Loading...
boa_10 27 2003LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES OCTOBER 27, 2003 Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being five (5) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the September 29, 2003 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman Scott Richburg, Vice Chairman Fred Gray Terry Burruss Andrew Francis Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA OCTOBER 27, 2003 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEM: A. Z-7494 221 Ridgeway Avenue II. NEW ITEMS: 1. Z -4364-A 1720 Beechwood Street 2. Z -6266-A 80011-30 2.1. Z -7407-A 9203 Chicot Road 2.2. Z-7527 4920 Baseline Road 3. Z -7103-A 120 Commerce Street 4. Z-7495 3015 Circlewood Drive 5. Z-7520 2007 N. Cleveland Street 6. Z-7521 5205 West 33rd Street 7. Z-7522 5000 Stonewall Road 8. Z-7523 10,000 Yellowpine Lane 9. Z-7524 323 President Clinton Avenue 10. Z-7525 300 N. Cedar Street 11. Z-7526 5216 "R" Street Cl) O CD O N ■ - 3NId N31ZVN3 N co 11Otl81H1 co �b Jd. J TE � %y n O 4-j , NVN830 O Q n� NIVW AVMOVOi1B HOMV N01/✓� 53H0 ONIN IN d3H3i10 o FxM0il000M 3NId h 3NId tlV NO1110 ll00S N s SgNiydS O Lo NH d 8IV3 �'GJ AlIS83AIN aS83NNn S9NIadS N3 30 nH Iddlss in �, ?r N z e' 1001H0 � 2ilOht135321 MON NHOf 3 i 3Nt 13H _ - 00 O8Od31XOVHS o S108VS K, o WVHlVd AMOa - �� NV 09 i � S11rvIl A110 x 300121 AWIh OR �T is Q _ Q � v NVAIllnS 121VM31S ysdb�v sPml AIIo�2-� 3 dj01n0 31tlON2i33 0 October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-7494 Owner: Chris and Lynn Parker Address: 221 Ridgeway Avenue Description: Lots 32 and 33, Block 13, Midland Hills Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow construction of a swimming pool which exceeds the maximum rear yard coverage. A variance is also requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a privacy fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicants' justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-3 zoned property at 221 Ridgeway Avenue is occupied by a two- story brick single family residence. There is a one car driveway from Ridgeway Avenue which serves as access. There is a small accessory building located near the northwest corner of the property. A paved alley is located along the north property line. October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) The applicants propose to construct an in -ground swimming pool within the rear yard of the property. Additionally, an eight (8) foot high privacy fence is proposed along the rear (north) property line. The applicants are requesting two (2) variances in association with the pool/fence project. The first variance is from Section 36-156(a)(2)c. which allows a maximum rear yard coverage of 30 percent (rear 25 feet of the lot) for accessory structures. The pool structure combined with the existing accessory building will cover approximately 33 percent of the required rear yard. The second variance is from Section 36-516(e)(1)a. This section allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet in residential zones. As noted earlier, the applicants propose to construct an eight (8) foot high fence along the rear property line. Because of a slight slope, the fence will have a height of six (6) feet as viewed from the rear yard, and a height of eight (8) feet as viewed from the alley. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the rear yard coverage variance associated with the proposed pool as very minor. The proposed rear yard coverage will be over the 30 percent allowed by only approximately 65 square feet. This type of rear yard coverage will not be out of character with numerous other accessory structures in the neighborhood. The proposed in -ground pool will have a lessor impact on the surrounding properties than an above ground structure. The proposed eight (8) foot high fence should also prove to have no negative impact on the general area. There are numerous accessory structures and fences located along the alley right-of-way with heights of eight (8) feet and higher. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested coverage and fence variances, subject to a building permit being obtained for all construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the October 27, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the October 27, 2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 27, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be withdrawn, without prejudice. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn, without prejudice, by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 3 August 25, 2003 VIA: Hand Delivery Little Rock Board of Adj ustment Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Re: Amended Cover Letter Proposed Variance from Backyard Coverage Requirement Lots 32 and 33, Block 13, Midland Hills Addition 221 Ridgeway, Little Rock, AR 72205 To Whom It May Concern: The owners of the above -identified property, Chris and Lynn Parker, request a variance (if necessary) in order to conform to the required ratio for the rear 25 feet of undeveloped property in R-2 zones, and construct a fence measuring 6 feet in height from the inside and up to 8 feet in height from the rear alley. We understand that the proposed pool which is shown on the attached Donald W. Brooks land survey dated November 26, 2002 will slightly encroach upon the coverage ordinance requirements. The pool needs to be configured in the rear 25 feet of the lot because of the configuration of the existing house and to minimize the leveling and fill. The lot slopes toward the alley and any reconfiguration will require more fill to level. The need for the variance may be triggered by the existence of an approximately 12 x 12 existing storage building. The side and rear (alley facing) boundaries of the property are fenced and therefore the backyard is not visible except for from the second floor of the two immediately adjacent houses. Thank you very much for the board's consideration of this request. Yours ve ly, hristo r O. ker COP:rll EICHENBAUM, LILES & HEISTER, P.A. 77 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ' 124 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1400 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3736 PETER B. HEISTER POST OFFICE BOX 70 E. CHARLES EICHENBAUM GARY F. LILES MARTHA JETT McALISTER LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203-0070 (1907-1993) CHARLES D. McDANIEL TELEPHONE 501-376-4531 JOHN H. HALEY CHRISTOPHER 0. PARKER FACSIMILE 501-376-8433 OF COUNSEL JAMES H. PENICK, III JOE A. POLK RICHARD L. RAMS" MITCHELL L. BERRY Writer's Extension: 106 cparicer@elhiaw.com August 25, 2003 VIA: Hand Delivery Little Rock Board of Adj ustment Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Re: Amended Cover Letter Proposed Variance from Backyard Coverage Requirement Lots 32 and 33, Block 13, Midland Hills Addition 221 Ridgeway, Little Rock, AR 72205 To Whom It May Concern: The owners of the above -identified property, Chris and Lynn Parker, request a variance (if necessary) in order to conform to the required ratio for the rear 25 feet of undeveloped property in R-2 zones, and construct a fence measuring 6 feet in height from the inside and up to 8 feet in height from the rear alley. We understand that the proposed pool which is shown on the attached Donald W. Brooks land survey dated November 26, 2002 will slightly encroach upon the coverage ordinance requirements. The pool needs to be configured in the rear 25 feet of the lot because of the configuration of the existing house and to minimize the leveling and fill. The lot slopes toward the alley and any reconfiguration will require more fill to level. The need for the variance may be triggered by the existence of an approximately 12 x 12 existing storage building. The side and rear (alley facing) boundaries of the property are fenced and therefore the backyard is not visible except for from the second floor of the two immediately adjacent houses. Thank you very much for the board's consideration of this request. Yours ve ly, hristo r O. ker COP:rll October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z -4364-A Owner: Jerry G. Stevenson and Steve W. Douglas Address: 1720 Beechwood Street Description: Part of Lots 1 and 2, Cliffewood Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence/wall provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a masonry wall which exceeds the maximum height allowed. 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 1720 Beechwood Street is occupied by a two- story frame single family residence, with a two -car driveway from Beechwood Street. There is a one-story frame accessory structure at the southwest corner of the property, with a swimming pool near the northwest corner and along the rear property line. There is an existing rock wall along the north and west property lines which encloses the rear yard. The existing wall is approximately 5.5 — 7 feet in height (as measured from outside the rear yard), and is set back approximately five (5) feet from the rear (west) property line. The applicant recently added approximately two (2) feet to the height of the existing wall along the rear property line only. The added wall height October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) was to help screen and secure the swimming pool area from the adjacent property, as the pool area is elevated and approximately 1 — 1.5 feet above the grade of the rear yard. The overall height of the rear wall as viewed from the low side (west) is approximately eight (8) feet. 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, and four (4) feet between a building setback line and a street right-of-way (within north 5 feet of the lot). Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard for the increased wall height. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the requested variance is very minor. The requested wall height is not out of character with other fences and walls in the general area. The existing fence on the property immediately to the west ranges in height from 6 to 7.5 feet. Staff feels that the added fence height will provide the needed privacy and security for the pool area, and will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence/wall height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 27, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 0 Little Rock Board of Adjustment ` `-t 3 �' 4 4 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham f� Little Rock, AR 72201 September 22, 2003 We live at 1720 Beechwood (southwest corner of Beechwood and Cantrell) in a two-story frame, single-family residence. For safety concerns, we are requesting permission to raise the height of the existing rear privacy fence an additional 26 inches to control access to our swimming pool. Our immediate neighborhood is home to several small children who occasionally play in the access alley that separates our property from that of the adjacent neighbors. The low height and style of the existing rear fence makes it very inviting for children to climb and play on. In fact, we have witnessed children climbing on the fence in the past (see attached photograph #1—it is the five-year old neighbor who has pushed a chair next to his home's rear wall, climbed up and is standing on top of it). Our attorney advised us to raise the height of our rear fence as the pool is considered to be an "attractive nuisance" and the existing height and style made it easy to climb on. We are concerned that a child may get hurt or, even worse, accidentally drown in the pool if they fell off the wall. West Property Line. The swimming pool is located right next to the existing fence that runs along the west property line. There is a 10 foot wide access alley separating our lot from the neighbor to the rear (photograph #2). From the access alley side, the 26 inch addition manes our fence eight (8) feet high and thereby less likely to be climbed on there is a seven (7) foot privacy fence that belongs to the neighbor on the other side of the access alley. The addition makes the inside height of the wall 6.75 feet high (the property slopes from west to east. That same fence abuts the pool house, providing a continuous security barrier along the access alley. East Property Line. Access to the swimming pool from the east (Beechwood) is prevented by the house. North Property Line. Access to the swimming pool from the north (Cantrell) is prevented by an existing eight (8) foot high fence (photography #3). South Property Line. The driveway along the south property line goes to a 2 -car carport that is attached to the house and pool house. The rear of the carport is enclosed. Access to the pool from the south side of the lot through the carport is secured by two doors with locks (photography #4). Photo # 5 demonstrates the scale of our fence along the west property line (I'm six feet tall) compared to the neighbor's fence (photo #6). Photos 7-9 demonstrate the scale of existing fences in our immediate neighborhood. Sincerely, Jeyfy G. Stevenson 20 Beechwood Little Rock, AR 72207 501-666-0088 Steve W. Douglas 1720 Beechwood Little Rock, AR 72207 501-666-0088 2 Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 I am neighbors with Jerry Stevenson and Steve Douglas at 1720 Beechwood. I have no objections to their wish to raise the height of the fence along the rear of their property. Sincerely, / 7 / EQ f3ec c Z WOW Ml SM"�+ .s r `'° K•.