley Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-254 and the fence
provisions of Section 36-516.
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 29 Inverness Circle is occupied by a two-story
brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from
Inverness Circle which serves as access. The property slopes downward
from south to north (back to front).
The property owner recently began constructing a deck along the east
side of the existing residence. The Enforcement Staff issued a stop -work
order when it was determined that the deck was too close to the side
property line. It was later determined that the partially constructed deck
actually crossed the east side property line by approximately 2 Y2 feet.
The deck which the applicant began constructing is at grade along the
south end, with the northeast corner of the deck being approximately four
May 28, 2003
Item No.: 8 (Cont.
(4) feet above grade due to the slope of the property. The applicant also
proposes to construct a six (6) foot high wood fence on top of the deck,
along the deck's north and east sides. The fence will be approximately at
grade at the southeast corner of the deck and approximately 10 feet
above grade at the northeast corner. The deck has been designed and
constructed around an existing tree. None of the deck area will be
covered.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
side yard setback of eight (8) feet. Section 36-516(e)(1) allows a
maximum fence height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting variances from these ordinance requirements. Staff is
requiring the fence variance due to the fact that the overall fence height at
the northeast corner will be 10 feet as viewed from the adjacent property
to the east.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the
proposed deck will be a reasonable solution to the current drainage
problem which exists along the east side of the house. Staff views the
setback variance as minor. The rear section of the deck is at grade, with
the northeast deck corner being only approximately four (4) feet above
grade. If the entire deck were at grade, no setback would be required.
Additionally, only a small portion of the proposed fence will extend above
the six (6) foot maximum requirement. Staff also feels that this request is
reasonable. Staff feels that the proposed deck/fence construction will
have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or general area.
The owner, Joel Gladden, has informed staff that he is working with the
property owner to the east on doing a replat to move the dividing lot line to
follow the existing cross -tie drainage structure (as noted on the attached
site plan). This would place the east side of the deck on the property line.
The replat will need to be completed before a building permit can be
issued and construction can resume.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and fence height
variances, subject to the following conditions:
1. Completion of a replat (moving the east property line) within 60 days.
2. No further construction will be allowed until the replat is completed and
building permit issued.
3. No portion of the deck is to be covered.
2
May 28, 2003
Item No.: 8 (Cont.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3
Monty Moore
City of Little Rock- Beard of Adjustment
Dept of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
i itde Roc, AR 72201-1334
A.p 1, 25, 20133
Bear Board of AAjustme ,
Little REzk AR 72212
2-740C,
'ha& you,
1 l Gladden.
w a; a e.. s 3 . i c s t s . s. • . x
PLEASANT VALLEY PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
2300 Arkansas Valley Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
January 23, 2003
Joel Gladden
29 Inverness Circle
Little Rock, AR 72212
Dear Joel;
(501) 225-0481
Fax (501) 225-8800
-L/®6
Thank you for submitting your request to the Architectural Committee, The Board has
approved your request to build a new deck and a six -ft. tall wooden privacy fence, as long
as it is not within the easement.
Please call me if I can be of assistance in any way.
Hope you and Kathy enjoy your new deck and privacy in your back yard!
Yours very truly,
Shannon Quinn
Executive Director
May 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 9
File No.: Z-7407
Owner: Jalal Masoud
Address: 9203 Chicot Road
Description: Southeast corner of Chicot Road and
Preston Drive
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-301 to allow a
building addition with reduced side and rear
yard setbacks.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Convenience Store
Convenience Store
Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and
circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. Contact Traffic
Engineering at 379-1800 prior to filing for a building permit.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
The Landscape Ordinance requires an upgrade in landscaping equal to
the expansion proposed (42 percent). A variance from this requirement
will require City Beautiful Commission approval.
C. Staff Analysis.-
The
nalysis:
The C-3 zoned property at 9203 Chicot Road contains a one-story brick
commercial building which houses a convenience store. Vehicular access
to the property can be gained by utilizing driveways from Chicot Road and
May 28, 2003
Item No.: 9 (Cont.)
