boa_12 22 2003LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
DECEMBER 22, 2003
2:00 P.M.
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 November 24, 2003 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. 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
DECEMBER 22, 2003
2:00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Z-7537 9213 Tedburn Circle
B. Z-7523 10,000 Yellowpine Lane
NEW ITEMS:
1.
Z -3459-G
Mabelvale Plaza Drive at 1-30
2.
Z -7087-A
3 Statehouse Plaza
3.
Z -7318-B
Northwest corner of East 2 I and Sherman Streets
4.
Z -7440-A
1621 N. Jackson Street
5.
Z-7553
40 West Windsor Drive
6.
Z-7554
5510 Sherwood Road
7.
Z-7555
511 Beechwood Street
8.
Z-7556
206 Rosetta Street
9.
Z-7557
4305 Cobb Street
10.
Z-7558
33 Beverly Place
11.
Z-7559
15 Montagne Court
z
Q
I _,-/ ( ( j AI HHVd A3NOOH
a
SLIVIn Alp
NW
slmn up
Alp
Q)
N
N
N
W
U
Q)
N
W
O
O
CQ
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: A
File No.: Z-7537
Owner: Jose Abel Rimirez Ribera
Address: 9213 Tedburn Circle
Description: Lot 204, Section "D", Merrivale Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is 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
M
Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Anal:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residence
Single Family Residence
The R-2 zoned property at 9213 Tedburn Circle is occupied by a one-
story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway
from Tedburn Circle which serves as access. The applicant recently
constructed a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence along the entire north
property line, extending from the northeast corner of the lot into the front
yard and to the property's northwest corner. At the northwest corner of
the lot the fence turns and runs three to four feet along the front property
line.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum
fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between a building setback
line and a street right-of-way. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.)
variance to allow the six (6) foot high wood fence between the 25 foot
front platted building line and the Tedburn Circle right-of-way.
Staff does not support the requested variance. A six (6) foot high opaque
fence extending into the front yard of this property is out of character with
the neighborhood. Staff did not observe any other opaque fences
extending into the front yards of the residences along Tedburn Circle.
Staff feels that the six (6) foot high fence has an adverse visual impact on
the adjacent property to the north, as it extends into the front yard area.
Staff believes that the portion of the fence within the front 25 feet of the lot
should be reduced to a height of four (4) feet, which would conform to
ordinance standards.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends denial of the requested fence height variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(NOVEMBER 24, 2003)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant failed to complete the required
notifications to surrounding property owners. Staff recommended that the item
be deferred to the December 22, 2003 agenda.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 22,
2003 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 22, 2003)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant failed to complete the required
notifications to surrounding property owners. Staff recommended that the item
be deferred to the January 26, 2004 Agenda.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 26,
2004 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
Southwestern Diocese
of the
Church of Christ (Holiness) U.S.A
October 10, 2003
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Zoning
723 West Markham St.
Little Rock, AR. 72201-1334
-- A
2 -75? 7
Bishop Vernon E. Kennebrew Phone: 501- 376 -1664
13900 Edgemond Dr. Fax: 501-954-7277
Little Rock, AR. 72212 Email: Vkennebrew@aol.com
RE: Request for Residential Zoning Variance in Not Reducing the Height of
a Privacy Fence along the Property Line
9213 Tedburn Circle
Little Rock, AR. 72209
To Whom It May Concern:
I am requesting the privilege of extending a six foot privacy fence past the front of my
house for the following reasons:
1) Noisy and non-cooperative residents in the house adjoining my property to the
north
2) Disturbances due to coming and going of many vehicles and people during the
day and throughout the night
3) There have been gunshots coming from this neighboring house that have entered
into my tenant's daughter's bedroom.
4) Police have been called and have responded on a number of occasions and have
made some arrests.
5) This fence will provide additional privacy and security for the residents of my
house.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Vernon E Kennebrew
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: B
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
G
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.
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: B (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 ADJUSTMENT: (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.
2
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 24, 2003)
Bill Greenwood was present, representing the application. There were two (2)
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval.
Bill Greenwood addressed the Board in support of the application. Chairman
Ruck asked Mr. Greenwood if he was the builder. Mr. Greenwood stated that he
was and had built approximately 50 homes in this subdivision.
Chairman Ruck asked if the proposed home layout was best for the lot.
Mr. Greenwood explained that it was the only way to fit the house on the lot,
based on the irregular lot shape. He presented photos to the Board showing the
house under construction. The photos were briefly discussed.
Fred Gray asked if the house could be moved back. Mr. Greenwood stated that
it could not be moved back and explained that a power pole was in the way.
This issue was briefly discussed. Mr. Greenwood stated that the house would be
more compatible with the neighborhood if it had a covered deck.
Gary Rogers, president of the Tall Timber West Neighborhood Association,
addressed the Board in opposition. He presented a petition of opposition to the
Board. He expressed concerns with the type of people who would live at this
location. He noted that the variances requested were against the
neighborhood's bill of assurance. He noted that the house would have the
appearance of being closer to the street than the other houses in the area. He
noted that the new house would depreciate the value of other homes in the area.
Chairman Ruck noted that a covered porch on the house would be an asset to
the neighborhood. This issue was briefly discussed.
Chairman Ruck asked Mr. Rogers if he would prefer a concrete porch with no
cover. Mr. Rogers noted that he would not make a decision for the Board. Vice -
Chairman Richburg noted that a building permit was issued for the house without
a covered front porch. Staff noted that the footprint of the house conformed to
ordinance standards and the construction was allowed to proceed.
Kelly Hollis also addressed the Board in opposition. He noted that the house
was constructed after the variance had been applied for.
There was additional discussion related to the front porch issue.
There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The
motion was briefly discussed. Andrew Francis stated that he thought the
variance was best for the neighborhood and explained. The Chairman called for
a vote on the motion. The vote was 2 ayes, 2 nays and 1 absent. The
application was automatically deferred to the December 22, 2003 agenda.
N
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 2003)
Bill Greenwood was present, representing the application. There was one (1)
person present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of
approval with conditions.
Bill Greenwood addressed the Board in support of the application. He discussed
the unusual shape of the lot and the distance the new house is located from the
intersection of Yellowpine Lane and Timberland Drive. He presented photos of
the property to the Board. He also presented photos of the same house design
on another lot within the Subdivision. The photos were discussed.
Terry Burruss asked if there was an architectural review committee for the
subdivision. Mr. Greenwood indicated that there was not, but that he had a
meeting with the neighbors and explained.
Preston Johnson addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted
that a porch on the house would be an asset to the neighborhood.
Gary Rogers addressed the Board in opposition. He noted that a large number
of neighbors were not in favor of the variances. In response to a question from
Chairman Ruck, Mr. Rogers indicated that the majority of the people who signed
the petition were against the variances.