--`., ,E' ..�. u�'M°ry�*erh', x .�y ,�j-r ✓t �.:yo i W. N' SF t�., 4 + �� �, as �` y�,�3.�^Sr'� 3'l�..w •�4. .5'' f .M,'�sa f, � c� " �,.. ..w-rw � y. i '."�' pkn�y,'Y� 7 .L, i'!°t*"='..".pC•c y1 -3K '.4p.B} �a.J.�!` � . L N t.ZM u � C, a t J X J N xzk r - Rl p n r te'`'`a;' 11 rr ft rc oGe% A Oyu I)1 • �'^ V^-.. h s.. .:.. ,., `_ i x:... A yr r h r � a 11 rr ft rc oGe% A Oyu I)1 i .� M `1 d �' f► Y � to � {{K 4 .. S I h4 „, �s2 'Fax" �. ,Y','3 "Y`',},�wa�k ,�. •'1b"� ��,,,�` �,w"3; ��,,n � ��, �$� :1' ��3 n . . . . . . . . . ... Q; W-- '��fi .. Hca `� a ��F �. �; a _ � .. ,y �5,, ✓✓,��.� "'��5 `'�c«' r ce5s A Ai K c, h � r'y4f vsTM Ow - A 70 s410bda tY x s, K c, h � r'y4f vsTM Ow - A 70 s410bda tY ti 41 1 t fi f _ i �' ixti�y� c�'sa3r�;�ra ri� m � `t� Y1� �• a a 4" Ok M 0 ;,+ >3 rY 0. lik, k It rg Q MIMI 41, ROOM M Ai' gmg 5N 'got M so 41, ROOM M Ai' rr `�yy 3A. •j1 ,. wT. , , KA ME rx wT. , rx , R� n. f £s4 y A 31 w.e y 5 } d .. .k N '� ��'�" '�'� ? 7 ,S to 3 F. ,��r'S,�t 3.fi,�;i :�; ✓' 6.4'a %& j ku' '�$ � �, ... ..� v,. v, � �� �y�,�o�d Yl A r< `A ya � �,� eft fi• J, ,�K ,g '. lj "�, /r -r r 2 b fi i �4 t Yl f mpprj a& A /'t in 1' A r< ` -r r 2 b fi i �4 t f mpprj a& A /'t in 1' 50- AaWAN October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 2 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 -6266-A Jalal Masoud 8001 Interstate 30 Southwest corner of 1-30 and Stanton Road C-3 A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-555 to allow incidental signage which exceeds the maximum area allowed. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Convenience Store Convenience Store The C-3 zoned property at 8001 Interstate 30 is occupied by a one-story convenience store building. The property is located at the southwest corner of 1-30 and Stanton Road. There are existing driveways from the I- 30 frontage road and Stanton Road which serve as access. There are two (2) wall signs on the front (north side) of the building which have sign permits and utilize all of the area allowed by ordinance (10 percent of total facade area). There is a 48 square foot wall sign on the east side (Stanton Road) of the building which meets ordinance requirements and needs to be permitted. Otherwise, there is a total of approximately 178 square feet of incidental signage on the north side of October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) the building, as noted in the attached photos. This includes the neon beer signs located on the inside of the front windows. Section 36-555(a)(2)d. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 20 square feet of incidental signage per commercial occupancy. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard, to allow the 178 square feet of incidental signage. The applicant notes in the attached letter that the incidental signage is needed in order to compete with similar types of businesses in the general area. Staff does not support the requested variance, as filed. Staff cannot support the amount of incidental signage that exists at this location. Staff views 178 square feet of incidental signage for a small convenience store as excessive. Staff could support the two (2) existing 2 foot by 25 foot signs (red background) on each side of the "Knick Pantry" sign. Staff feels that 100 square feet of incidental signage is reasonable for this location. Staff's support is based on the fact that, although the property fronts the interstate, it is a very difficult commercial location to identify and find. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance, as filed. Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. There is to be a maximum of 100 square feet of incidental signage on the front (north side) of the building. (The two 2 foot by 25 foot signs as described previously). 2. The existing sign on the east (Stanton Road) side of the building must be permitted, with no additional signs installed on this building side. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 27, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 KWICK PANTRYINC 80011-30 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72209 To whom it my concern, September 29, 2003 I would like to ask for a variance approve at (80011-30) the reason is because That we feel that are competion around us and around the city is not meeting all the city codes Requirements. When are competion around us have a bunch of advertisement on there products Advertise and we have a certain of amount of percentage to advertise by city code. It will Leave us with small amount to use. The amount of space that I would like to get approved is (2 X 25) total of 100 sq ft. the reason for that is because I have advertised on my canopy the Services that I do at the location. If feel that having the advertisement on the canopy has helped My check cashing, western union, money order business out a lot if I have to remove them I feel that it will hurt my business. Also I have a sign in Spanish that is on my building I would Like to get a variance approve for an additional to increase of (28 sq. ft.) To keep it up. The reasol For that is because I have a lot of Hispanic in the area and the sign details what we sell and the Services that we offer. You're sincerely, WADEEA MASOUD KWICK PANTRY INC. October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 2.1 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 -7407-A Jalal Masoud 9203 Chicot Road Southeast corner of Chicot Road and Preston Drive C-3 A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-555 to allow incidental signage which exceeds the maximum area allowed. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Convenience Store Convenience Store The C-3 zoned property at 9203 Chicot Road is occupied by a one-story convenience store building. The property is located at the southeast corner of Chicot Road and Preston Drive. There are existing driveways from Chicot Road and Preston Drive which serve as access. The Board of Adjustment recently approved variances associated with a building addition on the east end of the existing building. There is one (1) wall sign ("Fast Mart") on the front (west side) of the building which has a sign permit. This sign utilizes 32 square feet of an allowable 76 square feet of signage for this side of the building. In addition, there is approximately 114 square feet of incidental signage on October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 2.1 (Cont.) the front of the building. This includes the neon beer signs located on the inside of the front windows. There are no signs on the Preston Drive side of the building. Section 36-555(a)(2)d. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 20 square feet of incidental signage per commercial occupancy. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard, to allow the additional incidental signage. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the applicant should permit the changeable copy sign above the doors and windows on front of the building as a permanent wall sign. This would leave approximately 76 square feet of incidental signage. Staff feels that this amount of incidental signage is reasonable as long as no signage is placed on the north (Preston Drive) side of the building. The ordinance would typically allow 48 square feet of signage (before building addition) on the Preston Drive side of the building. Staff feels that the amount of existing signage on the front of the building will have no adverse impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The changeable copy sign over the doors and windows on front of the building must be permitted as a wall sign. 2. A maximum of 76 square feet of incidental signage will be allowed on the front (west side) of the building. 3. No signage will be allowed on the Preston Drive side of the building. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 27, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 FAST MART INC 9203 CHICOT RD. LITTLE ROCK, AR 72209 To whom it my concern, September 29, 2003 7Vo7—v+ I would like to ask for a variance approve at (9203 chicot Rd.) The reason is because That we feel that are competion around us and around the city is not meeting all the city codes Requirements. When are competion around us have a bunch of advertisement on there products Advertise and we have a certain of amount of percentage to advertise by city code. It will Leave us with small amount to use. Also another reason that I have metal signs put outside Are windows are for are safety to the building. The reason that I say that is because when we Have put are metal signs (2) years ago we had less vandalism to are place of business. Before We had the signs mounted to are build we use to have people break the windows to come inside thf Store to steal cigarettes, beer, money and etc. Also we have had kids in the neighbor come to the Store on bicycles and the would slam there bicycles against the windows and cause the glass to Break. We can just put up the metal signs up in front of the windows with no advertisement but I feel that just having it being empty will not make the build or the business look unprofessional an4 The same time it will give me the opportunity to advertise my Specials on my merchandise. The amount of space that I would like to get approved is about (75 sq. ft.) for wall signs. You're sincerely, WADEEA MASOUD FAST MART INC. October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 2.2 File No.: Z-7527 Owner: Jalal Masoud Address: 4920 Baseline Road Description: Northeast corner of Baseline Road and Stanton Road Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-555 to allow incidental signage which exceeds the maximum area allowed. A variance is also requested to allow a sign without direct public street frontage. 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. Convenience Store Convenience Store The C-3 zoned property at 4920 Baseline Road is occupied by a one-story convenience store building. The property is located at the northeast corner of Baseline and Stanton Roads. There are existing driveways from Baseline Road and Stanton Road which serve as access. There is one (1) existing wall sign ("Superstop") on the front (south side) of the building which has a sign permit. This sign utilizes 22.5 square feet of an allowable 90 square feet of signage for this side of the building. There is no signage on the west (Stanton Road) side of the building. October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 2.2 (Cont. There is one (1) sign on the west side and one (1) sign on the east side of the gas pump canopy. There is also one (1) ground -mounted sign which is permitted. Additionally, there is approximately 170 square feet of incidental signage on the front of the building. This includes the neon beer signs located on the inside of the front windows. Section 36-555(a)(2)d. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 20 square feet of incidental signage per commercial occupancy. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard, to allow the additional incidental signage. Additionally, Section 36-557(a) requires that all wall signs face required street frontage. Therefore, the applicant is also requesting a variance to allow the sign on the east side of the gas pump canopy, which has no direct street frontage. Staff is supportive of the variance to allow the sign on the east side of the gas pump canopy. However, staff does not support the overall amount of incidental signage which exists on the site. With sign permits being obtained for wall signage on the front of the building up to the 90 square feet total allowed, staff could support a total of 50 square feet of incidental signage on the front of the building. Staff feels that this amount of incidental signage will be more than adequate given the other signage (ground sign, canopy signs, etc.) on the property. This is also with the understanding that there will be no signage on the Stanton Road side of the building. Staff feels that this amount of signage is reasonable and should have no adverse impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the application, as filed. Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. There is to be a maximum of 50 square feet of incidental signage on the front (south side) of the building. 2. There is to be no signage on the west (Stanton Road) side of the building. 3. The signs on the east and west sides of the gas pump canopy must be permitted. 4. A sign permit(s) must also be obtained for wall signs on the front of the building up to 90 square feet in area. 2 October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 2.2 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 27, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 3 FAST MART INC 4920 BASELINE RD. LITTLE ROCK, AR 72209 To whom it my concern, September 29, 2003 2-75-:2-7 I would like to ask for a variance approve at (4920 BASELINE Rd.) The reason is because That we feel that are competion around us and around the city is not meeting all the city codes Requirements. When are competion around us have a bunch of advertisement on there products Advertise and we have a certain of amount of percentage to advertise by city code. It will Leave us with small amount to use. Also another reason that I have metal signs put outside Are windows are for are safety to the building. The reason that I say that is because when we Have put are metal signs (3.) years ago we had less vandalism to are place of business. Before We had the signs mounted to are build we use to have people break the windows to come inside thf Store to steal cigarettes, beer, money and etc. Also we have had kids in the neighbor come to the Store on bicycles and the would slam there bicycles against the windows and cause the glass to Break. We can just put up the metal signs up in front of the windows with no advertisement but I feel that just having it being empty will not make the build or the business look unprofessional an( The same time it will give me the opportunity to advertise my Specials on my merchandise. The amount of space that I would like to get approved is about (95 sq. ft.) for wall signs. AND 100 sq. ft. of incidental. You're sincerely, WADEEA MAS OUD FAST MART INC. October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z -7103-A Owner: City of Little Rock as Trustee for the Central Arkansas Library System Address: 120 Commerce Street Description: Lots 1-3, Block 8, Pope's Addition Zoned: UU Variance Requested: A time extension is requested on previously approved variances to allow the use of banner signs. 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 Commercial Uses Mixed Commercial Uses On October 29, 2001, the Board of Adjustment approved several variances to allow banner signs to be placed on the Cox Building at 120 Commerce Street. A total of 13 banners were approved; six (6) to be located on the east side of the building, one (1) on the south side, and six (6) on the southwest side. The variances were approved subject to a number of conditions (see attached October 29, 2001 Board of Adjustment minute record). On December 17, 2001, the Board of Adjustment approved revisions to the previous approval. The Board approved moving the seven (7) banner signs attached to the south and southwest sides of the building to the light poles within the existing parking area between the building and East 2" October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) Street (see attached December 17, 2001 Board of Adjustment minute record for details). On April 29, 2002, the Board of Adjustment approved a second revision to the original application. The Board approved removing the six (6) banner signs from the east side of the Cox Building and replacing them with four (4) 4 -foot by 22 -foot banners attached flat against the north wall of the building facing the River Market. (See attached April 29, 2002 Board of Adjustment minute record for details). The original approval on October 29, 2001 included the following condition: "The variances be approved for two (2) years. At the end of this time period the Board of Adjustment will review the banner signage to assure the structural integrity and maintenance of the signs." The applicant, Central Arkansas Library System, is requesting that the Board review the banner signage for structural integrity and maintenance, and extend the variances for two (2) additional years. The River Market Design Review Committee (DRC) will review the request for time extension and submit a letter by the time the agenda is printed. Staff made an inspection of the property and found that the banner signs have been properly maintained and secured to the building and light poles. Staff feels that the DRC will find the same and have no problem with the time extension. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested two (2) year time extension for the existing banner signs, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with all conditions of the previous approvals as noted in the Board of Adjustment minute records dated October 29, 2001 (except condition #10), December 17, 2001 and April 29, 2002. 2. Compliance with the conditions noted in the River Market DRC letter dated April 8, 2002. 3. The variances be extended to October 27, 2005. At the end of this time period the Board of Adjustment will review the banner signage to assure the structural integrity and maintenance of the signs, if the applicant requests another time extension. 2 October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 27, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 3 River s „ Market Design L Review Committee -274 ::i* -3 Z -7l 03 -- A Greg Hart, Chairman Millie Ward, Member Patty Wingfield, Member Tim Heiple, Member Shannon Jeffery -Light, Member Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 •501-371-4790 • fax 501-399-3435 October 16, 2003 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Cox Creative Center Chairman and Members, The River Market DRC met on October 7, 2003 and reviewed the time extension for maintenance of the existing banners on the north face of the building and the banners in the parking lot. The item was approved with a final vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. Thank you, Brian Minyard River Market DRC Staff October 29, 2001 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.. Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: 4 -e, Z-7103 W11 City of Little Rock as Trustee :For -the Central Arkansas Library . Sys tem 120 Commerce Street Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 8, Pope's Addition UU e Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Sections 36-353 and 36-543. . Justification: Present.Use of Property:. Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's explanation is Presented in an attached letter. Vacant warehouse building Mixed commercial uses The.property at. 120 Commerce Street is zoned W and is occupied by an existing warehouse building (Cox Building), which is currently being renovated. A new parking lot was recently constructed along the south and west sides of the building. The applicant is proposing to place thirteen (13) projecting banner. signs on the building. The applicant proposes to place six (6) of the signs on the southwest elevation of the building, one (1) sign on the south elevation and six (6) signs on the east elevation. The applicant notes that each banner sign will be 36 inches by 48 inches and attached to two (2) permanent metal poles (see October 29, 2001 Item No.: 9 attached sketch). The number of signs proposed.by the applicant will be used by the individual business tenants and for promotions of the Central Arkansas Library. The applican-t .has submitted elevations of the building (see attached sketches) showing.:where the signs will be located on the building and that the signs will have a nine (9) foot clearance over pedestrian walkways. Section 36-543 of the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits the use of banner signs in all zoning districts. Section 36-353(e)(1)d. limits the number of projecting signs in the River Market Design Overlay District to one (1) sign per 100 feet ofrima P ry street frontage per building. The applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards for the proposed projecting banner signs. The River Market Design Review Committee (DRC) met on October 4, 2001 and discussed the applicant's proposal for signage at 120 Commerce Street. The DRC is recommending approval of the sign variances requested by the applicant with the 'following conditions: 1. The variances be approved for two (2) years, at which time the Board of Adjustment review the signage to assure the structural integrity and maintenance of the signs. 2. The number of projecting signs is not to exceed thirteen (13) . 3. No signs are allowed on the north (Markham Street) fagade of the Cox Building. 4. No more than three (3) of the signs will be used for each business. 5. The applicant must obtain a franchise for the signs along Commerce Street. As noted in the attached letter from the River Market Design Review Committee, the Committee feels that the proposed projecting banner signs are appropriate and will aid in "...creating a festive, pedestrian -oriented district." 2 October 29, 2001 Item No.: 9 Staff is supportive of the variances as requested. Staff feels that the signage. as proposed .will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The permanent banner signs approved by . the Board of Adjustment several years ago for the Museum Center in the River Market District have worked out well and been properly maintained. Staff supports the River Market Design Review Committee's review and recommendation on this application. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign 4 variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a franchise permit from the City for the signs on the Commerce Street fagade before the issuance of a sign permit. 2. Each projecting banner sign must not exceed twelve (12) square feet in area. 3. Letters on the signs must not exceed one (1) foot, six (6) inches in height and text shall not exceed three-quarters of the height of each sign. 4. Signage colors, typeface and style shall be compatible with the River Market District and approved by the River Market DRC. 5. The projecting signs must be placed at a 90 degree angle to the building. 6. The projecting signs must maintain a nine (9) foot clearance over pedestrian walkways. 7. The height of the projecting signs shall not extend past the sill of the second story windows. 8. The projecting signs shall extend a maximum of three (3) feet from the face of the building. 3 October 29, 2001 Item No.: 9 9. The number of projecting signs must not exceed thirteen (13) total, with each building elevation limited to the number of signs noted in paragraph B. -of this report. 