Preston Drive. There is paved parking along the west and north sides of
the building.
The property owner is proposing to construct a 20 foot by 50 foot addition
to the east end of the existing building. The building addition will be used
for storage space and be located five (5) feet from the east (rear) property
line and 10 feet from the south (side) property line. There is a 40 foot
platted building line along the north property line which the addition will be
located behind. The commercial building on the property immediately
east is located on its west property line, which will provide a five (5) foot
separation between it and the proposed building addition.
Section 36-301(e)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
15 foot rear (east) yard for this lot, and Section 36-301(e)(2) also requires
a minimum side yard (south) of 15 feet. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting variances for the proposed five (5) foot rear yard setback and
the 10 foot side yard.
Staff is supportive of the requested side and rear yard setback variances.
Staff views the variances as very minor. The ordinance typically requires
minimum setbacks of 25 feet from street front and side property lines.
This particular lot has a 40 foot platted building line from the north and
west property lines. Therefore, the building has been placed toward the
southeast corner of the property further then would be typically required,
reducing the amount of buildable area within the rear and interior side
yards. Staff feels that the reduced side and rear yard setbacks as
proposed will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the
general area. The applicant has obtained a sign -off from the Little Rock
Fire Department on the proposed separation between the proposed
building addition and the existing building immediately to the east.
D. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances, subject
to compliance with the Public Works and Landscape requirements as
noted in paragraphs A. and B. of this report.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
2
IAGINEERED
go
NEWROCK
PARKING
DECK
2
TRAVELERS
INSURANCE
BUILDING
a
HOWARD
JOHNSON
RESTAURANT
0
VILLAGE
SHOPPING
CENTER
3
STORYBOOK
VI LLAGE
2
GLENWOOD
HEIGHTS
HOWARD
JOHNSON
MOTEL
a
SCHOOLWOOD
S
ALLENDALE
JAMESTOWN
APARTMENTS
a
WINDAMERE
APARTMENTS
a
PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE
BUILDING
BUSINESS
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
SPECIALISTS
PUTNAM REALTY INC.
SUITE 1820 UNION NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
Mr. Monte Moore
c/o Little Rock
Board of Adjustment
Dear Mr. Moore:
REAL. `r.Si'A! !lo'v EST',0ENT
0U INS RS
is LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
April 23, 2003
IMAGINEERS
PHONE AC 501 376-3616
- -7 7
RE: Fast Mart Store
19203 Chicot Road
This filing with the Board of Adjustment is as
recommended by your department,. due to the situation as
shown by attached Engineers drawings and pictures.
The filing reflects a request to reduce the rear yard
size from 25 feet to 5 feet as shown on the attached survey.
The smaller size allows for fire hoses to be used on the
rear.
The property adjoining at the rear has a large building
sitting on their west property line. Said property faces
Preston Avenue and is used as a large garage and auto
storage.
The only reason for this request is to be able to add
onto the rear of the building for inventory space. See
Photo's.
Subject is zoned C-3. Building on site faces Chicot
Road.
The addition cannot be seen by any of the neighbors.
Several of the photos prove this statement.
Thank you for your help,
kAQVX�-
William B. Putnam
WBP/jh _\
=j REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS sl DIVESTMENTS & ACQUISITIONS
-" _I APPRAISALS
May 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 10
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-7408
Dr. Steven Kulick
32 Bellegarde Drive
Lot 1, Block 37, Chenal Valley Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from the fence
height provisions of Section 36-516.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 32 Bellegarde Drive is occupied by a two-story
brick and rock single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from
Bellegarde Drive which serves as access. The lot is located at the
northwest corner of Bellegarde Drive and Latour Lane. There is a 25 foot
platted building line along both street property lines. There is an existing
brick retaining wall located between the platted building line and the east
(Latour Lane) property line. The retaining wall is at grade at both ends,
with the maximum height being approximately three (3) feet near the
center of the wall.