Chairman Ruck asked if the people in the neighborhood understood the issues.
Mr. Rogers indicated that they did. Chairman Ruck noted that he thought the
porch would be best for the neighborhood.
There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The
motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes and 2 nays. The application was approved.
CI
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:
:T74,0,- �
-7< 3
G & S Builders, Inc. is requesting a residential zoning variance for 10000 Yellowpine
Lane, Lot 75, Tall Timber West, Phase II 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 3' 6"
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,
4G-'
S Builders Inc.
Bill Greenwood, President
Sep 25 03 q'` 'Sp
O1Ras 224 -Me f Fax 224-8742
2E C)M #2
I0-' k 10'-0"
BED20C)m -3
!r-& x Io' -o.
BATF -I >72
�. t7�d' x 5'•O'
aeouoon� >=4
17-4'X 10'-V
F`LArV tA 1479 -1 t;
3
��-e—arW W9 POZD4
i�G0n1i PGQC=+ 5a
na�5'be. a
TC7 A;, J9S _--
This Plan is the Pmp" of G & S Buliders. Unauthorized use is ProhtbKdd,
PATIO
13•-S x 10'{Y
W.I.C.
DEDROOM
c
A
x
DINING
'S-0'
5x.
17x0` X
STCWAGE
a i
i5 --w x 3'a
�!
r-101 x
c i0' X 11''-0'
DOLSLE
GARAGE
201a x W -s'
r-^•----•---------------�
t t
+
1
a
UVlh7G
7-t0• X to'•a•
2E C)M #2
I0-' k 10'-0"
BED20C)m -3
!r-& x Io' -o.
BATF -I >72
�. t7�d' x 5'•O'
aeouoon� >=4
17-4'X 10'-V
F`LArV tA 1479 -1 t;
3
��-e—arW W9 POZD4
i�G0n1i PGQC=+ 5a
na�5'be. a
TC7 A;, J9S _--
This Plan is the Pmp" of G & S Buliders. Unauthorized use is ProhtbKdd,
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: Z -3459-G
Owner: Mabelvale Plaza LLC, Mabelvale Plaza
Phase II LLC, and Mabelvale Plaza
POA LLC
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
Mabelvale Plaza Drive at Interstate 30 and
Mabelvale Plaza Lane at Mabelvale Pike
Mabelvale Business Park and
Shopping Center
C-3
Variances are requested from the sign
provisions of Section 36-555 to permit
ground -mounted signs which exceed the
maximum size allowed.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Commercial
Commercial
1. For traffic safety and pedestrian security, another location for Sign 1 on
the 1-30 frontage road should be chosen. The proposed location is
located too close to the curb and will require the removal of a street light.
Locate out of the right-of-way at the back of the easement line. Do not
remove street lights.
B. Staff Analysis:
The large C-3 zoned property south of Interstate 30 and east of Mabelvale
Pike contains a multiple lot commercial development. There are two (2)
banks and three (3) fast food restaurants located on the lots within the
north portion of the property along 1-30. There is a restaurant and two (2)
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
commercial strip center buildings within the east portion of the property,
adjacent to the Wal-Mart development. There is a new Home Depot store
being developed within the southwest portion of the property. The
remainder of the subdivision is undeveloped. Private commercial streets
serve as access to the subdivision.
There is an existing ground -mounted subdivision sign located near the
northeast corner of the property which advertises businesses located
within the two (2) strip commercial buildings in the eastern portion of the
subdivision. The applicant proposes to install two (2) additional
subdivision signs to advertise future commercial businesses which will be
located within the interior lots of the subdivision. The first sign is
proposed to be located at the corner of Mabelvale Plaza Drive and the I-
30 frontage road, within the access easement adjacent to the Pizza Hut
property. The proposed sign will have a height of 30 feet and an area of
266 square feet. A sketch of the proposed sign is attached for Board
review. The applicant notes that one (1) street light will be removed in
order to install the new sign.
The second sign is proposed to be located at the corner of Mabelvale
Plaza Lane and Mabelvale Pike, near the new Home Depot location. The
proposed second sign will have a height of 34 feet and an area of 400
square feet. A sketch of this proposed sign, along with a site plan
showing the proposed sign locations is also attached.
Section 36-555(a)(2), of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows ground -
mounted signs in commercial zoning districts to have maximum heights of
36 feet and maximum areas of 160 square feet. Therefore, the applicant
is requesting variances to allow the two (2) signs to exceed the maximum
area allowed by ordinance.
Staff does not support the application, as submitted. Staff has no
problem with the 266 square foot sign proposed at the corner of
Mabelvale Plaza Drive and 1-30. Staff feels that the proposed sign area
is reasonable and will not be out of character with this general area along
1-30. However, Public Works does not approve of the sign location.
Public Works feels that for public safety reasons, the sign should be
moved back further from the private street curb and the existing street
light should not be removed for the sign installation.
Staff does not support the variance associated with the proposed larger
sign at the intersection of Mabelvale Plaza Lane and Mabelvale Pike.
Staff feels that this sign is too large for the area. Staff could support an
identical sign to the one proposed at Mabelvale Plaza Drive and 1-30 for
this second location. There is a new Home Depot sign located across
2
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
Mabelvale Plaza Lane from the proposed second sign. Staff feels that the
400 square foot sign as proposed would not only detract from the Home
Depot sign, but also be out of character with the other signs in the area.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends denial of the application, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 2003)
Greg Mueller was present, representing the application. There was one (1)
person present in support. Staff presented the item, noting that the applicant
had revised the application, reducing the area of sign #2 (corner of Mabelvale
Plaza Lane and Mabelvale Pike) to 310 square feet. Staff recommended denial
of the revised application.
Greg Mueller addressed the Board in support of the application. He described
the streetlights along Mabelvale Plaza Drive, noting that they exceeded the
number required by City Ordinance. He described the area between the curb of
Mabelvale Plaza Drive and the Pizza Hut property line. He noted that sign #1
could be set back further from the street curb, with the sidewalk being routed
around it. He noted that sign #2 was located back farther from 1-30, and
therefore needed to be larger. He noted that sign #2 could be reduced to 310
square feet and explained.
Fred Gray asked if sign #1 were moved farther back from the street curb, where
would it be located. Mr. Mueller noted that it would be near the middle of the
sidewalk. He indicated that the application would be revised to move sign #1
farther back from Mabelvale Plaza Drive.
There was a general discussion related to the sign variances. Chairman Ruck
noted that he had two (2) cards from persons in support of the application.
Janet Berry addressed the Board in support of the application. She noted that a
large number of existing tenants within the commercial subdivision do not have
individual ground signs. She stated that removal of the streetlight should be no
issue. She explained that signs along interstates needed to be larger than signs
along other city streets. She noted that the area was in need of economic
development.