10. No signs will be allowed on the north (Markham Street) fagade of the Cox Building. 11. No more than three (3) signs can be utilized by an individual business tenant. 12. Sign permits must be obtained for all signs as':, per City Ordinance requirements. V 13. The variances be approved for two (2) years. At the end of this time period the Board of Adjustment will review the projecting banner signage to assure the structural integrity and maintenance of the signs. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 29, 2001) 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, 0 nays and 0 absent. 4 December 17, 2001 1 L,�- -7/03-►4 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7103 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: City of Little Rock as Trustee for the Central Arkansas System 120 Commerce Street Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 8, Pope's Addition UU The applicant is requesting a revision of the previously - approved Board of Adjustment variances to allow banner signs at this location. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Mixed Commercial Uses Mixed Commercial Uses On October 29, 2001, the Board of Adjustment approved several variances to allow banner signs to be placed on the Cox Building at 120 Commerce Street. A total of 13 banners were approved; six (6) to be located on the east side of the building, one (1) on the south side, and six (6) on the southwest side. The variances were approved subject to a number of conditions (see attached October 29 Board of Adjustment minute record). Also attached is the applicant's original cover letter, l � t December 17, 2001 ' Item No.: 8 dated September 24, 2001 and the River Market Design Review Committee letter, dated October 16, 2001. - The applicant is requesting a revision in the previous. Board of Adjustment approval for the location of some of the signs only. The applicant proposes to move the one (1) banner sign from the south side of the building and the six (6) banner signs from the southwest side of the building to the light poles within the existing parking area between the building and East 2nd Street. See the attached site plan sketch for proposed banner sign locations. The total number of signs has not changed. The River Market DRC has reviewed the proposed revision and has no objection. The DRC's recommendation of approval is based on the,number of banner signs remaining the same and compliance with all other conditions of the previous approval. (See attached letter dated December 3, 2001). Staff is supportive of the revision as requested.. Staff feels that the banner signs as proposed will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Staff feels that the banner signs will be compatible with the uniqueness and atmosphere of this entertainment -oriented district. Staff supports the River Market Design Review Committee's review and recommendation on this application. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the revised application subject to the following conditions: 1. The banner signs attached to the light poles must have a minimum clearance of nine (9) feet over the sidewalks. 2. The total number of banner signs for this property must not exceed thirteen (13). 3. Compliance will all other conditions of the previous approval as noted in the Board of Adjustment minute record dated October 29, 2001. 2 December 17, 2001 Item No.: 8 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 17, 2001) 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 4 3 April 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: 5 j� (2�� 7err,2— File No.: Z -7103-A Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification.- Present ustification:Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: City of Little Rock as Trustee for the Central Arkansas Library System 120 Commerce Street Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 8, Pope's Addition UU Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Sections 36-353 and 36-543. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Mixed Commercial Uses Mixed Commercial Uses On October 29, 2001, the Board of Adjustment approved several variances to allow banner signs to be placed on the Cox Building at 120 Commerce Street. A total of 13 banners were approved; six (6) to be located on the east side of the building, one (1) on the south side, and six (6) on the southwest side. The variances were approved subject to a number of conditions (see attached October 29, 2001 Board of Adjustment minute record). Also attached is the applicant's original cover letter, dated September 24, 2001 and the River Market Design Review Committee letter, dated October 16, 2001. On December 17, 2001, the Board of Adjustment approved revisions to the previous approval. The Board approved moving the seven (7) banner signs attached to the south and southwest sides of the building to the light poles within the existing parking area between the building and East 2n April 29, 2002 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) Street (see attached December 17, 2001 Board of Adjustment minute record for details). The applicant is requesting a revision to the previous Board of Adjustment approvals involving only the banner signs located on the east side of the building, along the Commerce Street right-of-way. The applicant proposes to remove the six (6) banners on the east side of the Cox building and replace them with four (4) 4 -foot by 22 -foot banners attached flat against the north wall of the building facing the River Market (see the attached building elevation sketch for proposed sign placement and typical wording). The River Market DRC has reviewed the proposed revision and has no objection. The DRC's recommendation of approval is based on the following conditions: The banners on the east side of the building will be removed including all mounting hardware. A two-year variance will be required so that the banners can be reviewed for condition of the banners. This is the same two-year variance as before. Staff is supportive of the revision as requested. Staff feels that the banner signs as proposed will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Staff feels that the banner signs will be compatible with the uniqueness and atmosphere of this entertainment -oriented district. Staff supports the River Market Design Review Committee's review and recommendation on this application. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the revised application subject to the following conditions: 1. The banner signs must be properly attached/anchored to the building. 2. Sign permits must be obtained as per City Ordinance requirements. 3. Compliance will all other conditions of the previous approvals as noted in the Board of Adjustment minute records dated October 29, 2001 (except condition #10) and December 17, 2001. 4. Compliance with the conditions noted in the River Market DRC letter dated April 8, 2002. 5. The variances be approved for two (2) years. At the end of this time period the Board of Adjustment will review the banner signage to assure the structural integrity and maintenance of the signs. 2 April 29, 2002 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 29, 2002) 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. n 3 River r� Market Frank Porbeck,Chaizman Design Tim Heiple, Member Review Jim Schimmer,Member s Committee Melissa Tanner, Member Patty Wingfield, Member Planning dnd Development • 723 W. Markham • LittleRock • Arkansas • 72201.501-371-4790 • fax 371-6863 April 8, 2002 Bobby Roberts CALS -14 100 Rock Street _ �� ° 3 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Cox Building banners on north side Mr. Roberts, The River Market DRC has reviewed the banners on the north side of the Cox' building and has approved the signage. The conditions are as follows: • The banners on the east side of the building will be removed including all mounting hardware. • A two-year variance will be. required so that the banners can .be reviewed for condition of the banners. This`Is the same two-year variance as before. This item will appear on the April 29, 2002 Board of Adjustment agenda. Thank you, Brian Minyard River Market DRC Staff cc: Frank Porbeck Melissa Tanner Jim Schimmer Tim Heiple Patty Wingfield Board of Adjustment October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-7495 Andrea W. Van Deventer 3015 Circlewood Drive Lot 167, Kingwood Place Addition M Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area and building line provisions of Sections 36-156, 36-254 and 31-12 to allow a porch addition and carport with reduced setbacks and which cross 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 3015 Circlewood Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family structure. There is a one -car driveway from Circlewood Drive which serves as access. There is a 30 foot front platted building line on the property. The existing steps leading to the home's front porch extend across the platted building line by approximately four (4) feet. The applicant proposes to construct a new 12 foot by 18.3 foot covered porch (unenclosed) on front of the house. The porch will have steps and a new walk leading to the front property line. The porch will be located 22 feet from the front property line, extending eight (8) feet across the platted October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) building line. The steps will be located approximately 17 feet back from the front property line. The applicant also proposes to construct a 10 foot by 10 foot detached carport structure (unenclosed) just off the southwest corner of the existing house, covering a portion of the existing driveway. The carport will be located 21.5 feet back from the front property line, with no setback from the side (south) property line. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 25 foot front setback for principal structures. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. requires a minimum 60 foot front setback for accessory structures, with Section 36-156(a)(2)f. requiring a minimum three (3) foot side yard setback. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that platted building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards for the proposed carport and porch construction. Staff supports the front setback and building line variances associated with the proposed porch construction. Staff views the proposed porch construction as reasonable, as there are other structures in the area with front setbacks less than 30 feet. Additionally, given the fact that the property is located within a curve, the house with new porch will not have the appearance of being much, if any, closer to the street than the house to the south. Staff also could support a reduced setback for a carport structure with the same reasoning, if it were attached to the house. However, staff cannot support the 0 foot side setback for the carport structure as proposed. Staff feels that the applicant should explore attaching the carport structure to the house, with adjustments made to the driveway, providing an increased side yard setback. Even though the carport structure is unenclosed, some side setback is needed to allow the construction and maintenance of the structure without encroaching onto the property to the south. 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 porch and carport structures. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. 