The applicant proposes to enclose the rear yard with a six (6) foot high
wood privacy fence. The east portion of the fence would be located
May 28, 2003
Item No.: 10 (Cont.)
approximately four (4) feet inside the existing retaining wall and within the
required 25 foot street side setback.
Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum
fence height of four (4) feet between a required setback line and a street
right-of-way. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this
ordinance standard.
Staff is supportive of the variance request. Although a portion of the
fence will have the appearance of being taller, as viewed from the east
with the existing retaining wall, staff feels that it will have no adverse
impact on the adjacent properties or general area. Additionally, the fence
will be located far enough back from the intersection as to create no sight
distance problems. Staff is aware that there is an active Bill of Assurance
for this neighborhood that may contain fence -related requirements or
restrictions. Staff will request a letter from the subdivision's architectural
review committee which approves the proposed fence design and
location.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance,
subject to the following conditions:
1. A letter from the subdivision's architectural review committee
approving the fence must be submitted to staff.
2. The wood fence will have a maximum height of six (6) feet from grade.
3. A building permit must be obtained for the proposed fence
construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
2
MEMO
L DSCAPE
TO: Monty Moore
ARCHITECT
Little Rock Planning and Development
RUSSELL
FROM: Dave Roberts-
&
DATE: April 24, 2003
ROBERTSLTD.
RE: Residential Zoning Variance for
1501 N. UNIVERSITY
SUITE 430
32 Bellegarde Drive
72207 ROCS, AR
(501) 280-0123
The owner of 32 Bellegarde in Chenal Valley requests a residential zoning variance to allow for
two additional feet of fencing along the northeast property line. We understand that a four foot
rear/side fence is permitted by ordinance. This variance is requested to give the owner two
additional feet of fence height to screen their backyard based on the configuration of the
residence on the corner lot.
Enclosed please find a master landscape plan for the residence. As noted on the plan, the
pool/patio is a future improvement.
If you have any questions concerning this variance application please feel free to contact me at
(501) 280-0123.
May 28, 2003
ITEM NO.: 11
File No.: Z-7409
Owner: Jacob W. and Elizabeth Deering Morris
Address: 1812 S. Fillmore Street
Description: Lots 3 and 4, Block 21, Cherry and Cox
Addition
Zoned: R-3
Variance Requested: An appeal is requested from staff's
administrative determination that the
proposed use of the property does not
conform to all of the home occupation
standards.
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 pottery/art
studio
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The property at 1812 S. Fillmore Street is zoned R-3 and contains a one-
story brick and rock single family residence on a double lot. A driveway
from Fillmore Street serves as the principle access to the property, with
vehicular access also from the alley along the west property line. There is
a one-story stucco accessory building located at the northwest corner of
the house.
The property owner, Elizabeth Deering Morris, recently inquired of staff
the possibility of locating her pottery/art studio to the accessory structure
May 28, 2003
Item No.: 11 (Cont.)
as a home occupation. Staff informed Mrs. Morris that a home occupation
permit could not be administratively approved, based on the fact that an
accessory building would be utilized for the home-based business.
Mrs. Morris is also requesting a separate electric meter for the accessory
building.
According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-253(b)(6):
"a. Home occupations shall be permitted that will not:
Change the outside appearance of the dwelling or
provide product display visible from the street.
2. Generate traffic, parking, sewage or water use in
excess of what is normal in the residential
neighborhood.
3. Create a hazard to persons or property, result in
electric interference or become a nuisance.
4. Result in outside storage or display of any material or
product.
5. Involve accessory buildings.
6. Result in signage beyond that which may be required
by other government agencies.
7. Limited to five hundred (500) square feet in area, but in
no case more than forty-nine (49) percent of the floor
area in a dwelling.
