Loading...
boa_06 24 2002LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JUNE 24, 2002 2:00 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the May 20, 2002 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present: Members Absent William Ruck, Chairman Fred Gray, Vice Chairman Scott Richburg Gary Langlais Andrew Francis None City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA JUNE 24, 2002 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Z -3520-A B. Z -7124-B C. Z-7225 I1. NEW ITEMS: 1. Z -2549-B 2. Z -4283-A 3. Z -4343-M 4. Z -4469-B 5. Z-7231 6. Z-7234 7. Z-7236 8. Z-7237 9. Z-7238 10. Z-7240 11. Z-7241 12. Z-7242 7525 Cantrell Road 101 Main Street 9301 Rodney Parham Road 6117 West 65th Street 7825 Y2 Stagecoach Road 5601 Ranch Drive 8822 Stagecoach Road 5901 Palo Alto Drive 1855 Chester Street 2808 Valley Park Drive 801 West 3rd Street 5120 Country Club Blvd. 23 Chalamont Way 4717 Elmwood Drive 33 Montvale Drive N O O • I- 3NId nnvelHl 8317Va3 cz N d�oy ego Nvwa3a — Nlvry AtlMOV 8 H3atl Np1/yp 00 - 53HJ ONIN lW co � M08000M 3NId 3NId NJyy c � atl0 J NO1lIWV 11035 -S'pN/yys J AlISH3l�INn Na d aIV3 r .. AlI5a3AINn SJNIadS 83A3J (� S3H0nH IddISS IW a6 lOJIHO U 810Aa3S38 i MD6dV8 NHOP 3 �Zy N 3NNI3H —slo8vs 06D331XDVHs o WVHatld 43NOOa - s e - �� yoJ NV 08 � S11WIl A11J - HJbpJ3pbIS I-" w 39018 AWIN o v Ogg\1 � 0 fePEL��P'l o - � v NYNllln$ 18VM31S ysd"� O h S11WIl Al l�==y �i \Q� 0J� �eJV�P 3 0 !Jp!/7J 31VON83J t 'MO W f/r June 24, 2002 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z -3520-A Owner: Gerald E. Oney Address: 7525 Cantrell Road Description: Southeast corner of Cantrell Road and Mississippi Avenue Zoned: C -3/C-4 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-302, the parking provisions of Section 36-502, and the buffer provisions of Section 36-522 to allow for the construction of a new restaurant building and associated parking. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Mixed Commercial Mixed Commercial; new restaurant development Public Works reviewed the multiple building site plan for the entire site and feels that it is appropriate to make comments only for that portion of the site which is proposed for redevelopment (lease parcel at the northwest corner of the property). With the Buildinq Permit: 1. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a major arterial. Dedicate right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline (25 foot additional) along lease parcel only. 2. Mississippi Avenue is classified as a minor arterial. Dedicate right- of-way to 40 feet from centerline (10 foot additional) along lease parcel only. June 24, 2002 Item No.: A (Cont.) 3. Existing driveway on Cantrell is too close to the intersection with Mississippi (Ordinance criteria is 300 feet). Close drive access and use shared access to the east. 4. Staff would support a Franchise agreement to allow parking and landscaping in the right-of-way as shown on the proposed plan. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: . The proposed street buffer along Cantrell Road drops 4 Y2 feet below the minimum Zoning and Landscape Ordinance width requirements of nine (9) feet. The applicant has filed an application with the City Beautiful Commission seeking a variance from this requirement at the July 11th meeting. C. Staff Analysis: The C-4 zoned property at 7525 Cantrell Road contains a vacant restaurant building and paved parking area. The C-4 zoned property is a lease parcel and part of the C-3 zoned Tanglewood Shopping Center property. There is an existing driveway (on this property) from Cantrell Road and a shared driveway from Mississippi Avenue which serve as access to this property. The applicant proposes to remove the existing building from the site and redevelop the property by constructing a new 2,250 square foot Taco Bell restaurant building. A multiple building site plan review is required based on the fact that the C-4 zoned property is part of the overall shopping center property. A multiple building site plan is typically reviewed by the Planning Commission. However, when variances are requested that review can be done by the Board of Adjustment. With redevelopment of the C-4 property, additional right-of-way will be required for the lease parcel only. An additional 25 feet of right-of-way will be required for Cantrell Road, with an additional 10 feet required along Mississippi Avenue. Some of the proposed improvements (landscape buffers and parking) are located within the area of additional right-of-way dedication. Public Works will support a franchise permit to allow these improvements to be located in the right-of-way. Therefore, staff reviewed the proposed site plan with this in mind. The applicant is requesting three (3) variances with the proposed redevelopment plan. The first is a variance from the area provisions of Section 36-302. The proposed building will have a front (Cantrell Road) setback of 47 feet, a street side (Mississippi Avenue) setback of 20 feet, a rear setback of over 300 feet and a side setback of over 400 feet. Section 36-302(e) requires a minimum front setback of 45 feet, street side setback of 45 feet, rear K June 24, 2002 Item No.: A (Cont.) setback of 25 feet and side setback of 15 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced street side (Mississippi Avenue) setback. The proposed front and street side building setbacks, as noted above, were measured from the required right-of-way lines. The second requested variance is from the parking requirements of Section 36-502. The overall site plan for the Tanglewood Shopping Center includes 351 parking spaces. Section 36-502(b)(3)h. requires a minimum of 539 parking spaces for a shopping center development of this size. The applicant is proposing approximately 23 parking spaces (after driveway closure) with the redevelopment of the C-4 zoned lease parcel. A restaurant of the size proposed would require 22 parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant is proposing enough parking with the redevelopment of the lease parcel to serve the new restaurant use. Approximately 12 of the parking spaces will be located in the new Cantrell Road right-of-way and be covered under a franchise permit. The Tanglewood Shopping Center has existed for a number of years and to staff's knowledge, the existing number of parking spaces has adequately served the center. The last variance is from the buffer provisions of Section 36-522. Staff felt that with respect to the landscape and buffer requirements it would be appropriate to review only that portion of the property (C-4 zoned lease parcel) proposed for redevelopment. Section 36-522(b)(3)b. requires minimum landscape buffer widths of nine (9) feet along Cantrell Road and Mississippi Avenue. The buffer area along Cantrell Road drops 4.5 feet below this minimum requirement. Additionally, the entire buffer areas proposed along Cantrell Road and Mississippi Avenue are located within the required right-of-way dedication. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced buffer width along Cantrell Road, with both buffers (Cantrell Road and Mississippi Avenue) being located in the public right-of-way. The landscape strips along Cantrell Road and Mississippi Avenue are also required by the City's Landscape Ordinance. The applicant will be required to apply for a variance from the City Beautiful Commission for the reduced landscape strips. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff initially had concerns with the proposed redevelopment of the lease parcel, based on the right- of-way requirements for Cantrell Road and Mississippi Avenue. However, given the fact that Public Works will support a franchise permit for the proposed improvements located in the required right-of-way areas, staff feels that the proposed redevelopment plan will work. Staff recognizes that this is a small lease parcel and any future redevelopment will be saddled with these same type issues. Staff feels that the proposed 3 June 24, 20U2 Item No.: A (Cont.) redevelopment of the C-4 zoned lease parcel will have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with the redevelopment of this lease parcel, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of this report. 2. The applicant must receive approval from the City Beautiful Commission for the required landscape strip along Cantrell Road to have a reduced width, with the landscape strips along Cantrell Road and Mississippi Avenue being in the public right-of-way. 3. The applicant must obtain a franchise permit for the improvements located within the required right-of-way for Cantrell Road and Mississippi Avenue. 4. The trash enclosure located at the southwest corner of the lease parcel must be moved slightly to the east, and out of the new right- of-way for Mississippi Avenue. 