2 October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the variances associated with the proposed carport structure. Staff recommends approval of the variances associated with the proposed porch structure, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 27, 2003) Andrea Van Deventer was present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present in opposition. Staff presented the item, noting that the application had been revised to move the proposed carport back and attach it to the side of the house. Staff noted that the only variance associated with the revised carport location was a minor side yard setback variance (6 feet proposed, 6.75 feet minimum required). Staff recommended approval of the application, as revised, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line for the proposed porch structure. Andrea Van Deventer addressed the Board in support of the application. She explained the proposed additions, and the reasons for needing the additions and variances. Chairman Ruck asked if it would be a problem to move the driveway for the new carport location. Ms. Van Deventer indicated that it would be no problem. Ms. Van Deventer explained that visually the proposed porch addition would not adversely affect the area. She explained that the porch would be designed to enhance the existing home's architecture. There was a brief discussion concerning the sidewalk from the porch to the driveway. Chairman Ruck asked if the porch would be enclosed. Ms. Van Deveneter stated that it would not be enclosed and explained. Steve Anderson addressed the Board in opposition. He explained that the homes along Circlewood Drive do not have porches that are located close to front property lines. He stated that the proposed porch addition would adversely affect his view and explained. He explained that he was not opposed to the revised carport location. 3 October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) There was further discussion related to the proposed porch location and its appropriateness within the neighborhood. Andrew Francis asked if the porch could be moved or reduced in size to Mr. Anderson's satisfaction. Mr. Anderson stated that he was not prepared to answer and compromise. There was additional discussion related to the porch addition. Staff added a condition to "staff recommendation" that the proposed porch remain unenclosed. Chairman Ruck asked Ms. Van Deventer if a reduction in the size of the proposed porch could be made. Ms. Van Deventer stated that a 12 -foot deep porch would be appropriate to the design of the house. There was additional discussion related to the size of the proposed porch. Ms. Van Deveneter stated that she would amend her application and reduce the depth of the proposed porch to 10 feet. There was additional discussion related to the location of the porch and the view from the adjacent property. There was a motion to approve the variances associated with the porch addition as revised by the applicant (porch size reduced to 10 feet by 18.3 feet). The motion was passed by a vote of 4 ayes and 1 nay. A second motion was made to approve the side yard setback variance associated with the revised carport location, subject to the carport remaining unenclosed. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. There was a third motion to add the following conditions to the proposed porch addition: 1. A one -lot replat must be completed reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The porch addition must remain unenclosed. The motion was passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 12 DARRELL D. DOVER ALLAN W. HORNE CYRIL HOLLINGSWORTH THOMAS S. STONE STEVE L. RIGGS MICHAEL O. PARKER - WILLIAM E. BISHOP -- JOSEPH H. PURVIS CHARLES W. REYNOLDS JOHN B. PEACE - WILLIAM DEAN OVERSTREET MICHAEL G. SMITH+ GARY B. ROGERS JAMES PAUL BEACHBOARD- MICHAEL R. JOHNS PATRICK E. HOLLINGSWORTH W. MICHAEL REIF MARK H. ALLISON LAURA G. WILTSHIRE MONTE D. ESTES ANDREA W. VAN DEVENTER' CHRISTA S. CLARK NONA M. MORRIS DOVER DIXON HORNE PLLC 425 WEST CAPITOL, 37TH FLOOR LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 TELEPHONE (501) 375-9151 FACSIMILE (501) 375-6484 W W W.DDH-AR.COM September 3, 2003 Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Application for Zoning Variance — 3015 Circlewood Drive, Little Rock, AR 72207 Dear Sir or Madam: OF COUNSEL PHILIP E. DIXON GARLAND W. SINNS, JR. W. HORACE JEWELL BOARD RECOGNIZED TAX LAW SPECIALIST ALSO LICENSED IN TENNESSEE .ALSO LICENSED IN TEXAS ALSO LICENSED IN COLORADO iii MERITAS LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE Enclosed please find my Application for Zoning Variance along with six (6) copies of a recent survey, certified by a registered land surveyor, which shows all existing and proposed improvements properly dimensioned and labeled. I am applying for this variance so that I may add a carport and front porch to my existing home. I would like to provide this covered parking and covered entrance to my home to help alleviate the difficulty in entering and exiting my residence in inclement weather with my two small children. In addition, my house faces west and gets a great deal of sun during the day. The porch will shelter the house from much of that heat, allowing the house to stay cooler during the day and protect the siding and paint on the front of house and will also add to the curb appeal of the residence, since the house currently does not have more than a front door with a stoop. The porch is sized to provide a sheltered outside play area for my small children, where they can play outside without the worry of falling down the steep incline in the front yard. The Kingwood area was built in the 1950's and the houses are simple saltbox houses that are very well built but exceedingly simple and basic in design. My addition will add some architectural interest and charm to the existing structure. Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development Page Two Thank you for your review of my application. Please contact me at the above number with any questions regarding the enclosed application. Si ely, Andrea W. Van Deventer AWV/rlb Enclosures FADOMAWV\Personal2oning letter.doc October 27, 2003 fi��►di+ti�� File No.: Owner: Address: Description.- Zoned: escription: Zoned: Z-7520 Charles E. English 2007 N. Cleveland Street Part of Lots 20 and 21, Block 3, Altheimer's Addition M Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow porch and carport additions with reduced 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 R-2 zoned property at 2007 N. Cleveland Street is occupied by a one- story frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from N. Cleveland Street which serves as access. There is an existing carport/storage building located in the rear yard. There is an alley along the east property line which also serves as access. The applicant proposes to construct an 11 foot by 20 foot carport structure (attached) at the northwest corner of the house over a portion of the existing driveway. The carport will be unenclosed and be located one (1) foot from the side (north) property line and 11 feet from the front (west) October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) property line. The carport will be constructed to architecturally match the existing house. The applicant also proposes to construct a covered porch at the southwest corner of the existing house. The porch will be located approximately 18 feet from the front property line (steps included) and over seven (7) feet from the side (south) property line. The porch structure will also be unenclosed. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned property. Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of 5.8 feet for this lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements to allow the carport with reduced side and front yard setbacks and the porch with a reduced front yard setback. Staff is not supportive of the variances, as filed. Staff has no problem with the variance associated with the proposed porch or the side yard setback associated with the proposed carport, as long as the structure is unenclosed and guttering is provided. However, staff does not support the front yard setback variance associated with the proposed carport structure. Although there are other structures along N. Cleveland Street with reduced front yard setbacks, staff feels that there is ample space along the north side of the house to design a carport structure with an increased front setback. Staff could support a redesigned unenclosed carport structure with a 20 foot front setback. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 27, 2003) Charles English was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial as filed. Staff noted that if the carport were moved back to provide a 20 -foot front setback, the variance would be supported. Charles English addressed the Board in support of the application. He stated that he would amend the application to provide a 20 -foot front setback for the proposed carport structure. 2 October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont. Staff recommended approval of the revised application, subject to the following conditions: 1. The carport structure must remain unenclosed. 2. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto the property to the north. There was a motion to approve the revised application as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The revised application was approved. 3 September 23, 2003 Dear Sirs: This letter is to inform the Department of Planning and Development of two zoning variances at 2007 North Cleveland. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. PROBLEM: 60 -year-old home with structurally failing front stoop and steps. Front stoop is not adequate in size to allow front door to open with its wide swing path. You have to step down 1 or 2 steps in order to take packages, suitcases inside. Porch is also slanting to right due to failing foundation support and veneer tiles are fracturing. JUSTIFICATION: Placing new porch will allow proper entry to home and allow chairs for front porch seating. This will architecturally enhance the home as well with plantings. LACK OF ATTACHED CAR PORT PROBLEM: A 60-70 year old pecan tree wreaks botanical havoc on our home, driveway, yard, and cars. This tree is constantly dropping pecans, cracked pecans from squirrels, and other tree drippings. The pecan staining has ruined the paint on our cars (2000 Honda and 2003 Subaru). My wife uses the carport behind our home already, which forces me to park on Cleveland Street. This creates crowding making it risky for car passage, fire truck or EMT passage, and problems with children darting in and out of the cars in the evenings or weekends. This area used to be a pecan plantation decades ago and I have one of the few remaining pecans in the area as the others have been cut down and replanted. JUSTIFICATION: An unobtrusive architecturally harmonized open carport would allow me to park off the street and use my driveway as intended with the purchase of the home. My wife and I love trees and a carport would allow preservation of this tree- albeit messy and a constant challenge. The presence of my car in the front driveway is important as a security issue as someone is thought to be home. An attached carport would architecturally balance and enhance the esthetics of the home. A carport already exists to the side of 2001 Arthur Street, which is one block away. This may sound frivolous, but the carport coverage is very important to the everyday practical function of my residence. Otherwise, I am forced to park in the street or remove the pecan tree - which I don't want to do. Si ce ly, c Charles E. English, DDS Sandra L. EnglishAa4IL�, PARTIAL SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELF\/AT i ON 1/8" = I r _ O" Ratri6k Anders AIA Architecture/ Planning 501/225-5021 PROP05ED ADDITIONS FOR i�hcirles Sonclr 6l Eng! ish 2007 North Cleveland Little. Rock, AR. By Lewis 4 Co. 8/27/03 01A T&Af 0 C. xv- r rVUR S1163) I CURB . - PARTIAL SITE FLOOR PLAN 1/5. It 0" PROPOSED ADDITIONS FOP, Potric,k Anders AIA Ghorle5 $ 5ondro English Architecture/ Planning 2007 North Gleveloncl 501/228-5021 Little Rock, AR'. By Lewis $ Go. 8/27/43 October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Owner: Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-7521 Blass Joseph Brown 5205 West 33rd Street Southwest corner of West 33rd Street and Anna Street R-3/1-2 Variance Requested: An interpretative request is made to determine whether the storage of vehicles represents a salvage yard use and whether the unpaved lot needs to be paved where vehicles are being stored. 