8. Stock in trade shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the
floor area of the accessory use.
9. Require the construction of, or the addition to, the
residence of duplicate kitchens.
10. Requirement or cause the use or consumption on the
premises of any food product produced thereon.
11. Provide medical treatment, therapeutic massage or
similar activities."
2
May 28, 2003
No.: 11 (Cont.
Mrs. Morris asks that she be granted a home occupation permit to allow
her pottery/art studio use to be located within the existing accessory
structure. She notes in the attached letter:
"I am a professional artist and hold a BA in Fine Arts; this is
no hobby. My intention is to convert this building into a
professional pottery studio for my personal business use."
"I assure you that I am not attempting to open a business to
the public or any other use that would violate the zoning
ordinance. I am only converting existing space as to make it
suitable for use in my home occupation. Since this is my
primary occupation, I also have a need to keep accurate
records of my business expenses for accounting and tax
purposes. This is why I need a separate meter. Trying to
calculate and isolate the business portion of my electrical
use from normal domestic use with only one meter would be
nearly impossible."
To staff's knowledge, the issue related to use of the accessory structure is
the only outstanding issue associated with the proposed home
occupation. All other aspects of the proposed home occupation will
conform to ordinance standards. The Board is asked to determine if the
proposed home occupation, to be operated out of an accessory building
(with a separate electric meter), is an appropriate home occupation.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 28, 2003)
Jacob and Elizabeth Morris were present, representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff briefly described the requested appeal.
Elizabeth Morris addressed the Board in support of the application. She stated
that she needed to use the accessory building for her art/pottery studio because
she needed more space than was available in the principal structure. She also
stated that a separate electric meter was needed because of the special
equipment involved with her studio.
Chairman Ruck asked if the art/pottery studio would create any additional traffic
(customers, students, etc.). Mrs. Morris explained that it would not. Chairman
Ruck stated that he had no objection to the application.
3
May 28, 2003
Item No.: 11 (Cont.
Fred Gray asked Mrs. Morris if her works would be shown or for sale.
Mrs. Morris explained that she was planning a show for November 2003, and
that her works were not shown in galleries at the present time.
There was a motion to approve the requested appeal and allow the home
occupation (art/pottery studio) to be operated in the accessory building with a
separate electric meter. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and
1 absent. The application was approved.
El
1812 S. Fillmore St
Little Rock, AR 72204
April 22, 2003
Board of Adjustment
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Members of the Board:
Thank you all for hearing my request. The code inspector has informed me
that we must apply for a zoning interpretation to complete an electrical wiring
project at our home because said project involves adding an additional electric
meter to my property. At issue, as I'm told, is that I am attempting to add this
additional meter to a building not directly attached to my home. This building
is a two -car garage that was originally constructed with the home, circa 1930.
As such, the wiring it contained is insufficient for my planned use.
I am a professional artist and hold a BA in Fine Arts; this is no hobby. My
intention is to convert this building into a professional pottery studio for my
personal business use. As stated above, the existing wiring is not capable of
handling the electrical current required by my several small appliances (pottery
wheel and equipment, extra lighting, bench grinder, air conditioner, etc...).
Being of such age, I was also concerned about it's safety.
I assure you that I am not attempting to open a business to the public or any
other use that would violate the zoning ordinance. I am only converting
existing space as to make it suitable for use in my home occupation. Since
this is my primary occupation, I also have a need to keep accurate -records -of
my business expenses for accounting and tax purposes. This is why I need a
separate meter. Trying to calculate and isolate the business portion of my
electrical use from normal domestic use with only one meter would be nearly
impossible.
For the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that you grant me an
interpretation of the ordinance that would allow me to install this second meter
and continue with my occupation in a professional manner. Thank you very
much for you assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Deering Morris
POP
��
m
W
Q
Z
M
W
May 28, 2003
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
2:30 p.m.
Date: 2D03
Chairman