5. Any signage must conform to the City's Zoning Ordinance requirements for commercial zoned property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that this application be deferred to the June 24, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 24, 2002 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 24, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. !! April 26, 2002 T ger F0.$ Engineers Landscap= A Fi:, Mr. Dana Carney Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: 7525 Cantrell Road Dear Dana, Enclosed is an application for a variance for the above referenced project to allow the proposed structure to be built within the setback areas along the south and west sides of the property. There is also a buffer issue along Cantrell Road which will need to be addressed by variance as well. A landscape variance will also need to be applied for due to the insufficient landscape strip along Cantrell. This site is currently zoned C-4 which calls for 45' setbacks on the north and west sides and 15' and 25' along the east and south sides respectively. This site is currently occupied by a TCBY facility which has recently closed. A new Taco Bell restaurant will be built on the site as shown on the enclosed site plan. It is the developer's desire to utilize some of the existing site features in his new site plan. In particular is the existing planting strip and curb and gutter along Cantrell. It would be difficult to modify the configuration of the lot in order to accommodate all required setbacks, buffers, and landscaping. The lot is bordered on the east and south boundaries by existing driveways in the adjacent parking lot therefore the developer is seeking relief through a variance request. Please let me know if you need any additional information in this matter or if you have any questions. Sincerely, THE EHLBURGER FIRM, INC. Frank Ri in , SLA Vice President 201 South i--ard 11 P.O. Box 3837 ❑ Little Rock,.aR 72203-3: 37 � 501; >73-5331 June 24, 2002 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z -7124-B Owner: Block 2, Limited Partnership Address: 101 Main Street Description: Southeast corner of Main Street and Markham Street Zoned: UU Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the development provisions of Section 36- 342.1 to allow an awning addition which projects more than five (5) feet into the public right-of-way. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Mixture of commercial, office and residential Proposed Use of Property: Mixture of commercial, office and residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: On March 25, 2002 the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to allow outside restaurant seating at 101 Main Street. The seating was to be located along Main Street adjacent to the portion of the building occupied by the San Francisco Bread Co. During the public hearing, the Board asked the applicant if an awning would be used to cover the outside seating area. The applicant responded that only umbrellas would be used. June 24, 2002 Item No.: B (Cont. After further consideration, the applicant has decided to construct an awning over the outside seating area. The awning would project from the fagade of the building six (6) feet to 11.5 feet. There would be approximately 8.5 feet of clearance over the sidewalk area at the awning's lowest point. The awning will cover 395.5 square feet of area. According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-342.1(c)(9)b., UU Urban Use District standards: "Awnings shall not project more than five (5) feet from the building fagade and have a minimum clearance of eight (8) feet above the sidewalk." Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the awning construction. Staff is not supportive of the variance request. The intent of Section 36- 342.1(c)(9)b. was to allow owners of buildings which had zero setbacks along street side property lines to construct small awnings over doorways. Staff expressed safety concerns with the previous variance request to allow the outside restaurant seating. Staff's concerns related to the large amount of pedestrian traffic in this area and the amount of the sidewalk to be occupied by the restaurant seating. Staff feels that the safety issue will be exacerbated with the introduction of a 395.5 square foot awning structure into this right-of-way area. Staff does not feel that this is a good plan. If the Board decides to approve this application, the applicant will need to obtain a franchise permit for the structure to be located within the right-of-way. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow an awning structure which projects more than five (5) feet into the public right-of-way, in the UU Urban Use District. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that this application be deferred to the June 24, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 24, 2002 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 June 24, 2002 Item No.: B (Cont. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 24, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that this application be withdrawn. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 3 We would like to put a metal or canvas top above the outside seating. This will allow customers to sit outside during a light rain or a bright sunny day. In addition, we can also put up some lighting and ceiling fans. Although it may not be sufficient, we are looking into putting up outside, umbrellas. i 7/ June 24, 2002 ITEM NO.: C File No.: Z-7225 Owner: Grace Presbyterian Church Address: 9301 Rodney Parham Road Description: Southwest corner of the Rodney Parham Road and Reservoir Road intersection Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-553 to permit a ground -mounted sign which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Church Proposed Use of Property: Church STAFF REPORT n Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 9301 Rodney Parham Road contains the Grace Presbyterian Church development. There are two (2) access points from Rodney Parham Road. There is one (1) ground -mounted sign on each side of the westernmost access drive. The church proposes to remove the ground -mounted sign on the east side of the access drive and replace it with a new sign. The new ground - mounted sign is proposed to have a height of ten (10) feet and an area of 48 square feet. Churches are allowed to have signage as permitted in office zoning (maximum height — 6 feet, maximum area — 64 square feet). Ground -mounted signs are to have a minimum setback of five (5) feet from property lines. Therefore, the church is requesting a variance to June 24, 2002 Item No.: C allow the ground -mounted sign to exceed the maximum height allowed by ordinance. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff feels that the requested variance is very minor and will have no adverse impact on the general area. The church is located in an area along Rodney Parham Road which contains a number of commercial sized ground -mounted signs. Additionally, the site of the proposed sign is slightly below the grade of Rodney Parham Road, and a ten (10) foot high sign as proposed will aid in the identification of the property. As noted earlier, there are two (2) ground -mounted signs on the property, one (1) on each side of the westernmost access drive. Staff feels that the sign on the west side of the drive should be removed (letters taken off the rock wall) in exchange for the taller ground -mounted sign. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a ground - mounted sign which exceeds the maximum height allowed subject to the following conditions: 1. The sign must be set back at least five (5) feet from the front property line. 2. A sign permit must be obtained as per City ordinance requirements. 3. The second ground -mounted sign (west side of the access drive) as well as the sign to be replaced must be removed from the property, resulting in only one (1) ground -mounted sign for the site. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002) Ronnie Roberson was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Ronnie Roberson addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that the church did not agree with staff's condition #3 as listed in paragraph C. of the agenda report. He stated that the church did not wish to remove the existing sign located on the west side of the access drive. He noted that it was the original sign which was constructed in the 1960's when the church was built. He noted that the sign had historic and sentimental importance to the church. The sign has a small plaque near the upper right corner which dedicates the sign to a deceased church member. 2 June 24, 2002 Item No.: C (Cont. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, asked Mr. Roberson if he had a problem with conditions #1 and #2. He stated that he did not. There was a discussion as to whether or not the existing sign was considered a sign based on the wording. Andy Francis stated that he had no problem with the existing sign. There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff, eliminating staff condition #3. Staff noted that this was not an appropriate motion based on the fact that a second ground -mounted sign on the site would require a second variance request. Staff noted that this second variance had not been advertised, nor had the adjacent property owners been informed of it. This issue was briefly discussed. The previous motion was withdrawn. A new motion was made to defer the application to the June 24, 2002 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on May 22, 2002 revising the application to include a variance to allow two (2) ground -mounted signs for the church property. Section 36-553(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows only one (1) ground -mounted sign per premises. As noted in the attached applicant's letter, the church wishes to preserve the second ground -mounted sign located on the west side of the westernmost access drive from Rodney Parham Road. The sign was the original sign for the church when it was built in 1962 and was dedicated as a memorial to a past church member. Staff is supportive of the variance to allow two (2) ground -mounted signs for this property. The older ground -mounted sign located along the west side of the access drive sits below the grade of Rodney Parham Road and is not very visible from the street. Staff recognizes the fact that the sign holds much historical value to the church, and that it no longer provides effective identification of the church to passing motorists. 3 June 24, 2002 Item No.: C (Cont.) Revised Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances to allow a ground - mounted sign which exceeds the maximum height allowed and to allow two (2) ground -mounted signs for the property, subject to the following conditions: 1. The new sign must be set back at least five (5) feet from the front property line. 2. A sign permit must be obtained as per City Ordinance requirements. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 24, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 0 GRACE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 9301 Rodney Parham Road (at Reservoir Road) We Rock, Arkansas 72227 501-225-3274 fax 501-227-6304 April 24, 2002 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Dear Sirs: 1 -el' C-�' 1 7.-Z:5 I am requesting zoning variance for a new 10 foot sign at Grace Presbyterian Church located at 9301 Rodney Parham Road in Little Rock. This request does not violate the spirit of the ordinance because of the unique location of the church property. The church facility is obstructed from view by passing motorists due to the increased elevation of Rodney Parham Road when it was widened and the construction of a retaining wall. The new sign will be lighted from the inside and will have a marquee that will be used to publicize our services and programs. The marquee needs to be elevated so that one can change the message while standing on the ground and so that it can safely be read by passing motorists. The sign is located on a wooded portion of the church property and will therefore not block the view of other signs of businesses. Thank you for considering our request. Sincerely, William R. Roberson Evangelism Chairman "V � Ar GRACE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH cn ""YW"' G 9301 Rodney Parham Road (at Reservoir Road) w$ Little Rods, Arkansas 72227 v � 501-225-3274 Fax 501-227-6304 Q! S A� May 22, 2002 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Dear Sirs : ,4-72-2-5 I am requesting a zoning variance that will allow two ground -mounted signs at Grace Presbyterian Church located at 9301 Rodney Parham Road. In addition to the new sign to be located on Rodney Parham Road, the church wishes to preserve the second sign located on the west side of the access drive. This sign was the original sign for the church when it was built in 1962 and holds sentimental value for the church members. The sign was dedicated to the memory of Dr. Barton A. Rhinehart. The sign is located several feet below Rodney Parham Road close to the Fellowship Hall and a Magnolia tree. Because of its location it is no longer useful as a sign which identifies the church to traffic on Rodney Parham. This sign means a lot to the church and represents the architecture of its era. We sincerely hope that you will allow us to keep it. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, W. R. Roberson Evangelism Chairman June 24, 2002 ITEM NO.: 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. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Z -2549-B Brundage Management Co., Inc. 6117 West 65th Street Part of Lot 1, Geneva Addition 1-2 A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-554 to permit a ground -mounted sign which exceeds the maximum area allowed by ordinance. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Mini -warehouses Mini -warehouses The property at 6117 West 65th Street is zoned 1-2 and is occupied by a mini -warehouse development. There is an existing wall -mounted sign attached to the end of one of the warehouse buildings, facing West 65tH Street. On May 20, 2002, the Board of Adjustment denied an application for a ground -mounted sign which exceeded the maximum height and area allowed by ordinance. The denied application was for a "key -shaped" sign, with a height of 31 feet — 3 inches and an area of 240 square feet. The City's Zoning Ordinance allows a ground -mounted sign in 1-2 zoning to have a maximum height of 30 feet and a maximum area of 72 square feet. June 24, 2002 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) Since the May 20, 2002 Board of Adjustment meeting the applicant has worked with staff on reducing the size of the previously proposed sign. The applicant is now proposing a "key -shaped", ground -mounted sign with a height of 25 feet — 2 inches and an area of 160 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for the increased sign area only, as the current proposed height conforms to ordinance standards. Staff is supportive of this application. Staff feels that the applicant has scaled-down the sign to a size that is appropriate for this property. A mini - warehouse development is permitted by right in C-4 zoning and with a conditional use permit in C-3 zones. The maximum allowed sign area for ground -mounted signs in commercial zones is 160 square feet. Therefore, staff feels that it would be reasonable to allow the commercial sign area for this property. Additionally, staff feels that the proposed placement of the sign on the property will not impede internal vehicle circulation. The applicant is proposing to install a planter around the base of the sign. This should help in separating the sign from the vehicular use area. C. Staff Analysis: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance subject to the following conditions: 1. A sign permit must be obtained. 2. The sign will have a maximum area of 160 square feet. 3. The sign will have a minimum setback of five (5) feet from property lines. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 24, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 nerna OVER 70 YEARS OF SIGNING THE BEST NAMES 1N BUSINESS May 23, 2002 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Planning and Development 723 W. Markham, 1s Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: File #Z -2549-A A -AAA Key Mini Storage or Brundage Management, Inc. 6117 West 65th Street Dear Monte, Attached please find the revised drawing showing our proposal for a 160 square foot sign for A -AAA Key Mini Storage. We have calculated all of the square footage including the key in developing this design. I have also included a planter as part of our presentation in order to dress up the location for this sign. The owners have agreed to install a planter in order to add some aesthetic appeal to the sign installation. I hope that you will give me a call if there are any additional questions. If not, I look forward to seeing you at the Board of Adjustment Hearing on June 24. Thank you for your consideration and for all of your help in aetiino-t� point. E)rel I G sman, esident a Sign Group, Ltd. CLG/cr Cc: Sylvia Bailiff 888.609 -SIGN (7446) 4202 DIVIDEND SAN ANTONIO, TX 78219 (2 10) 337-3900 FAX (210) 337-1603 OVER 7O YEARS OF SIGNING THE BEST NAMES IN BUSINESS May 23, 2002 City of Little Rock Planning and Development 723 W. Markham, 1s Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Variance Request for Signage To Whom It May Concern: Please let this letter serve as a request that a variance be granted for the A -AAA key Mini Storage located at 6117 W. 65th Street, Little Rock, AK, as the signage allowed by code will not be visible to potential customers from University Street. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please feel free to call me at (210) 337-3900. Sincerely, S VGo rfan, President Sign Group, Ltd. CLG/cr Cc: Sylvia Bailiff 888 -609 -SIGN (7446) 4202 DIVIDEND SAN ANTONIO, TX 78219 (2 10) 337.3900 FAX (210) 337-1603 June 24, 2002 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -4283-A Owner: Albert Ross Sparks Address: 7825'/2 Stagecoach Road Description: Northeast corner of Stagecoach and Sibley Hole Roads Zoned: C-1 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-299 to allow a building addition with a reduced front yard setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Office and Catering Business Proposed Use of Property: Office and Catering Business STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Stagecoach Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a major arterial with a right-of-way width of 55' from centerline. Existing right-of- way is adequate at the planned building addition, but inadequate at the northern property boundary. With the building permit: a. Dedicate right-of-way to 55' from centerline. b. Construct boundary street improvements as required by the Master Street Plan or provide in -lieu contribution for street improvements. The hardship clause of the ordinance would apply and limit contribution to 15% of building cost. c. Stormwater detention ordinance will apply to this expansion. June 24, 2002 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: A landscaping upgrade toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance equal to the building expansion proposed (29%) will be required. C. Staff Analysis: The C-1 zoned property at 7825 Stagecoach Road is occupied by two (2) existing one-story, brick and frame structures. There is an existing gravel parking area between the buildings and Stagecoach Road, with an access drive from Stagecoach Road. There is a catering business located in the southernmost building, with a contractor's office in the north building. The property owner proposes to construct a 32 foot by 36 foot building addition at the north end of the northernmost building for additional office space. The building addition will be located 9.25 feet from the front (west) property line. Section 36-299(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the property owner is requesting a variance to allow a reduced front yard setback for the building addition. All other setbacks for the proposed building addition conform to ordinance standards. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. With the potential for future widening of Stagecoach Road, staff feels that the proposed building addition is too close to the street right-of-way. As noted in paragraph A. of this report, Stagecoach Road is a Principal Arterial on the City's Master Street Plan, with 55 feet of right-of-way required from centerline. At the location of the proposed building addition (9.25 foot setback) there is approximately 57.5 feet of right-of-way for Stagecoach Road. Therefore, there is only approximately 2.5 feet of excess right-of-way at this point. As a possible solution, staff suggests designing a building addition for the south end of the building. Although this may eliminate a small area of parking between the two buildings, there appears to be a large enough area of gravel parking along the west side of the buildings to accommodate the two businesses. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested front yard setback variance. 2 June 24, 2002 Item No.: 2 (Cont. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 24, 2002) Brian Sparks was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Brian Sparks spoke in support of the application. He explained the reasons for locating the building addition on the north end of the building. He noted that he could make the building addition smaller (24 foot X 32 foot). He explained that there is a parking area (9-10 spaces) between the two buildings and that he wished not to lose that parking. There was a general discussion regarding revising the proposed site plan. Staff indicated support for the possible 24 foot by 32 foot building addition (revised plan) and explained. Chairman Ruck asked if there would be windows on the north and east sides of the proposed building addition. Mr. Sparks stated that there would be no windows on the north side and residential style windows on the east side (one per office). There was a discussion about moving the proposed building addition back to be flush with the front of the existing building. Chairman Ruck stated that he had no problem with the application as proposed and explained. Vice -Chairman Gray noted that he supported leaving the building area as proposed and moving the addition back. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, noted that Stagecoach Road is a principal arterial, at the intersection with an interstate highway. He asked the Board not to lose sight of the fact that Stagecoach Road would be redeveloped at some point in time, and be located very close to the proposed building addition. Vice Chairman Gray asked if widening Stagecoach Road in this area was in the works. Mike Hood, of Public Works, noted that the widening was on the State's agenda, but not being designed at this time. He noted that the right-of-way for Stagecoach Road could go beyond the current front property line if a turn lane is needed. Chairman Ruck noted that the Board could vote on the application as proposed, vote on an amended application (if the applicant wished to amend) or vote on a deferral of the application. These options were discussed. Mr. Sparks stated that he wished to defer the application in order to work on a revision that staff could possibly support. There was a motion to defer the application to the July 29, 2002 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred. 3 y (7- ? � ** Ross Sparks Builders General Contractors/Construction Managers May 14, 2002 Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR RE: Request Set Back Variance for Building Addition 7825 %2 Stagecoach Road, Little Rock, AR 72204 Ladies and Gentlemen: This is a request to allow a variance to the 25 foot front yard set back requirement of the C1 zoning ordinance as it applies to our property located at 7825 %2 Stagecoach Road, Little Rock, AR 72204. The purpose of the variance is to allow us to build a 36' x 32' addition to the north end of our existing office building. According to City records the property is currently zoned C1, which requires a 25 foot front yard set back from the property line to the building line. Our property is located at the corner of Stagecoach Road or Highway 5, and Sibley Hole Road. The comer lot is an unusually odd triangular pie shape, which limits our options for expansion. The property directly to the north and east of our building is a partially wooded vacant lot. The west side of our property is bounded by Stagecoach Road, and the South side by Sibley Hole Road. The property has two buildings on it. One is our office, and the other is leased to a catering business. Our business has grown, and we have need of 1,200 square feet of additional office space. Due to the odd shape of our lot, the juxtaposition of the two buildings on the lot, and the lay out of our office building we need to expand to the north. As our preliminary site plan shows, with the new addition, our front yard set back from the property line would be 9.25 feet. However, we would still maintain a 25 foot side yard on both ends of our building. Our rear yard off set from the property line would be 10.75 feet, which is more than the 8 foot off set required by the Cl zoning given that we have more than a 25 foot side yard on both ends of the building.. If the variance is allowed there would still be a green space buffer of more than 50 feet between our building and Stagecoach Road. The odd shape of our lot, the internal layout of our existing building, and the relative proximity of the catering business limits us from expanding to the west or the south. And there is not enough space between our building and the property line to expand to the east. Which P.O. Box 17108 / Little Rock, AR 72222 / 501-455-13 11 / Fax 501-455-5580 • Page 2 May 15, 2002 leaves us with really only one good alternative, which is to expand to the north. However, this will require the variance that we are requesting Therefore, we respectfully request that you allow our request for a variance to the front yard set back requirement of the C 1 zoning ordinance as it applies to our property. Sincerely, Ross Sparks Builders, Inc. Bry K. Sparks President bks encl. Six copies of site plan and survey cc: file June 24, 2002 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Z -4343-M Three Tables, LLC 5601 Ranch Drive Lot 4, Tract A, The Ranch Addition (unrecorded) C-2 (proposed C-3) A variance is requested from Section 36- 301 to allow outside restaurant seating in the C-3 zoning district. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Vacant Restaurant Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. C. Staff Analysis: The property at 5601 Ranch Drive is undeveloped and grass -covered. A preliminary plat was recently approved by the Planning Commission, creating this lot (Lot 4, Tract A, The Ranch Addition). The property (entire plat boundary) is also pending before the Planning Commission for a rezoning from C-2 to C-3. The C-3 zoning is a better fit for the smaller lot commercial development, as approved with the preliminary plat. June 24, 2002 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) The property owner is proposing a restaurant development for this site. As part of the restaurant development, the property owner is planning a 480 square foot outdoor patio dining area. The outdoor patio area will be located along the south side of the proposed restaurant building. Section 36-301(b) of the City's Zoning Ordinance states the following for C-3 zoned property: "All commercial uses shall be restricted to closed buildings, except parking lots, seasonal and temporary sales per Section 36-298.4, and the normal pump island services of service station operations." Therefore, the property owner is requesting a variance to allow the outdoor patio dining area. The applicant has informed staff that the patio area will not be enclosed and that there will be no roof structure covering the area. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the outdoor patio dining area at this location is a reasonable request, and will have no adverse impact on the general area. All of the adjacent properties, including across Ranch Drive, are either office or commercial in nature. There is no nearby residential property which would be affected by this request. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow outdoor patio dining, subject to the proposed C-3 zoning for the property being approved by the Planning Commission and City Board of Directors. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 24, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff noted that the applicant had made a minor revision in the application. Staff stated that the applicant wished to have 600 square feet of outdoor dining area rather than the 480 square feet as noted previously. Staff indicated no issues with the revision to the application. KI June 24, 2002 Item No.: 3 (C 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. Q May 23, 2002 Board of Adjustment City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Board of Adjustment Members: My name is Robert Isbell and I am the owner and general manager of Izzy's Restaurant. We plan to move our restaurant from its present location in the New Market Shopping Center located at 14710 Cantrell Road to a new free standing approximately 5300 square foot building to be located at 5601 Ranch Drive at The Ranch. One of the amenities that I feel is necessary to provide is an approximately 480 square foot outdoor dining patio similar to that at my present location. Not only will this outdoor patio provide addition seating, but it makes the atmosphere of the restaurant more comfortable and in keeping with other fine restaurants in the area such as Capers, Gaucho Grill, Trio's and Applebee's. I would appreciate your careful consideration and approval of this request. If you need any further information regarding this application, please do not hesitate to call me at 868-4311. June 24, 2002 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 issues. B. Staff Analysis: The Crackerbox, LLC 8822 Stagecoach Road Northwest corner of Stagecoach and Baseline Roads C-3 A variance is requested from the sign regulations of Section 36-555 to permit incidental signs which exceed the 20 square foot maximum allowance. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Convenience store with gas pumps Convenience store with gas pumps The C-3 zoned property at 8822 Stagecoach Road contains a Fina convenience store with gas pumps. The front of the store faces Stagecoach Road, with access from Stagecoach and Baseline Roads. The City's Zoning Enforcement staff recently issued the convenience store a courtesy notice due to the fact that the store's incidental signage (merchandise pricing signs on the front windows) exceeded the maximum area allowed. Section 36-555(a)(2)d. allows the following for commercial zoned property: "Incidental signs not to exceed twenty (20) square feet in aggregate sign area per occupancy." June 24, 2002 Item No.: The existing convenience store building has 20 windows along the front building facade. The applicant proposes to utilize the northernmost 10 windows for merchandise pricing signage. Each window will have a 3 foot by 4 foot sign, for a total of 120 square feet signage (not including the neon beer signs on the inside of the windows). Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 36-555(a)(2)d. to allow the increased amount of incidental signage. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Given the large amount of front building fagade at this location, the amount of incidental signage proposed for this business represents a relatively small percentage of the overall fagade area. Staff feels that the proposed variance will have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties. In the future, staff will continue to address the issue of incidental signage on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the 120 square feet of incidental signage supported by staff for this location may not be an appropriate amount for a commercial building with a smaller front building fagade area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance subject to the following conditions: 1. The amount of incidental signage must not exceed 120 square feet. 2. The incidental signage must be located on the 10 northernmost windows of the building's front fagade, facing Stagecoach Road. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 24, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that this application be deferred to the July 29, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 29, 2002 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 6 NEWROCK PARKING DECK TRAVELERS INSURANCE BUILDING ��- +iEr;L ES7P,Tc Ii1VEjT%!EitiT -�1- PUTNAM REALTY INC. INJAGINEERS SUITE 1820 UNION NATIONAL BANK BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE AC 501 376-3616 June 11, 2002 Board of Adjustment City of Little Rock Planning Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Board Members: Crackerbox LLC is asking for a variance on the 20 square feet incidental window signs: HOWARD 1. This store contains 25 windows of which 20 JOHNSON are on the front of the store. RESTAURANT VILLAGE 2. Facing the store, the right 10 windows have SHOPPING been used for merchandise pricing since the CENTER store was opened in 1998. We have had no STORYBOOK complaints until we had a new competitor. VILLAGE 3. Each of these windows have a 3'x 4' sign, GLENWOOD HEIGHTS therefore, we are asking for a variance of 120 square feet. HOWARD JOHNSON MOTEL ly, C SCHOOLWOODALLENDALE rSinc l, Agent JAMESTOWN APARTMENTS JH / h j11 L, WINDAMERE APARTMENTS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING BUSINESS COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL SPECIALISTS _` REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS BUSINESS COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS (= '° DIVESTMENTS & ACQUISITIONS �' / APPRAISALS - / June 24, 2b02 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-7231 Owner: Viola M. Smith Address: 5901 Palo Alto Drive Description: Lot 24, Traskwood Manor Subdivision Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a carport addition with a reduced front yard setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The property at 5901 Palo Alto Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is an existing 16 foot wide driveway at the northwest corner of the property. The survey of the property notes that a two -car garage was enclosed to create a den in 1969. The applicant recently constructed a 16 foot by 16 foot carport addition over the existing driveway. The carport structure is attached to the house and is set back approximately 10 feet from the front property line and 21 feet from the street curb. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum setback of 25 feet from a front property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced front yard setback. l June 24, 2002 Item No.: 5 (Cont. Staff does not support the proposed variance. Although the carport is unenclosed on the north, east and west sides, staff does not feel that the applicant has provided justification to support the requested variance. To staff's knowledge, none of the other single family residences fronting on Palo Alto Drive have carport structures which extend into the required front yard. C. Staff Analysis: Staff does not support the requested front yard setback variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 24, 2002) Viola Smith was present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present in opposition. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Viola Smith addressed the Board in support of the application. She stated that she recently purchased the house and the garage had already been converted into a den. She noted that she recently had the carport structure constructed to protect her vehicle from the weather. She presented photos to the Board of a carport structure on Drexel Drive which did not conform to ordinance standards, and noted that there were other such structures in the Traskwood Subdivision. Chairman Ruck asked if the carport structure was unenclosed. Ms. Smith stated that it was open on the north, east and west sides. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if a building permit with inspection was required for a carport addition. Staff responded that it was a requirement. Chairman Ruck stated that if the plat of the property showed a platted front building line, a replat would need to be done. Vice -Chairman Gray stated that if a variance is approved, a building permit would need to be obtained. He stated that if the carport structure was not constructed to code, it might have to be rebuilt. This issue was briefly discussed. Michael Fangue, of 5910 Palo Alto Drive, spoke in opposition to the application. He presented photos of Ms. Smith's carport structure to the Board. He noted that Ms. Smith's carport structure was not constructed very well. He stated that the structure had already been repaired. Mr. Fangue also stated that he was not notified of the public hearing. 2 June 24, 2002 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) Ms. Smith stated that she attempted to notify the owner of 5910 Palo Alto Drive, but no one would answer the door. She also noted that the construction of the carport structure was not completed, because she was told to stop work by the City. There was a motion to approve the application subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained. 2. The carport structure must be unenclosed on the north, east and west sides. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes and 5 nays. The application was denied. 3 17j -e,7_ ,Z - 72-:3 i4 To Whom it May Concern: This is a letter concerning the property located at 5901 Palo Alto Dr. in Little Rock and the structure that was added to that property on April of this year. Due to unusal lot configuration this addition was built adjoining to the already established home. The carport addition was unable to be built behind or along side of the home due to the size of the lot. This structure had to be added to the front of the home instead. This carpot has not affected the surrounding property adveresly, and there is sufficent area left as not to be a hinderance to any neighboring structure. Therefore, due to these reasons, I ask you to consider this a reasonable justification to make a variance for my property. This modification to the property was of necessity and was also a welcome addition to my lot and to the area in general. Thank you for your consideration , Viola Smith June 24, 2002 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-7234 Owner: Wilburn and Arleen Daniels Address: 1855 Chester Street Description: Southeast corner of Chester Street and Wright Avenue Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: An appeal is requested from the administrative procedure/policy regarding the restrictions for displaying and selling items from a transient location. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The property at 1855 Chester Street is zoned C-3 and contains an existing commercial building with associated drives and parking areas. Uses within the building include a beauty salon, auto repair and car wash. There is also a concession truck located along the north side of the building. The truck has been skirted with painted plywood to conceal the undercarriage and wheels. The property owners were recently issued a notice from the City's Zoning Enforcement Staff, based on the fact that the concession truck does not comply with all of the administrative restrictions for displaying and selling items from a transient location. These restrictions are provided on an June 24, 2002 No.: 6 (Cont. attached form for Board of Adjustment review. This form is given to all peddlers when a privilege license is approved. The concession truck in question conforms to all of the restrictions for displaying and selling of times from a transient location, except for restriction #8 which reads as follows: "8. At the end of each business day all related materials, equipment and vehicles must be removed from the site." The property owners ask that they not be required to remove the concession truck from the site at the end of each business day. They note in their attached cover letter that they would like to leave the concession truck parked on the site for security purposes. They explain that the lighting of this commercial property and an existing security system provide the best security for the vehicle, and moving it to another location at the end of each business day would put it at risk for vandalism. Therefore, the property owners are requesting an appeal from the administrative procedure/policy regarding the restrictions for displaying and selling of item from a transient location. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 24, 2002) Wilburn and Arleen Daniels were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff explained the requested appeal to the Board. Wilburn Daniels addressed the Board in support of the requested appeal. He stated that his family had owned the property for over 30 years. He presented the Board with photos of the property and concession truck. He stated that security was the main reason for leaving the concession truck on the site full time. He noted that the truck was connected to the building's security system. Mr. Daniels also noted that it would be difficult to remove the food items from the truck everyday. Chairman Ruck asked if the concession truck was located on the site all the time. Mr. Daniels stated that it was. He noted that there were flaps which covered the windows on the side of the truck. He also noted that the Health Department had approved the concession truck to be located at this site and explained. Chairman Ruck asked if the concession truck was connected to utilities in a permanent way. Mr. Daniels stated that they were not and explained. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if the concession business was doing well, and if the Daniels had considered making a permanent building addition for it. Mr. Daniels stated that he had thought of a building addition in the future. There was a 2 June 24, 2002 Item No.: 6 (Cont. discussion regarding a future building addition or making the temporary structure permanent. Chairman Ruck asked if the concession truck could be parked inside the commercial building. Mr. Daniels stated that he was not sure, as he had not measured the garage door on the building. This issue was briefly discussed. Gary Langlais asked how long the concession truck had been on the property. Mr. Daniels stated that the truck had been on the property four to five months. There was a brief discussion about moving the concessions business into the existing permanent building. Chairman Ruck asked if a time limit could be placed on an approved variance. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, stated that a time limit could be imposed. Andrew Francis noted that he would like for the Daniels to work with staff on the future of the property. He noted support of a time limit being placed on the appeal request. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if 6 months would be enough time for the applicant's to decide on other options for the property. Mr. Daniels stated that this would be enough time. The issue was briefly discussed. Andrew Francis made a motion to approve the requested appeal with a 6 month time limit. Scott Richburg stated that a one year limit would be more reasonable. Andrew Francis amended the motion to be approval with a one year time limit. Ms. Dawson stated that the applicant should consider alternatives to the permanent placement of the concession truck during the 12 month period. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if there were long-term leases for the businesses in the existing commercial building. Mr. Daniels indicated that there were none. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, stated that the concession truck must remain operable and licensed during the 12 month period. Ms. Dawson noted that the applicant was asking to leave the concession truck on the site 24 hours per day, not to operate a business 24 hours per day. This was briefly discussed. The Chairman called for a vote on the amended motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The appeal was granted, allowing the concession truck to remain on the site for a period not to exceed one (1) year from this date. KI -7,2- May 7.z May 2, 2002 TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Arleen and Wilburn Daniels SUBJECT: Administrative Guidelines #8 We request that the Board of Adjustment grant us permission to keep our concession vehicle on site at our existing business at 1855 Chester Street. We currently own a beauty salon as well as an auto repair and car wash at this location. Our concession stand serves the children in our community. We serve sandwiches and refreshments to the children. We are across the street from a library, school and church. Students as well as others come daily to our stand. We feel that this is a needed service in our community because the closest restaurant that caters to children is McDonald on Broadway. We respectfully ask your permission to keep our concession vehicle at this location and not move it around to the rear of the building or in an auto repair stall, for the fact that we need it here for security purposes. In this area, the lights remain on 24 hours a day and the security system for the existing business ties in together. Moving the concession vehicle puts us at risk for vandalism and food contamination. We thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. City of Little Rock Department of Planning and DevelopmentPlanning 723 West Markham Zoning and SUbdivlSlOn Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 (501) 371-4790 _ MEMORANDUM TO: ALL PEDDLERS FROM: KENNY SCOTT� PLANS AND CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR SUBJECT: RESTRICTIONS FOR DISPLAYING AND SELLING.OF ITEMS SUCH AS VEGETABLES, FRUIT, ETC. FROM A TRANSIENT LOCATION 1. Yoii must locate on property zoned C-3, C-4, or UU where the property is currently developed. Open display of merchandise in all other zones is prohibited. 2. You cannot have temporary signs at the location. 3. You must have your Privilege License on the site where you are located. 4. Merchandise must be kept on your vehicles at all times, except on C-4 zoned property. 5. You cannot set up or display anything in the public right-of-way or anywhere on private property that will create a traffic hazard. 6. You must have permission of the property owner where you are displaying: 7. The premises must remain clean at all times. 8. At the end of each business day all related materials, equipment and vehicles must be removed from the site. SIGNATURE DATE June 24, 2002 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 issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7236 Legacy Builders, Inc. 2808 Valley Park Drive Lot 70, Pebble Beach Woods Addition, Phase II M A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow construction of a deck addition with a reduced rear yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential A two-story single family residence is currently under construction on the R-2 zoned lot at 2808 Valley Park Drive. There are several other single family residences under construction in this immediate area. As part of the development of this lot, the property owner proposes to construct a 12 foot by 17 foot deck on the rear of the single family structure. The proposed deck will be uncovered and unenclosed. The setback from the rear property line to the proposed deck ranges from 16.5 feet to 20 feet. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the property owner requests a variance to allow a reduced rear yard setback for the proposed deck addition. June 24, 2002 Item No.: 7 (Co Staff is supportive of the requested variance for a reduced rear yard setback. Staff feels that the request is reasonable, based on the unusual lot configuration. If the rear property line of this lot were more parallel with the front property line, the proposed deck addition would comply with the setback requirements and a variance would not be needed. Staff feels that the proposed deck addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance subject to the deck remaining uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 24, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 72-3� INC. 24907 Kent Lane • Little Rock, AR 72223 • Office: (501) 448-8449 • Fax: 448-9671 May 21, 2002 City of Little Rock Residential Zoning Variance Little Rock, AR To Whom It May Concern: Legacy Builders, Inc. desires to build a deck on the rear of the house located at 2808 Valley Park Drive for an egress from rear door. Because of the size of lot and angle of the back property line the deck will need to exceed the rear yard setback. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation. Regards, j egacy Builders, Inc. Byron G. Earls cc: File June 24, 2002 File No.: Z-7237 Owner: JSW, LLC Address: 801 West 3rd Street Description: East %2 of Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 142, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: UU Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area and development provisions of Section 36- 342.1 to allow a building addition which is not located along the front property line, with the front fagade having less than 60% transparent or window display. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Law Office Law Office A landscaping upgrade toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance equal to the building expansion (21 %) proposed will be required. C. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 801 West 3rd Street is occupied by a one-story brick office building. There is an asphalt parking lot on the south side of the building, with access from State Street. The property owner proposes to construct a 12 foot by 42 foot addition to the existing office building. The proposed addition will be located along the west side of the building. June 24, 2002 No.: 8 (Cont. The property owner is requesting two (2) variances from the Urban Use District area and development provisions of Section 36-342.1 for the proposed addition. The first variance is from the area provisions of Section 36-342.1(f)(1). This section requires that buildings be constructed to front property lines, with a zero (0) front yard setback. The applicant proposes to locate the building addition 33 feet back from the front (West P Street) property line. The applicant has noted that pushing the building addition to the front property line would negatively change the architecture of the building, and eliminate existing landscaping at the northwest corner of the building. The second variance is from the development provisions of Section 36-342.1(c)(8). This section reads as follows: "Street -level floor. The ground -level (street fronting) floor of nonresidential structures shall have a minimum surface area of sixty (60) percent transparent or window display." The applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement based on the fact that the building addition will not be located on the front property line, nor readily visible from West 3rd Street. Staff is supportive of the variance requests. Staff feels that locating the building addition on the front (West P Street) property line would serve no real purpose, and not be compatible with the other properties within this block which front on West 3`d Street. These other properties which front on West 3`d Street have buildings with front setbacks of 15 feet or greater. Additionally, constructing the building addition at the front property line would eliminate a nice existing landscaped area at the northwest corner of the building. Staff also feels that the requested variance from the 60% glass coverage for the front fagade is reasonable. The front of the building addition will be set back approximately 33 feet from the front property line, and not very visible from West 3rd Street. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to compliance with the landscape and buffer requirement as noted in paragraph B. of this report. 