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. Unpaved vehicle parking next to single family residence. Unpaved vehicle parking next to single family residence. The R-3 zoned property at 5205 West 33rd Street is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. The lots immediately to the east are vacant, zoned 1-2 and part of the same ownership as 5205 West 33`d Street. The applicant, Joseph Brown, who lives at 5205 West 33`d Street owns and stores approximately 50 vehicles around the house and on the vacant 1-2 zoned property immediately to the east. October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) In June of this year the Zoning enforcement staff issued Mr. Brown a notice to cease the use of the property as a salvage yard, based on the fact that several of the vehicles appear to be inoperable and have been stored on the site for more than 30 days. The case is currently on hold in Municipal Court, pending a decision by the Board of Adjustment. The City's Zoning Ordinance definition of a "junk or salvage yard" is as follows: "Junk or salvage yard means any establishment maintained, used or operated for the storing, keeping, dismantling, salvaging, buying or selling of: (1) Scraps or discarded pieces of metal, paper, rags, tires, bottles and other materials. (2) Inoperable, wrecked, scrapped, ruined or discarded automobiles, automobile parts, machinery or appliances. A junk or salvage yard shall not include premises on which such uses are conducted entirely within a completely enclosed building, nor shall a junk or salvage yard include premises used primarily for the sale or storage of operable automobiles or for the overhaul or full repair thereof, so long as no inoperable junk or wrecked automobile remains outside more than thirty (30) days. Any premises on which there remains outside more than thirty (30) days an inoperable, partially dismantled, wrecked or junked automobile shall be deemed for the purpose of this chapter, a junk or salvage yard." Additionally, Section 36-508 requires that parcels of land used for parking vehicles must be paved. This section does not apply to residential uses. This section reads as follows: "Every parcel of land which after the effective date of this chapter is changed to a parking area, automobile, other vehicle or trailer sales or storage area or automobile or motor vehicle service station, garage or other vehicle use area shall be paved where subject to wheeled traffic. The minimum pavement requirement shall be one and one-half (1 '/2) inches asphaltic concrete hot mix with a five -inch compacted base or a double surface treatment with a five - inch compacted base or a four -inch concrete slab and shall have appropriate bumper guards where needed. Asphalt 2 October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) roofing and by-products of its manufacture are expressly prohibited as a base course or as surfacing material on parking lots and/or drives." Joseph Brown, the occupant of 5205 West 33rd Street and owner of all the vehicles parked there and on the 1-2 zoned property to the east, contends that he collects the vehicles and restores them, but does not sell them. Mr. Brown has informed staff that all the vehicles are in working order and for his personal use only. Mr. Brown also contends that because he does not sell or salvage the vehicles, he should not be classified as a commercial use and be required to pave the area where the vehicles are stored. Therefore, Mr. Brown has filed an interpretative request to the Board of Adjustment. The Board is asked to determine if Mr. Brown's use of the property constitutes a junk or salvage yard or a private residential use. Additionally, the Board will need to determine whether the area where the vehicles are stored must be paved. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 27, 2003) Joseph Brown was present, representing the application. There was one (1) objector present. Staff gave a brief description of the interpretative request. Joseph Brown addressed the Board in support of the application. He stated that all of the vehicles stored on the property were in running order. He presented the Board with photos of other properties in the general area. Chairman Ruck asked Mr. Brown if he traded vehicles with other people. Mr. Brown stated that he did not. Chairman Ruck asked if he sold parts from the cars to anyone. Mr. Brown responded that he did not. There was a brief discussion related to the use of the property. In response to questions from Andrew Francis, Mr. Brown explained that he liked to collect cars, because his family had no cars when he was growing up. He stated that he had 30 vehicles stored on the site, and that he drove four (4) of them. He also noted that six (6) of the vehicles were licensed. There was additional discussion related to the use of the property. Mr. Brown explained that all of the vehicles except the ones he drives would be removed from the property. Fred Gray asked when the vehicles would be removed. Mr. Brown responded that it would take 60 to 90 days. Chairman 3 October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) Ruck if any of the vehicles were insured. Mr. Brown responded that only the cars he drove were insured. Fred Gray asked how long the City would give Mr. Brown to remove the vehicles from the site. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, stated that it would be up to the Court to decide. There was discussion related to the issue of the use of the property and the appropriate motion to deal with the interpretative issue. There was additional discussion related to other properties in the area. Nola Ballinger, of the South of Asher Neighborhood Association, addressed the Board in opposition to the application. She expressed opposition to vehicles being stored on the property. She stated that the property was an eyesore. A motion was made to rule that the storage of vehicles on the R-3 zoned property is an acceptable residential use. The motion failed by a vote of 1 aye and 4 nays. Andrew Francis stated that the number of vehicles stored on the site goes beyond the scope of single family residential use. A second motion was made to rule that the storage of vehicles on the 1-2 zoned property is an acceptable use, without completing paving, landscaping and other required improvements. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes and 5 nays. 51 - 75-2-4 I, Joseph Brown, hereby request a zoning variance and waiver of the land use at 5205 West 33rd Street, Little Rock, presently zoned I-2. I, purchase, store, and restore old and collectable vehicle but do not operate an auto sales license and therefore have no customers. I keep the premise clean and well mowed. I am requesting a variance of the requirement to pave the area upon which the vehicles are being stored for the following reasons: (a) The owner of the property would not authorize paving the lost; (b) Paving would be an extra -ordinary expense I could not afford; (c) There are water lines that might need to be relocated; (d) Large shade trees would be adversely impacted if their roots were to be covered over the hard pavement; (e) Pavement would drastically increase the runoff into an adjacent ditch along the street causing local flooding. Very truly yours, fivh bt�� Joseph Brown � : , " l.E" October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 7 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-7522 Steven Napper 5000 Stonewall Road Part of Lot 14, Block 16, Newton's Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with a reduced rear yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 5000 Stonewall Road is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from Stonewall Road which serves as access. The applicant proposes to construct an 18 foot wide building addition at the northwest corner of the existing house, to include a master bedroom and carport. The carport will include the rear (north) 28 feet of the proposed addition. The carport will be unenclosed on the north and east sides. The existing concrete driveway from Stonewall Road will be extended into the rear yard to provide vehicular access. The proposed addition will maintain the same five (5) foot side yard setback (west) as the existing house, and be located 16.5 feet from the rear (north) property line. October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 25 foot rear yard setback. As noted, the proposed carport addition will be located 16.5 feet from the rear (north) property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. The proposed side yard setback complies to ordinance standards. The applicant is also proposing to construct a porch addition on front of the existing house, which will comply with all ordinance required setbacks. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The proposed rear yard setback will not be out of character with other structures in the general area. The houses immediately to the east and west are located considerably closer to their rear property lines than the existing house in question. Given the narrow width of the existing lot, the only option for covered parking is in the rear yard. A carport structure on front of the house would not be in keeping with the character of the homes to the east and west along Stonewall Road. Staff feels that the carport structure addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance, subject to the carport remaining unenclosed on the north and east sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 27, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 STEVEN NAPPER, LTD. 757- ATTORNEYS 57-ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 S. CHESTER LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-378-7755 Septemberl7, 2003 Little Rock Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham St. Little Rock, Ar 72201 Re: Variance for 5000 Stonewall, Little Rock Dear Sirs: FAX # 501-378-7774 avail: mappea@aristatle.net Attached is my application for variance to permit the construction of a two -car carport attached to my residence at 5000 Stonewall as part of a general remodeling of the house. I am in need of a variance because the narrow nature of the lot with the existing structure will not allow construction of the carport without coming within 16 feet of the rear property line. Your consideration of this request is much appreciated. Sincerely, Steven Napper SN/ld October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7523 Owner: G & S Builders, Inc. Address: 10,000 Yellowpine Lane Description: Lot 75, Tall Timber West, Phase II Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area and building line provisions of Sections 36-254 and 31-12 to allow a front porch addition with a reduced setback and which extends across 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 Residence (under construction) Single Family Residential A new single family residential structure is currently under construction on the R-2 zoned lot at 10,000 Yellowpine Lane. The property is located at the northwest corner of Yellowpine Lane and Timberland Drive. There will be a two -car driveway from Yellowpine Lane to serve as access to the property. There is a drainage easement along the north property line, and a 25 foot platted building line along the north and south property lines. The covered front porch of the new structure will extend approximately four (4) feet across the platted building line along Yellowpine Lane, for a front setback of 21 feet. October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the proposed encroachment across the platted building line and the 21 foot front setback are reasonable. The unusual pie -shape of the lot with platted building lines along the north and south property lines provides a relatively small buildable area, as compared to other lots within this subdivision. Staff feels that the proposed front setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line for the proposed porch structure. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions. 1. Completion of an one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building as approved by the Board. 