Fred Gray expressed concern with the proposed location of sign #1. He noted
that he could support a sign area for sign #2 of something between 266 and 310
square feet.
3
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
Mr. Mueller noted that he had comprised by reducing the size of sign #2 from
400 to 310 square feet and explained.
There was a motion to approve the application with the following revisions:
1. The area of sign #2 is reduced to 310 square feet.
2. Sign #1 is to be moved farther back from the street curb of Mabelvale Plaza
Drive, with the sidewalk being routed around it.
The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes and 2 nays. The revised application was
approved.
C!
ASHLEY COMPANY
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
Lakewood Village Shopping Park • 2851 Lakewood Village Drive • North Little Rock, AR 72116 • 501-758-7745
November 20, 2003 ��- --4 /
�- 4s q -6
Monte Moore
Department of Planning and Zoning
723 West Markham
Little Rock AR 72201
RE: Sign Variance at Mabelvale Plaza Shopping Center
Dear Mr. Moore:
Mabelvale Plaza Shopping Center (legal ownership consisting of Mabelvale Plaza, LLC,
Mabelvale Plaza Phase II, LLC, and Mabelvale Plaza Property Owners Association,
LLC) requests a variance to exceed the 160 sq. ft. sign restriction. The shopping center is
an approximately fifty acre development. We currently have one Shopping Center
directory sign at the Wal-Mart entrance, which serves the multiple tenant buildings
(64,000 sq. ft.) facing Wal-Mart. We are seeking two additional directory type pylon
signs to serve the additional proposed multiple multi -tenant buildings (possibly up to
200,000 sq. ft.) to be constructed in the remainder of the shopping center. The size of the
development warrants multiple 160 sq. ft. signs. Our desire is to avoid clutter for tenants
in the multiple tenant buildings by combining the sign space in larger signs. We request
one sign of 266 sq. ft at the entrance of the I-30 frontage road and Mabelvale Plaza Drive
(between Pizza Hut and Superior Federal), and one sign of 400 sq. ft. at the newly
constructed intersection of Mabelvale Plaza Lane and Mabelvale Pike.
Please find attached our application for zoning variance (signs).
Sincerely,
Gregg Mueller
Director of Operations.
December 22, 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 -7087-A
BG Excelsior, LTD.
3 Statehouse Plaza
Part of Blocks 79 and 80, Original City
of Little Rock
W
A variance is requested from the
development provisions of Section
36-342.1 to allow a ground -mounted
sign.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Hotel
Hotel
The UU zoned property at 3 Statehouse Plaza is occupied by the
Peabody Hotel facilities. The development includes a multi -story hotel
building, with a large porte cochere in front of the hotel along West
Markham Street. There is a landscaped area between the porte cochere
and West Markham Street.
The applicant proposes to install a ground -mounted sign within the
existing landscaped area which will advertise a restaurant (Cappricio's)
and bar (Mallard's Bar) located within the hotel building. The sign will
have a height of approximately nine (9) feet and an area of approximately
20 square feet. The sign will have internal fluorescent illumination.
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.)
Section 36-342.1(c)(11). of the City's Zoning Ordinance, prohibits ground -
mounted signs in the UU (Urban Use) zoning district. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow
the ground -mounted sign as described above.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the request
is reasonable, based on the relatively small size of the proposed sign.
Given the location and size of the porte cochere structure, other types of
signs (projecting sign, wall sign, etc.) would probably have very little
visibility. Therefore, staff feels that a small ground -mounted sign as
proposed is the best option for signage at this location. The proposed
sign should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the
general area. Staff is unable to determine where the sign is located with
relation to the front property line, based on the graphic information
submitted by the applicant. The proposed sign must be located at least
five (5) feet back from the front property line/right-of-way line, as
measured to the closest edge of the sign.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The sign will have a maximum height of 9'— 1" and a maximum area of
20.34 square feet.
2. The sign must be set back at least five (5) feet from the front property
line.
3. A sign permit must be obtained for the proposed sign.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 2003)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested the application be
deferred to the January 26, 2004 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 26,
2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
j74, 4 7 -
Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow -7
A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
111 Center Street
Suite 1900
Jeb H. Joyce Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 379-1700
jjoyce@ggtb.com Telecopier
(501) 379-1701
November 21, 2003 Writer's Direct Dial
(501) 379-1758
Little Rock Board of Adjustment via HAND DELIVERY
Department of PIanning and Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Re: BG Excelsior, Ltd./ The Peabody Hotel
Application for Zoning Variance (Signs)Conditional Use Permit
To whom it may concern:
The Peabody Hotel ("Peabody"), owned by BG Excelsior, Ltd., is a hotel located at 3 Statehouse
Plaza, in Little Rock, Arkansas. The intent of this letter is to respectfully request a variance to the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, Section 33-342.1 (W urban use district). Only
one sign is involved in this variance request.
Section 36-342.1(c)(11) states "monument signs are not allowed." As you may be aware, a large
porte cochere is located in front of the hotel, providing hotel guests a covered entrance to the hotel. The
hotel wishes to place a sign on the property to advertise the restaurant located in the hotel, Cappricio's,
as well as the bar located in the hotel, Mallard's. However, the existing structure practically eliminates
the possibility of erecting wall signs or projecting signs. Therefore, we respectfully request a variance
to erect a freestanding sign on the property.
In connection with our application, please find enclosed three (3) copies of a Site Plan for the
Peabody Hotel location. The Site Plan shows the proposed location of the Capriccio's/Mallard's sign.
Also enclosed is a document showing the graphics and dimensions of the proposed sign.
Thank you for your consideration and please call me if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely,
QU BAUM, GROOMS,
LL & URROW PLLC
eb
Enclosures
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.:
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Z -7318-B
City of Little Rock
Northwest corner of East 2nd
and Sherman Streets
Description: South one-half of block bounded by East
2nd Street, Sherman Street, President
Clinton Avenue and Commerce Street
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
UU
Variances are requested from the sign
provisions of Section 36-353 and 36-543
associated with signage proposed for a
new parking deck.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Undeveloped
Parking Deck
The UU zoned property at the northwest corner of East 2nd Street and
Sherman Street is the future site of a city -owned parking deck which will
serve the First Security Center building and the entire River Market area.
Foundation work is currently being done for the parking deck structure.
The First Security Center multi -story building is currently under
construction immediately to the north, along the south side of President
Clinton Avenue.
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.)
In conjunction with the parking deck structure, three (3) signs are
proposed. Two (2) roof -mounted signs and one (1) projecting sign are
proposed. The roof -mounted signs are proposed to be mounted on the
Commerce and Sherman Street frontages in the center of the building,
above the roofline on top of the brick wall. The roof sign will have the text
"River Market Parking".
The third sign will be a projecting sign and have the text "Public Parking".