2. The porch structure must remain unenclosed on the south, east and west sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTM (OCTOBER 27, 2003) The applicant was not present. There were three (3) persons present in opposition. Staff recommended deferral of the item to the November 24, 2003 Agenda since the applicant was not present. A motion was made to defer the item to the November 24, 2003 Agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred. Gary Rogers opposed the deferral of the item and explained. Staff noted that the applicant would be given the phone numbers of the persons present and directed to have a meeting with them to discuss their concerns. There was a brief additional discussion of the deferral issue. ILDERS 2723 FOXCROFT SUITE 104 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72227 (501) 224-2428 FAX: (501) 224-6742 September 25, 2003 City of Little Rock Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR. 72201-1334 RE: Application for Residential Zoning Variance To Whom It May Concern: 21-7517-3 (2- ? 19-1—) G & S Builders, Inc. is requesting a residential zoning variance for 10000 Yellowpine Lane, Lot 75, Tall Timber West, Phase 11 an addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. According to the City of Little Rock, said property's front porch must be less than 12" above grade. The proposed house (see enclosed survey) would have to be at 28" above grade due to lot configurations, leaving approximately a 17" difference. In order to accommodate this difference, the builder would have to use three (3) risers at approximately 5 5/8" each, to equal the approximate 17" difference. Also, according to the enclosed survey, said risers, would therefore, eliminate the front porch entirely. As can be seen on the enclosed survey, the lot has some unusual configurations. The lot is very long and extremely narrow on one corner. The opposite end of said lot is slightly deeper, but due to easements and setback lines, is very limited as to nearly any proposed residence. G & S Builders, Inc., would like to propose a variance of 24" above grade versus the less than 12". This would allow for a 13' 6" wide X 5' deep covered porch with columns at enclosed elevation. This porch would be only approximately TF over the building line. With the 10' utility easement and the 25' building easement, said covered porch, would still be approximately 31'6" from the back of the street curb. This is more than the normal 25' building easement normally required. We ask you to please strongly consider this zoning variance. G & S Builders, Inc. has been a longstanding business in the community, and would like to continue providing affordable housing for all residence of the City of Little Rock. We appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, -'—SG S Builders, Inc. Bill Greenwood, President Sep 25 O� 25P P.2 G & S BUILDERS OW4 224-2420 1 Fax 224-6742 PATIO 13,-,r X XT -V MA5TeZ u' -e --a" X rz,cv 2 STCNZA(--= kf) 01_44 X 31.8 1 A .. DOt. L;� GARA 20'-V x IV -81 ! r LWING rZ-(O'X -6-4' EEDR00M -3 BATH v2 BEDROOM � =4 4 1 4 79 1 0 - pa 2t This Plan is Vwe Pmp" of G & 6 Buldets. Unsulha6zod use is ProhibRad. October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7524 Owner: Market Row LLC Address: 323 President Clinton Avenue Description: South side of President Clinton Avenue, between Cumberland and Rock Streets Zoned: UU Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-353 and 36-557 to allow a wall sign without direct street frontage and which does not conform to the River Market 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. Commercial Commercial The UU zoned property at 323 President Clinton Avenue is occupied by a two-story brick commercial building. The ground floor is occupied by The Flying Saucer restaurant. There is a parking lot immediately east of the building, between it and Rock Street. The restaurant is proposing a sign to be painted on the east wall of the building with the words "Flying Saucer Draught Emporium Est. 1998". There is also a silhouette of a finger pointing downward that is considered part of that same sign. There are 2 signs for the business already in place. The sign over the front door has a sign permit #19963 issued October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) 5/15/98. There is a sign on the front door that does not have a sign permit. The sign is proposed to be a sign without street frontage. The sign is composed of two parts: the first being the rectangular sign the words "Flying Saucer Draught Emporium Est. 1998" and the second being a large hand with a finger pointing to the entrance. The text portion of the sign will be in colors of maroon, green and gold. There are five (5) variances sought for the proposed signage. The current ordinance language is in bold. 1. Section 36-353(a)(1)d. Signs shall not be painted directly on the face of the building. The applicant proposes to paint the sign on the east side of the building. 2. Section 36-353(c)(1)a. Except as permitted in Sec. 36-353(2), the maximum sign height on a building shall not extend above the second floor window sill or above the overhang of a single story building. This sign is proposed to be above the window sill of the second story window. 3. Section 36-353(c)(2)a. Signs shall not exceed one quarter of a square foot of sign area for each linear foot of primary street building frontage, not exceeding 25 square feet per sign. The text part of the sign has total dimensions of 10'-0" wide and 12'-3" tall which is 122.5 square feet of face. The hand measures 7'-0" tall and 31" across for a gross area of 13.25 square feet. For calculations purpose, the height of the sign was calculated from the top of the cuff to the bottom of the knuckles. This sign, in two parts, has a total square footage of 135.75 square feet. With 53 feet of frontage, the maximum wall sign size allowed for their business is 13.25 square feet. The maximum wall sign size allowed in the district is 25 square feet. 4. Section 36-353(c)(3)a. Letters shall not exceed V-6" in height. The size of the letters are more than the ordinance allows. The "F" and the "S" are 36 inches tall, the "y" is 33 inches tall, the "aucer" is 2 October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont. 26" tall. The words "Draught Emporium" are 15" tall and the "EST. 1998" range from 12" to 14" tall. 5. Section 36-557(a) All on -premises wall signs must face required street frontage except in complexes where a sign without street frontage would be the only means of identification for a tenant. The proposed sign is located on the east side of the building which is adjacent to a parking lot (separate ownership) and not a street right-of- way. The River Market Design Review Committee met on September 2, 2003 and reviewed the requested variances associated with the proposed sign. The DRC voted 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 recusal to recommend approval of the variances. (See attached letter from DRC). Staff supports variances 1, 2 and 5 as noted above. Staff has no problem with sign being painted directly on the side of the building, and above the second floor window sill. Staff also has no problem with the sign being located on a side of the building without public street frontage. Staff feels that the style and antique appearance of the sign will fit well in the River Market District. However, staff feels that the overall size of the sign as proposed is too large for this pedestrian -oriented district. Staff feels that the text portion of the sign should be reduced to no more than 60 square feet (122.5 square feet proposed), and that the hand portion should be reduced accordingly (approximately 7 square feet). Staff feels that the larger sign is more intended for vehicular traffic, and that a smaller sign would be more pedestrian -oriented and come closer to meeting the intent for signage in the River Market District. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances, as filed. Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. The maximum sign area for the text portion of the sign must not exceed 60 square feet. 2. The maximum sign area for the hand portion of the sign must not exceed 7 square feet. 3. A sign permit must be obtained for the sign and any other unpermitted signs for the business. 3 October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 27, 2003) Tim Heiple was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial, as filed. Staff noted that the variances would be supported if the overall size of the sign were reduced by 50 percent. Tim Heiple addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that the sign was a wall mural and that it was a historically appropriate sign. He noted that the River Market DRC had approved signs above the second story window sill in the past. He stated that he was willing to compromise on the size of the sign. He noted that he would reduce the area of the letters/text (not including the painted edges of the sign) to approximately 45 square feet, eliminating the wording "Draught Emporium" from the sign. Andrew Francis asked if there would be any sign lighting on the side of the building. Mr. Heiple stated that would not be any lighting. There was additional discussion related to the size of the proposed sign and the sign location. Fred Gray stated that he once had a financial interest in the building at 323 President Clinton Avenue, but that was no longer the case. There was additional discussion related to the proposed sign. Terry Burrus stated that he liked the idea of the type of sign and the artwork associated with the sign. He stated that a 50 percent reduction in the sign size was too much. Mr. Heiple stated that the sign could be reduced by 30 percent. There was additional discussion regarding this issue. Mr. Heiple revised the application as follows: 1. The maximum sign area (upper component) will be 85 square feet (10 feet by 8.5 feet). 2. The wording "Draught Emporium" will be eliminated from the sign. The remaining wording will remain the same size as originally proposed. 3. The hand/finger component of the sign will have a maximum height of seven (7) feet. 0 October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont. 4. Sign permits will be obtained for all signage. There was a motion to approve the revised application with the conditions as noted above. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The revised application was approved. 5 H+W Heiple Wiedower Architects Planners September 22, 2003 Members of Little Rock Board of Adjustment Re: Sign Variance for 323 Pres. Clinton Flying Saucer Dear Board Members: e^ 75 �� The owners of the Flying Saucer Draught Emporeum and the owners of property in which the business is located hereby request a variance to current regulations limiting signs painted on building faces not fronting on public property. The applicant, during his five year presence in the River Market feels that a tastefully done "mural type sign" can improve visibility in a location where visibility from east and west along Pres. Clinton is greatly limited. The Flying Saucer currently has a small projecting sign over the sidewalk facing east that will be replacelby the proposed wall mural. The wall mural is designed to have a weathered look and is to be done in the style of wall painted signs prevalent during the period when this building was constructed. The mural will be hand painted on the brick wall by a Dallas muralist to give an antique appearance. Please see attached art work showing the appearance of the sign. This sign was unanimously approved by the River Market District Design Review Committee and endorsed as an artful mural that will add life and art to the District. Sincerely, Tim A. Heiple AIA 319 President Clinton Ave.; Ste 201 + Little Rock; Arkansas 72201 + (t) 501-707-0115 + (f) 501-707-0118 — -75-.)