It will be located on the Second Street side of the building above the
public entry to the parking deck. It will have two (2) sides, with the same
text on each side. The projecting sign will be a white metal sign, with
channel letters painted blue inside with blue neon illumination. The arrow
will also be a channel painted blue with blue neon illumination. The sign
will be installed at least 13 feet above the driveway.
With the recent revisions to the River Market Design Overlay District
ordinance, neon is permitted on projecting signs. No movement, flashing
or change of illumination level is permitted. Each neon sign will have a
one (1) year maintenance review by City staff.
Several variances are requested for the proposed signs as follows:
Sec. 36-353.(c)(1)a. Except as permitted in subsection (b), the
maximum sign height on a building shall not extend above the
second floor windowsill or above the overhang of a single story
building.
Sec. 36-543.(7) Roof signs, or any sign that is not mounted
on a vertical surface are prohibited signs.
As noted previously, the roof -mounted signs are proposed to be
mounted on the Commerce and Sherman Street frontages in the
center of the building above the roofline on top of the brick wall.
Sec. 36-353.(c)(2)a. Signs shall not exceed one quarter (1/4) of a
square foot of sign area for each linear foot of primary street
building frontage, not exceeding twenty-five (25) square feet per
sign.
These signs will measure 4' tall by 40' wide. These signs will cover
approximately 160 square feet or 6.4 times the maximum of 25 square
feet.
2
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.)
• Sec. 36-353(c)(3). Letters shall not exceed one and one-half
(1 %) feet in height.
Individual letters will be channel letters painted blue inside with blue
neon illumination. These will not be internally illuminated letters. The
individual letters are 48" tall and are approximately 24" wide for the
"R", 29" wide for the "M" and 10" for the "I". The letters are 48" tall or
2.6 times the maximum height of 18 inches.
• Sec. 36-353(e)(1)b. Height of projecting signs shall not extend
past the sill of the second story windows.
This sign is proposed to be placed above the windowsill of the second
story window. For this application, the window will be considered to be
the open-air portion of the wall and the second floor will be considered
to be the second level at the location at which the sign will be hung.
Sec. 36-353(e)(1)c. Projecting signs shall extend a maximum
of three (3) feet from the face of the building.
The sign is proposed to extend 60" from the fact of the building.
Mounting brackets are internal to the sign so that the sign face sits
flush with the building. That projection is 24" or 66 percent over the
maximum of 36" maximum projection.
Sec. 36-353(e)(2)a. Projecting signs shall have a maximum of
twelve (12) square feet of sign face per sign.
The rectangular portion of the sign is proposed to be 60" X 25" for a
total of 10.41 square feet. When the arrow is added, the total square
footage is 13.94 square feet. That square footage is 1.94 square feet
or 16 percent over the maximum of 12 square feet.
There will also be neon artwork placed on the building. There will be a
total of seven (7) neon rectangles to highlight the brick portions of the
extension walls. The neon rectangles will stretch from the bottom of the
second level open air space to the top of the sixth level open air space.
This artwork will be illuminated in blue neon.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The parking deck structure
will be a non -pedestrian use, and therefore, signage has been designed to
attract drivers from surrounding streets as well as the interstate. Lack of
parking has been a big problem in the River Market District for some time,
and the new parking deck will help alleviate the problem. Given the small
overall size of the River Market District, staff feels that it is important to
3
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.)
have signage which will direct drivers to the parking deck, and reduce
vehicular traffic within the district as much as possible. Staff feels that the
proposed signs will have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties
or the River Market District.
The River Market Design Review Committee met on December 2, 2003
and reviewed the proposed signage and requested variances. The
Committee voted to recommend approval of the requested variances. A
copy of the DRC letter of approval is attached for Board review. The
Committee also approved the neon artwork as described previously. No
Board of Adjustment action is required for "artwork".
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variances, subject to
sign permits being obtained for the signs.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 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.
CI
WITTENBERG DELONY & DAVIDSON ARCHITECTS
November 24, 2003-�- 3
Mr. Brian Minyard
City of Little Rock
Planning & Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
RE: River Market Parking Deck- Signage Variance
WD&D Project No. 02-023
Dear Brian:
We are asking for a variance for three signs on the new River Market Deck. We propose
two signs above the top level of the deck to read, RIVER MARKET PARKING on the East
and West Elevations. We also propose a directional sign at 2nd Street above the deck
entrance to read, PUBLIC PARKING. The signs at the East and West Elevation will be
individual 4 foot tall and 40 feet long channel letters with exposed neon tubing. The letters
will be attached atop the exterior wall similar to the River Market letters. The 2"d Street
sign will be a two sided neon sign with 9 -inch letters and an arrow projected off the face of
the building at the deck entry.
The River Market needs additional parking and it is necessary to get the attention of
highway traffic along 1-30 in similar fashion as THE River Market letters have been so
successful in doing. Adding signage that matches the River Market would further establish
the presence of the district and enhance the district's unique character.
If you have any questions feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
WITTENBERG, DELONY & DAVIDSON, INC.
Chad Young, AIA
Principal
Encl.
400 W CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1800
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201-4857
501/376-6681
5011376-0237 FAX
L4-4, --
i - 7 -?4 -- 13
River
s �� Market
Greg Hart, Chairman
Desigln Millie Ward, Member
L Review Patty Wingfield, Member
CommitteeTim Heiple, Member
Shannon Jeffery -Light, Member
Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 • 501-3714790 • fax 501-399-3435
December 12, 2003
Board of Adjustment
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: River Market Parking Deck Signage
Chairman and Members,
The River Market DRC met on December 2, 2003 and reviewed the signage at
Second Street between Commerce and Sherman for River Market Parking Deck
Signage. The DRC did approve the signage. The final vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
Thank you,
Brian Minyard
River Market DRC Staff
KI
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 4
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 -7440-A
Scott and Renee Rittelmeyer
1621 N. Jackson Street
Lot 66 and part of Lot 67,
Cliffewood Addition
R-2
Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a
building addition with reduced setbacks.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 1621 N. Jackson Street is occupied by a two-
story stucco and frame single family residence. There is a one -car
driveway from Jackson Street which serves as access. There is an
existing detached garage structure located near the northeast corner of
the property. On July 28, 2003, the Board of Adjustment approved a
variance to allow a building addition at the northeast corner of the existing
house with a reduced side yard setback (4 feet). Construction has begun
on the building addition as previously approved.
The applicant is now proposing to continue the building addition (one-
story) toward the rear property line and tie it into the existing accessory
garage structure. The proposed connection would be located two (2) feet
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.
further back from the side property line than the previously approved
addition. Once the building connection is made, the accessory garage
structure will become part of the principal structure. The existing garage
has a side yard setback ranging from two (2) feet to 5.5 feet from the side
(north) property line. The structure is located approximately six (6) feet
from the rear (east) property line.
Section 36-254(d)(2), of the City's Zoning Ordinance, requires a minimum
side yard setback of 6.9 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-254(d)(3)
requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet. These setbacks are required for
principal structures. Based on the fact that the garage structure will
become part of the principal structure after the connection is made, the
applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements.
Staff is supportive of the variance requests. The connection the applicant
proposes to make from the house to the garage structure is very minor in
nature, and should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties.
The connection between the principal structure and the accessory building
represents only approximately 75 square feet of floor area. The proposed
building addition and connection does not change the overall massing of
structures on this lot, as the variances are requested for the existing
setbacks associated with the garage building. The proposed building
addition will not be out of character with the general area.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto adjacent
property (building addition and existing accessory building).
2. A building permit must be obtained for the construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 2003)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had revised the application by
reducing the size of the proposed room addition and not attaching it to the
existing accessory building. Staff noted that the addition would be located 4.5
feet from the accessory building, and the only remaining variance was for a
reduced separation (minimum 6 foot separation required). Staff recommended
approval of the revised application, with the following conditions:
E
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.
1. Guttering must be provided (building addition only) to prevent water run-off
onto the adjacent property.
2. A building permit must be obtained for the construction.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item (as revised) was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3
CHRIS de BIN REMODELING
November 20, 2003
City of Little Rock, Arkansas
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR
Re: Zoning Variance for Rittelmeyer Residence, 1621 N. Jackson
Dear Board of Adjustments:
-4- 4
-741-�O-14
On behalf of my clients, Scott and Renee Rittelmeyer, I am submitting a second Site Plan
of the existing conditions and proposed addition to their residence at 1621 N. Jackson
Street. The first site plan was submitted for discussion at the July, 2003 Board of
Adjustment meeting.
The first plan submitted in July asked for a wider addition than is shown on the attached
plan, but the Board did not approve this width. Therefore, because the Rittelmeyer's
were unable to get the necessary square footage via width, we are submitting plans to
extend the length of the addition. By increasing the length, we will be attaching the
addition to the existing carriage house. This attachment creates the necessity for a rear
setback variance.
On the attached plan, the carriage house is referred to as a garage. However, this
structure is used as an entertainment area and guest bedroom suite. There is no kitchen
and it is not used at all as rental property. p� z 0��
The ose of the addition is to create a dedicat�.d accessible master bathroom, closet
and laundry room on the house's lower level. The owners have made significant
improvements to this house and grounds and desire to stay there well into retirement age
and beyond for as long as they are physically able. To that extent, we believe that there is
a reasonable concern in the future that two elderly people confined to the house's lower
level would have available only one bathroom facility which is also shared with anyone
who is also present. Therefore, we are requesting a rear setback variance to provide the
necessary space to add a dedicated bathroom for the owners that is also wheelchair or
walker accessible.
I thank you for your time and trouble in this mattqr and for considering our request.
rely,vvt
Chris de Bin
address: P.O. Box 250329, Little Rock, Arkansas 72225 phone: (501) 960-8711 (501) 663-3764 e-mail: cdebin@aristotle.net
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.: Z-7553
Owner:
M. E. Seckt LTD Co./ C. L. Clifton
Address:
40 West Windsor Drive
Description:
Lot B, Brookwood Addition
Zoned:
R-2
Variance Requested:
Variances are requested from the area and
building line provisions of Sections 36-254
and 31-12 to allow construction of a single
family home with a reduced front yard
setback and which crosses a platted
building line.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Vacant
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 40 West Windsor Drive is currently an
undeveloped single family lot. The site has been cleared, with some site
work having taken place. The lot slopes severely downward from front to
back (east to west). The lot backs up to the Hindman golf course.
The applicant proposes to construct a one-story brick and frame single
family residence on the property. A portion of the proposed residential
structure will cross the front platted 25 foot building line. The front of the
house will be located 16 feet back from the front property line.
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.)
Section 36-254(d)(1), of the City's Zoning Ordinance, requires a minimum
front yard setback of 25 feet for residences in R-2 zoning. Section 31-
12(c), of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, requires that encroachments
across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of
Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these
ordinance standards.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances, given the extreme slope
associated with this single family lot. If this were a new subdivision, the
lots with extreme slopes which back up to the golf course could be
developed in conjunction with the hillside standards found in the City's
Subdivision Ordinance. These standards include a 15 foot front building
line. The proposed house would conform to the hillside standards.
Additionally, the curve of the street at this location will help to give the
appearance that the proposed house aligns with the houses along this
side of the street. However, the curvature of the street could also have an
adverse visual impact on the property owner immediately to the north.
This is staff's only concern related to the proposal. Staff feels that the
applicant should obtain a letter from the property owner immediately to the
north agreeing to the proposed construction. Otherwise, staff feels that
the proposed house will have no adverse impact on 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 new residence. 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 a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted
building line as approved by the Board.
2. A letter must be obtained from the property owner to the north
agreeing to the proposed construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 2003)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant failed to complete the required
notifications to surrounding property owners. Staff recommended that the item
be deferred to the January 26, 2004 Agenda.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 26,
2004 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
K
M. E. SENT LTD COMPANY
608 NAN CIRCLE
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72211
Phone 501 765 2598
Fax 501-221-2598
Mr. Monte Moore
Zoning and Enforcement Administrator -2 — -75 57 3
Department of Planning and Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
Dear Mr. Moore;
We are requesting permission to cross the platted building line at #40 West Windsor
Drive because of a steep drop in the lot.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
C. L. Clifton
Manager
t
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned
Z-7554
Lanette and James Beard
5510 Sherwood Road
Lots 152, 153 and 154,
Prospect Terrace Addition
R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-254 and the fence
provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a
building addition with a reduced side yard
setback and a brick 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 5510 Sherwood Road is occupied by a two-
story brick and frame single family residence. There is a small circular
drive at the southwest corner of the property and a two -car drive from
Edgewood Road which serve as access.
The applicant proposes to construct a 15 foot by 20 foot sunroom addition
(one-story) at the southeast corner of the existing residence. The addition
will be located 37 feet from the front (south) property line and
approximately six (6) feet from the side (east) property line. Section
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.
36-254(d)(2), of the City's Zoning Ordinance, requires a minimum side
yard setback of eight (8) feet, based on the fact that the house sits on
three (3) platted lots with an average combined lot width of 90 feet.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance
standard.
Additionally, the applicant recently constructed a masonry wall around the
perimeter of the site, as shown on the attached site plan. The brick wall
varies in height, based on the slope of the property. The wall height
ranges from approximately four (4) feet at the northeast corner of the
property to approximately eight (8) feet at the northwest property corner.
The majority of the wall is from 6 feet to 6 feet — 8 inches in height. Brick
columns exist approximately every 12 feet and are two (2) feet higher than
the wall height.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a., of the City's Zoning Ordinance, requires that
fences/walls located between a building setback and a street right-of-way
have a maximum height of four (4) feet. Other fences/walls may be
erected to a maximum height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance for the increased height associated with the newly
constructed wall.