-� c „ `River Market Greg Hart, Chairman b Design Millie Ward, Member a L Review Patty Wingfield, Member ' Tim Heiple, Member I Committee Shannon Jeffery -Light, Member Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 * 501-3714790 • fax 501-399-3435 September 30, 2003 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Flying Saucer Chairman and Members, The River Market DRC met on September 2, 2003 and reviewed the proposed signage for the Flying Saucer building. The final vote was 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 recusal. Thank you, Brian Minyard River Market DRC Staff October 27, 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-7525 Jay Rankin 300 N. Cedar Street Lot 13, Block 2, Riffel and Rhoton Ridgeland Addition Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow reconstruction of a garage with a reduced side yard setback and which exceeds the maximum coverage allowed. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-4 zoned property at 300 N. Cedar Street is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence. The property is located at the northwest corner of N. Cedar and "B" Streets. There is a one -car drive from "B" Street and an alley along the west property line which serve as access. There is an 18 foot by 20 foot concrete slab at the northwest corner of the property where a garage structure was recently removed. The applicant proposes to enlarge the slab to 20 feet by 24 feet and construct a new two-story garage structure. A new concrete drive from "B" Street will be constructed. The upstairs portion of the structure will be used as a hobby October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont. room. The applicant is requesting two (2) variances for the proposed accessory structure. The first variance is from Section 36-156(a)(2)f. of the City's Zoning Ordinance. This section requires a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet. The proposed structure will have a 1.5 foot setback from the north (side) property line. This is maintaining the same side setback as the previous structure. The second variance is from Section 36-156(a)(2)c. This section allows a maximum of 30 percent of the rear yard to be occupied by an accessory structure(s). The proposed structure will occupy approximately 38 percent of the required rear yard. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the variances as very minor. The previous structure maintained a 1.5 foot setback (18 feet wide) from the side (north) property. The proposed structure only adds two (2) feet of width along this property line. The proposed structure will not be out of character with other accessory structures in the area. There are several accessory structures along the alley between "B" Street and Lee Avenue with similar size and setbacks. Staff feels that the proposed accessory garage will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. There is to be no dwelling located in the accessory structure. 2. No separate utility meters will be allowed for the accessory structure. 3. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the north. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 27, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 300 North Cedar St Little Rock, AR 72205 September 22, 2003 STAFF — Board of Adjustment Dept. of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 To Whom It May Concern: This is a request for a Variance for the re -construction of the residential property at 300 North Cedar Street. This residence previously included a one -car garage that was later demolished due to the poor condition. The original size of the foundation was 18 ft x 20 ft and was about one foot from the property adjacent to the north. Please see attached for the survey of the previous structure. The re -construction plan includes the building of a two-story structure to compliment the style of the original house. To accomplish this and accommodate two cars, it will be necessary to slightly expand the footprint of the existing foundation to 20 ft x 24 ft. A concrete driveway entering from `B" street will be the means of entry/exit for the south entrance of the garage. The upstairs portion of the structure will be heated and cooled and used primarily as a hobby room. Please see attached for current pictures of the house as well as a drawing of the south elevation of the proposed structure. Thank you, a&4dvance for your consideration on this request. � g , , , � ��� ...... __..�...:�.:, f-:.. ! � .' \ �'a�l�rd ..'..^tivMwfM ++s:q,*�.> ,rk:dcl�='T-T?:t+^ cwr.. R 3 � � 6-.. .�E f �.. mss.,, a�a1.:,f .,,RR's#"'�, ror.,�; teams." _ �_ "'r �_ _' � .. <:,, oa-b'�' j . a.�i_�+ � � �. �.� ... �" , � .3.,,1 � ,� ', A � � gg �. � � � f�f i r'��'<�4� � � i In t,0. ���or,> ._... _ .. � _ �\, �pp � � , 1 'S1. .� P� I FF � i{ t :� q i tly 5�4. i Lf � yRi . ti1f.'�TY�1S.. wl+x -_ ..� .. il'c+�'i�'�` Fir. pArimaCww�-rv:.�.. :. ..�.`. r .... �ep.:.ew.'w��'�.t n. �..:.. � n � u✓•u October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 11 File No.: Z-7526 Owner: Robert B. Wooley Address: 5216 "R" Street Description: Lot 17, Block 1, McGehee Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an accessory building with a reduced side yard setback and which exceeds the maximum coverage allowed. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property.- STAFF roperty: 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 5216 "R" Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from "R" Street which serves as access. There is an alley located along the north property line. There is an existing wood deck on the rear of the structure, with a carport/storage building at the northeast corner of the house. The existing carport/storage building is located 23 feet from the rear property line, with a 0 foot setback from the side (east) property line. The applicant proposes to remove the existing deck and carport/storage building and construct a new 24 foot by 48 foot garage building. The garage structure will be located five (5) feet from the rear property line, October 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) one (1) foot from the side property line and 12 feet from the existing house. The garage will occupy 38 percent of the required rear yard. The applicant proposes to access the garage utilizing the existing driveway from "R" Street, as well as the alley along the north property line. Section 36-156(a)(2)f. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet for accessory buildings. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. allows an accessory building(s) to cover a maximum of 30 percent of a required rear yard. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards. Staff is supportive of the requested coverage variance, but not the variance for a reduced side yard setback. Staff feels that a one (1) foot side yard setback will not allow enough space for construction and maintenance of the structure. Staff could support a 1.5 foot side yard setback (to include overhang, but not guttering) for the proposed structure. Staff feels that this would allow adequate spacing along the east property line, as there is an existing accessory structure immediately to the east which is located 2 — 2.5 feet from the dividing side property line. Otherwise, staff feels that the proposed garage will have no adverse impact on the area, and will be typical of the accessory structures found along the alley within this block. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the application, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 27, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the November 24, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the November 24, 2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes, and 0 nays. 2 2 -752 -4 -- To: -75z4 -- To: City of Little Rock Board Of Adjustment On Application For Zoning Variance By Robert Wooley Sirs: I am applying for variance of the building code on two points, to build a garage/ hobby shop. The first is for area of the backyard 25 feet. I would like to build 25 feet wide on a 50 foot lot. This would give me room for a two car garage entrance. The alley on the North is 20 ft wide and with 5 ft rear setback I could still get my cars in . I feel that this will also help with the on street parking problem. All of the neighbors have at least two cars and some have four and five. My car has been broken in to twice this year and the stereo stolen. I just bought an Escalade and I do not want to have to park it outside. My house is small, 1200 sq ft, and I do not have the room to store things that should not be in the house. I have wood working as a hobby, and am not able to set up my tools. I have tools and hobby things stored in the house so it is cluttered I bought this house in 1968 and am planning on getting married soon. I need more room for two people. The closets are small and full of things that should be in a garage. The closets measure 16/52", 28"/66", and 26162". 1 would like room so we can comfortably anjoy this nice neighborhood. I have talked to my neighbors and they say they would be happy for me to have the room I need and have my hobby shop. As to the issue of thr side yard setback. My existing little gagage is just a few inches off the property line. I would like to move it to a foot off of the line. My next door neighbors garage is about a foot off of the line. He is talking about rebuilding in the future and would like to keep close to the line. I am planning to build with firefroof materials as is he. If I move away from the line there there wil be wasted space, On ther East side of my property there is a narrow driveway. If I had to move to a 5 ft side setback, the drive would not line up with the garage, and I would not be able to pull a car on from this side. If I am. allowed to build as I am requesting I believe it will be better use of the land and better fit in the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration in this issue. Robert Wooley Ben P. Freasier, Jr. 5124 R Street, Little Rock, AR 72207 501.661.1633 fax 501.280.0204 October 9, 2003 To Whom It May Concern: Re: 5216 R Street Little Rock, AR 72207 ; Zoning Variance The variances of the Zoning Regulations that Robert Wooley is requesting for the above mentioned property, should be acted upon favorably. My property(5124 R Street) borders Mr. Wooleys east boundry. He is requesting a reduction in the amount of set back from his east property line that borders with my property. We have discussed his plans in great detail and feel that they will be beneficial not only to his property but to the neighborhood as a whole. I have signed the petition circulated by Robert Wooley in support of his variances, and request that the Board respect his request and that of his neighbors. Sincerely, Ben P. Freasier, Jr. 5124 R Street Little Rock, AR 72207 RECEIVED OCT 19 2003 BY: 5�--7s;2-�, To: Little Rock Board of Adjustment October 1, 2003 Dear Members of the Board, I am a neighbor of Mr. Robert Wooley who lives at 5216 R. Street. I received a notice that he is seeking a variance from the city to build a new garage behind his home. I am asking the Board to allow Mr. Wooley this variance. It will allow him to construct a building sufficient to safely park his vehicles, provide storage, and serve as a hobby shop. All of these uses, Mr. Wooley desperately needs, as he currently does not have the space. I am sure Mr. Wooley will give the Board his assurance that the building will be functional and aesthetic to the current architecture of the neighborhood. My family is in full support of Mr. Wooley's project. Thank you for your consideration of Mr. Wooley's request. Respectfully Yours, James D. Cornwell -5-222 R. Street Little Rock, AR 72207 501-661-0771 FEiV D 13 2003 �� �-�"--_ • 0/). 0 U LU w LU H 0 Z ujG VJ Q LL 0 O Q 0 m C� vV <J I f NE :. TL 7 W Q z LA W i F- D 0 W ry o zLLJ F- 0 CO Q w , Q '-s LIJ _j Z U � w Qry Q F- L m U Of G nn r6 71 �l o � W Q Z Q � 'COO o L1J U J LU C6 U Z :DY Of Laf } _ ry U NE :. TL 7 W Q z LA W F- D 0 W ry o zLLJ F- 0 CO Q w Z Q LIJ _j Z U � w Qry Q F- L m U Of G NE :. TL 7 W Q z LA W l October 27, 2003 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. Date: lvcoy , 2.4, &03 Chairman Secretary