Staff supports the side yard setback variance associated with the
proposed sunroom addition. The setback variance is very minor, and will
not be out of character with other structures in the neighborhood. The
individual platted lots are approximately 50 feet in width, which would
allow a five (5) foot side yard setback if the lots were developed
individually. The sunroom addition should have no adverse impact on the
adjacent property or the general area.
Staff does not support the variance associated with the height of the
newly constructed masonry wall. The wall was constructed without a
permit or approval from the City. Staff feels that the portions of the
masonry wall located between the building setbacks and the street rights-
of-way are out of character with the neighborhood. These types of walls
are not typical of the general area. Although staff has no problem with the
interior wall heights (along the east side property line), staff feels that the
wall sections located between the platted building lines and the street
rights-of-way have an adverse visual impact on the adjacent properties.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback variance,
subject to a building permit being obtained for the construction.
Staff recommends denial of the requested fence/wall height variance.
2
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 2003)
Mark Stodola and Lanette and James Beard were present, representing the
application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application
with a recommendation of approval of the requested side yard setback variance
and denial of the variance for increased wall height.
Mark Stodola addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that
the height of the masonry wall varied based on the topography of the property
and which side of the wall the height was measured. He described other
fences/walls in the area which exceeded the maximum height allowed, and
presented photos of these properties. He noted that the Beard's fence
contractor walk off the job before it was finished.
Chairman Ruck asked if any objection had been received from the neighbors.
Mr. Stodola noted that there had been no objection and explained. Staff noted
that one (1) phone call had been received from an adjacent neighbor who
expressed no opposition.
Terry Burruss asked what was on the property across the street to the west.
Mr. Stodola noted that it was only wooded. The landscaping of the property was
briefly discussed.
Fred Gray asked about the contractors who had walked off the job. Mr. Beard
noted that the contractor had moved. He stated that he thought the contractor
had obtained all of the appropriate building permits.
Terry Burruss asked if the wall caused a sight -distance problem at the corner of
Edgewood and Wildwood Roads. Steve Haralson, of Public Works, indicated
that it created no problems.
There was a motion to approve the application. The motion passed by a vote of
4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 recusal (Francis).
3
H.B. STUBBLEFIELD (1907-1991)
S. GRAHAM CATLETT
MARKSTODOLA
H. BRADLEY WALKER
CHRISTIAN C. MICHAELS
JOHN R. YATES
JANAN ARNOLD DAVIS, P.A.
PAUL CHARTON
CATLETT & STODOLA
A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED COMPANY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THE TOWER BUILDING, EIGHTEENTH FLOOR
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
TELEPHONE (501) 372-2121
FAX (501) 372-5566
E-MAIL littlerock@catlaw.com
Please respond to:
Little Rock Office
November 17, 2003
Department of Planning & Development
City of Little Rock
ATTN: Board of Adjustment
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Variance request - Lanette & James Beard
5510 Sherwood, Little Rock, Arkansas
Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment:
550 EDGEWOOD DRIVE
MAUMELLE, ARKANSAS 72113
TELEPHONE (501) 851-7260
FAX (501) 851-3735
On behalf of James and Lanette Beard, I am submitting the enclosed request for a variance
concerning their property located at 5510 Sherwood Road, in Little Rock, Arkansas.
The owners of the property have built a brick fence (photographs enclosed) around the three lots
comprising the subject property. At various locations the fence is less than six feet high and in
certain instances, depending on which side of the fence you stand on, the fence is either six feet
high or exceeds that height by approximately eight (8) inches. The posts between the fence are
approximately twelve inches higher than the wall of the fence.
The fence is very attractive and complimentary to the property and to the surrounding
neighborhood. I would also note to the Board of Adjustment that a survey of other fences in the
area indicates that several exceed the six-foot height as indicated in ordinance 36-516. Because
of the sloping topography the fence, in certain locations, does exceed the exact requirement
referenced in the ordinance.
The Beard's also propose to construct a sunroom addition to be attached to the side of their
home. The addition is proposed to be fifteen (15) feet by twenty (20) feet in size for a distance
of approximately twenty feet out of the 260 feet which is the total length of their lots. This
encroachment into the side yard set back is very small. The Beard's desire this addition to their
home so they may fully enjoy the extensive landscaping of their yard and the southerly direction
the addition will face.
The Beard's also propose a small semi -circular addition to the existing fence so that it will
conform with a mounted fountain on the wall which will face the interior of their property.
Due to the irregular sloping topography and the proposed structural configurations for the
sunroom, which will enhance the value of the property and allow the Beard's maximum
exposure and enjoyment of their yard, we would respectfully request the variances as are
indicated on our application. Should you have any further questions please don't hesitate to
contact me.
Most sincerely,
CATLETT STODO A, PLC
Mark Stodola
MS:th
Most Sincerely,
CATLETT & STODOLA, PLC
Mark Stodola
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.: Z-7555
Owner: Kirsta Bolts
Address: 511 Beechwood Avenue
Description: Lot 9, Block 22, Pulaski Heights Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-156 to allow
construction of an accessory building with a
reduced separation and which exceeds the
maximum rear yard coverage 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 511 Beechwood Street is occupied by a one-
story frame single family residence. There is an alley right-of-way along
the east property line. A concrete slab is located near the northeast
corner of the property where a garage/storage building once existed. The
garage/storage building was torn down earlier this year as a result of
damages it sustained when a tree fell on it during a storm.
The applicant proposes to rebuild the accessory structure (slightly larger),
to be used as a carport and storage. The structure will be located 7.5 feet
from the rear property line, 3.5 feet from the side property line, and be
separated from the principal structure by approximately five (5) feet. The
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.)
structure will cover approximately 490 square feet of the required rear
yard (rear 25 feet).
Section 36-156(a)(2)b., of the City's Zoning Ordinance, requires that
accessory buildings be separated from principal structures by at least six
(6) feet. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. allows accessory buildings to cover a
maximum of 30 percent of required rear yards. This particular 50 foot
wide lot would allow a maximum coverage of 375 square feet. Therefore,
the applicant is requesting variances from those ordinance standards, in
order to rebuild the accessory building.
Staff supports the requested variances. Staff feels that the variances are
reasonable. The proposed accessory building exceeds the minimum
required rear and side yard setback requirements, and should have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties. The accessory building as
proposed will not be out of character with other accessory buildings in the
general area.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the
following conditions:
1. A building permit must be obtained for the proposed construction.
2. The accessory structure must not exceed a height of one (1) story.
3. There are to be no separate utility meters for the accessory structure.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
K
-- i♦ r GLS //,L�`�LLGI/`I.C.LL' —���
�_—_•��4,�r cw „r3N CYC r ..r__ ._
d� t �XJ
ell
i
i
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 8
File No.:
Z-7556
Owner:
Tom Lean
Address:
206 Rosetta Street
Description:
Lot 7, Block 4, C. S. Stifft's Addition
Zoned:
R-3
Variance Requested:
A variance is requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-156 to permit an
accessory building which exceeds the
maximum rear yard coverage allowed.
Justification:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:
Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property:
Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-3 zoned property at 206 Rosetta Street is occupied by a one-story
frame single family residence. There is a one -car shared driveway at the
southeast corner of the property. There is an alley right-of-way located
along the west property line.
The applicant proposes to construct a 22 foot by 30 foot accessory garage
structure within the rear yard. The garage will be accessed from the alley.
The garage structure will be located three (3) feet from the side (north)
property line and 6 to 7 feet from the rear property line. The proposed
accessory structure will occupy approximately 550 square feet of the
required rear yard (rear 25 feet). The applicant proposes to build the slab
first, use it for parking, and construct the building within two (2) years.
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.)
Section 36-156(a)(2)c., of the City's Zoning Ordinance, allows accessory
buildings to cover a maximum of 30 percent of required rear yards. This
particular 50 foot wide lot would allow a maximum coverage of 375 square
feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance
requirement.
Staff supports the requested variance. Given the fact that the proposed
accessory building meets or exceeds all of the setback and separation
requirements, staff views the request as reasonable. The proposed
accessory building will not be out of character with other accessory
buildings in the general area. Staff feels that the proposed 6 to 7 foot rear
yard setback allows for better massing of the structures on this lot, as a
zero (0) rear yard setback is allowed adjacent to an alley right-of-way, as
is the case with the majority of the accessory buildings within this block.
Staff feels that the proposed accessory building will have no adverse
impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1. A building permit must be obtained for the proposed construction.
2. The accessory structure must not exceed a height of one (1) story.
3. There are to be no separate utility meters for the accessory structure.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 22, 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
Board of Adjustment,
This is an application for a building permit and zoning variance pertaining to a residence
located at 206 Rosetta St. in the Stift Station Neighborhood and owned by Thomas Lean.
Proposed project is a multi -vehicle, detached garage to be located at the rear of the
residence, along the alley. The garage will be thirty feet long by twenty-two feet deep,
and requires a variance due to the fact that the structure will cover more than thirty
percent of the back yard. The foundation of the garage slab also requires a variance
because of the yard having excessive slope below the level of the alley at one corner
which would require the use of foundation blocks to level the slab.
Justification for seeking the variances also includes the fact that the property line at the
south bisects the neighbor's driveway, which cannot be used by me for parking. The
property does not currently have a parking area other than the street.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sincerely,
Thomas Lean
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 9
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-7557
Dorothy E. West
4305 Cobb Street
Lot 8, Block 96, John Barrow Addition
R-2
Variances are requested from the fence
provisions of Section 36-516 to permit a
chainlink fence (with barbed wire) which
exceeds the maximum height allowed.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-3 zoned property at 4305 Cobb Street is occupied by a one story
frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from Cobb
Street which serves as access. There is an alley right-of-way located
along the east property line.
The applicant recently began installing a six (6) foot high chain link fence,
with three (3) strands of barbed wire, around the perimeter of the lot. Part
of the fence has been installed along the east property line, with metal
fence poles set along the other property boundaries. The applicant notes
in the attached letter that the fence is needed for security purposes.
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.)
Section 36-516(e)(1)a., of the City's Zoning Ordinance, allows a maximum
fence height of four (4) feet between a building setback line and a street
right-of-way. Section 36-516(d) reads as follows:
"For purposes of this section the use of barbed, concertina
wire or other types of wire specifically designed to inflict
injury upon human contact is prohibited except when used at
the top of fences at least six (6) feet above grade enclosing
business or manufacturing premises. When such wire is
used, it shall not extend outside the vertical plane of the
enclosed property. Electrically charged fences are
prohibited."
Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the six (6) foot
high chainlink fence within the front 25 feet of the lot, and to allow the use
of barbed wire.
Staff supports the variance to allow the six (6) foot high chainlink fence
around the perimeter of the site, specifically within the front 25 -foot
building setback. Chainlink fences enclosing front yards are fairly
common within this general residential area. The fence, being of chainlink
construction, should have no adverse visual impact on the adjacent
properties. However, staff does not support the use of barbed wire on
fences within residential areas. Staff feels that barbed wire should only be
used in commercial and industrial areas, as it presents possible
unreasonable hazards to persons, especially children, in residential
neighborhoods.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance,
subject to a permit being obtained for the fence construction.
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow the use of
barbed wire.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 2003)
David West was present, representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval (with
condition) of the fence height variance, and denial of the variance to allow the
use of barbed wire.
2
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.)
David West addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained the
security issues associated with the requested fence with barbed wire.
Terry Burruss noted that the top of the chain link could be turned up instead of
using barbed wire. Mr. West stated that he had not considered that. He noted
that the barbed wire represented a visual deterrence.
Chairman Ruck asked if Mr. West's mother lived alone. Mr. West indicated that
she did.
Fred Gray stated that he was concerned with the applicant's safety, but did not
support the use of barbed wire.
There was a motion to approve the requested fence height variance, as
recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The
variance was approved.
There was a second motion to approve the variance to allow the use of barbed
wire. The second motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes and 5 nays. The second
variance was denied.
3
VARANCE 4305 COBB ST -1 --4-- 9
;F- 755 7
This neighborhood gets worse every year!
Mom gets older. She is 80 now. She lives alone.
She has been Raped once!
Her car was stollen!
Things disapear from yard or pourch all the time!
Even I, am Fearful in this house! I have never been afraid of
anything.
I want to install a 6 ft Chain Link Fence ALL around.
I need to put BARB WIRE on top, to stop anyone from
climbing it. The height will awake it SAFE for little KIDS.
I want to install a roll gate w/automatic opener, so Mom can
open n close it, from the car.
I think this is a necessary safety factor, to give Mom a feeling
of SECURITY in her hoarse, for her next 20 years.
Times are much Different Than they were 40 or 50 years ago
when these restrictions were written.
People are Meaner, more Prone to KILL for just a few
Dollars!
I want Mom to live as long as she can.
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 10
File No.:
Z-7558
Owner:
Patricia Butler
Address:
33 Beverly Place
Description:
Lot 15 and part of the "Reserved" area,
Beverly Place Addition
Zoned:
R-2
Variance Requested:
Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-254 to allow
building additions with reduced setbacks.
Justification:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:
Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property:
Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 33 Beverly Place is occupied by a two-story
brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from
Beverly Place which serves as access. There is an existing one-story
detached garage/storage building at the northeast corner of the existing
house.
The applicant proposes to construct a one-story building addition at the
southeast corner of the house to accommodate a screened -in porch,
master bath and closets. This addition will be located five (5) feet from
the side (south) property line. An unenclosed carport addition is also
proposed at the northeast corner of the house. The carport will be set
back 1.67 feet from the north side property line. The applicant is also
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.
proposing to make small additions to the front of the house and to the
existing accessory building, as shown on the attached site plan.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, requires minimum
side yard setbacks of seven (7) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting variances to allow the five (5) foot and 1.67 foot
side yard setbacks as described above. The proposed additions to the
front of the house and the accessory building conform to ordinance
requirements.
Staff is supportive of the requested side yard setback variances. Staff
feels that the request is reasonable, and that the proposed additions will
not be out of character with the general area. Staff is supportive of the
1.67 foot side yard setback for the carport, as long as the structure
remains unenclosed on the north, east and west sides. The house
immediately to the north fronts on Longfellow Lane and has a rear yard
relationship to the property at 33 Beverly Place. The existing house to the
north is located 8 to 9 feet from its south property line, therefore,
separation between it and the proposed carport structure should be no
issue. The proposed additions should 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. The 1.67 foot side setback for the carport shall include any overhang.
2. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent
properties.
3. The carport structure must remain unenclosed on the north, east and
west sides.
4. A building permit must be obtained for all construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 recusal (Francis).
E
Yeary Lindsey Architects
November 20, 2003
Mr. Monte Moore
Department of Neighborhoods and Planning
723 West Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Zoning Variance Application for
Butler Residence, 33 Beverly Place
Dear Monte,
We are requesting a zoning variance at 33 Beverly Place to allow an encroachment into the
north and south side yard setbacks.
Our proposed plan includes a one story one -car carport that encroaches 5.5 feet into the
north side yard setback reducing it to 1.5 feet. This is necessary to provide the proper
width for parking and entering the house under cover. Providing off street parking is
extremely important on Beverly Place due to the narrowness of the street.
Also included is a screened porch, master bath and closet addition to the southeast corner
of the house that encroaches 2 feet into the south setback reducing it to 5 feet. This
encroachment is mainly due to the south wall of the house not being built parallel to the
south property line.
We acknowledge the close proximity of the fence to the north, but feel the openness of the
carport and the gabled roof design with gutters to the east and west mitigates any negative
impact. We have also gabled the addition to the south, providing gutters on the east and
west, to handle the rain runoff on our property.
We also propose enclosing and additional 4.5 feet of the existing carport to provide more
exterior storage. The existing carport encroaches 4 feet into the north setback, reducing it to
3 feet at that point. This is for convenience sake and should not have an increased negative
impact on the existing situation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Li s y, AIA
319 President Clinton Ave., Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-5940 FX: 501-707-0118
December 22, 2003
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z-7559
Jim Swink
15 Montagne Court
Lot 60 (unrecorded),
Montagne Court Addition
R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area and
building line provisions of Section 36-254
and 31-12 to permit construction of a new
single family house with a reduced front
yard setback and which crosses a platted
building line.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Vacant
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 15 Montagne Court (Lot 60, Montagne Court
Addition) is currently undeveloped, and grass -covered. There is a
concrete access drive along the property's west boundary. There are
several single family homes under construction within phase one of this
subdivision.
The applicant proposes to construct a new single family residence on this
lot, as shown on the attached site sketch. The lot has a 20 foot front
platted building line along the Montagne Court street frontage (north and
December 22, 2003
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.)
east property lines). The proposed house crosses the platted building line
at two (2) corners. These two (2) corners will be located approximately 15
feet back from the front property line.
Section 31-12(c), of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, requires that
proposed encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and
approved by the Board of Adjustment. Section 36-254(d)(1), of the City's
Zoning Ordinance, requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. The
Little Rock Planning Commission approved variances from this ordinance
standard (with the preliminary plat) and allowed 20 foot platted front
building lines for this subdivision. Additionally, the Commission allowed
five (5) foot side yard setbacks. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the building line encroachments and an additional
variance to allow the 15 foot front building setback. The proposed
structure meets the required rear and side yard setbacks.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The lot has an unusual
triangular shape, which limits the amount of buildable area when providing
the required side and rear yard setbacks. Only approximately 30 square
feet of the overall structure encroaches across the platted building line,
given the fact that the encroachments have a corner relationship with the
building line. Staff feels that the requested variances are very minor in
nature, and will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or
general area.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to
complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line for
the proposed new residence. 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
completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted
building line as approved by the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 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
12/10/200: :45 6211668 WHITE DATERS 'AGE 02
® WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
24 Rahling Circle
Utde Rock, Arkansas 72223
December 10, 2003
Mr. Monte Moore, Zoning Administrator
City of Little Rock Planning Department
723 W, Markham St
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
RE: Montagne Court
Mr. Moore,
Jim Swim:; the developer of the above referenced project would like to request a front setback
variance for Lot % I have attached a plot plan showing the footprint of the house and the areas
of encroachment.
The lot is odd -shaped and falls within a long curve. The area in which we are requesting the
variance does not have another lot directly across from it. There is a larger tract of land that
backs up to this subdivision. This property is developed and there is a large distance berwee:l this
lot and any existirg structure.
Please place this item on the next available Board of Adjustment hearing. Do not hesitate to call
should you have any questions or require additional information.
Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated,
.4eWga,nd,its,,�
eJz��
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING
•
C�7
a�
c
0
�a
Q
c
(D
a�
N�
z
Q
CO
m
Q
z
w
CO
� co
a
J
aw
z
0
LU Lu 2
0
0 W
�zF-0U)Q
Z Q W (D J_ 11J
zcnLr
��Z) Q
m
�
U 5
F- LL m C7 of of
O
U
w
w
O
0
H
z
�
w
E
0
F -
Q
LL
O
Q
O
00
W
Q
0
a�
c
0
�a
Q
c
(D
a�
N�
z
Q
CO
m
Q
z
w
CO
� co
a
J
aw
z
0
LU Lu 2
0
0 W
�zF-0U)Q
Z Q W (D J_ 11J
zcnLr
��Z) Q
m
�
U 5
F- LL m C7 of of
i
0
�
�
•
0
V
N
W�
o
0
Q�L
Q
LU
(7
J
_
m
U
Z
:Dm
W
>-
=
Y
�[ifi
m
Of
(7
cf
of
a�
c
0
�a
Q
c
(D
a�
N�
z
Q
CO
m
Q
z
w
CO
� co
a
J
aw
z
0
LU Lu 2
0
0 W
�zF-0U)Q
Z Q W (D J_ 11J
zcnLr
��Z) Q
m
�
U 5
F- LL m C7 of of
December 22, 2003
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
3:25 p.m.
Date: 2GZ,�9,0 21—
Chairman Secretary