2 June 24, 2002 Item No.: 8 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 24, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 9 AIN W, LIXX 2 7�3 i c/o PERRONI & JAMES STEWART BUILDING 801 WEST THIRD STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-2103 Telephone 501/372-6555 Fax 501/372-6333 May 17, 2002 VIA HAND DELIVERY City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Application for Non -Residential Zoning Variance To Whom It May Concern: Please consider this letter as the application for a non-residential zoning variance for the business located at 801 West Third Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, more specifically, east one-half of lots 10, 11 and 12, block 142, original City of Little Rock. We propose to add an addition to the office on the west side to allow additional office space for existing personnel. The reason for the extension to the west side instead of the south side is the retain the present number of parking spaces. We do not seek an extension to the front property line for several reasons. First, an extension to the front of the property would substantially change the architecture of the building, and we believe, substantially detract from its street facade. As you can see from the plans, a brick flower bed surrounds the front portion of the building. It is our desire to leave this brick flower bed in place and not alter the facade. You will note that there is approximately a one foot flare on the front twelve feet of the building. In addition, we do not need the extra square footage to expand to the front. If we were to take the expansion to the front of the building the expansion would not cover the full length of the building. Further, we are concerned that expansion to the front of the building would be impaired or prohibited because of underground utilities including gas and water lines. City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development May 17, 2002 Page 2 We also understand that, unless a variance is granted, the facade of the new addition must be a least 60% glass. We specifically request a variance from this requirement since this expansion will not be to the front of the building. In addition; the proposed addition will not be readily visible from the street and will be partially concealed by existing landscaping. We have enclosed with this application the following: 1. Six copies of the survey for the property which includes the proposed improvements; and 2. A check made payable to the City of Little Rock in the amount of $205.00 for the filing fee. In addition, we have obtained from Beach Abstract a list of owners of neighboring property to send the required notice by certified mail. We will send the required notice to property owners within 200 feet of the property by certified mail. We also understand we will be given a sign indicating that the posted property is being considered for a zoning variance. This sign will be posted on the front of the property visible from the street at least ten days in advance of the meeting. If there is anything else we need to do in connection with this application (other than providing the required affidavits and attending the meeting) please let us know immediately. We look forward to working with you on this. Member PRJ:dr Enclosures building expansion\t planning & development.051702 June 24, 2002 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7238 Owner: Ann Patterson and Max Snowden Address: 5120 Country Club Blvd. Description: Lot 9, Block 12, Newton's Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a carport addition with a reduced side yard setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5120 Country Club Blvd. contains a two-story, brick and frame single family residence. There is an existing driveway from Country Club Blvd. located at the southeast corner of the property. The house is set back approximately 49 feet from the front property line. The property owner proposes to construct two (2) additions to the existing house. The first is a two-story addition at the rear (northwest corner) of the structure. This addition will be for a screened porch and play room. The second proposed addition is a porch and carport (unenclosed) addition to the front of the house. The owner has noted that the carport will have gutters to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the east. June 24, 2002 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) The proposed additions comply with all of the building setback requirements for R-2 zoning, with the exception of the carport's side yard setback. The proposed side yard setback for the carport is 1.17 feet. Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet. Therefore, the property owner is requesting a variance to allow a reduced side yard setback for the carport structure. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the proposed carport structure is located too close to the east property line. Even though the applicant is proposing gutters to prevent water runoff onto the adjacent property to the east, staff feels that the 1.17 foot proposed side yard setback will not leave enough space between the carport and the side property line to allow for maintenance of the structure. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not support the requested side yard setback variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 24, 2002) Max Snowden, Ann Patterson and Carolyn Lindsey were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Max Snowden addressed the Board in support of the application and briefly described the proposal. Carolyn Lindsey stated that it was possible to have an 18 to 22 inch setback from the east property line by increasing the roof pitch. Mr. Snowden indicated that maintenance of the carport structure would not be an issue because the property owner to the east supported the construction. Mr. Snowden indicated that he did not support a greater roof pitch and explained. Gary Langlais asked if the carport width could be reduced. Ms. Lindsey stated that there was nine (9) feet of clearance for each parking space and explained. This issue was briefly discussed. There was a brief discussion pertaining to the maintenance of the east side of the structure. Andrew Francis expressed concern with the proposed distance from the carport structure to the east property line. He noted that there needed to be a slightly greater setback. Ms. Lindsey stated that with an increased roof pitch more side yard setback could be provided. 0 l June 24, 20U2 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) Staff asked about obtaining an access/maintenance easement along the east property line. Mr. Snowden explained that the property owner to the east was an elderly lady, who would not be capable of signing such an easement. Andrew Francis stated that he could support a side yard setback of 22 inches, even if the guttering was within the 22 inch area. Vice -Chairman Gray expressed no problem with the variance an applied for. Chairman Ruck asked if the applicants wanted to amend the application. Mr. Snowden stated that he felt the application as requested was reasonable. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, noted that if the Board denied the application, the applicant would have to wait one (1) year before a similar application could be filed. This issue was briefly discussed. Gary Langlais indicated support for the application as filed. Scott Richburg stated that he would support an increased side yard setback. Ms. Lindsey informed the Board that she wished to amend the application. She stated that a 22 inch setback would be provided along the east property line. There was a motion to approve the amended application (22 inch side yard setback) subject to the following conditions: (1) Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the east. (2) The guttering may be located within the 22 inch side yard (east) setback. (3) The carport structure must remain unenclosed on the south, east and west sides. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The amended application was approved. 3 Yeary Lindsey Architects May 14, 2002 Mr. Dana Carney Department of Neighborhoods and Planning 723 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Zoning Variance Application for Patterson/ Snowden Residence, 5120 Country Club Blvd. Dear Dana, 14,,-4-1 -77-3Y We are requesting a zoning variance at 5120 Country Club Blvd. to allow an encroachment into the east side yard setback of 5 feet. Our proposed plan includes a one story two -car carport and front porch that encroaches 3.83 feet into the east side yard setback to provide the proper width for parking two cars without parking in front of the door or eliminating the sidewalk to the front door. The driveway will use the existing curb cut. We acknowledge the close proximity of the house to the east (5 feet off of the shared property line), but feel the openness of the carport and the use of gutters at the eaves mitigates any negative impact. The carport and the adjacent house will be 6.17 feet apart. It is our opinion that pulling the facade of this house toward the street and more in line with the facades of the other houses on the street will make the scale and character of the 5100 block of Country Club Boulevard more cohesive. We also propose a two story screened porch/ play room addition to the rear of the house. This addition is within the setbacks and should not require a variance. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Qwg-v� D�,Alv Carolyn Lin ey, AIA 319 President Clinton Ave., Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-5940 FX: 501-707-0118 June 24, 2002 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Z-7240 Owner: David Scott Taylor Address: 23 Chalamont Way Description: Lot 32, Block 73, Chenal Valley Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a deck addition with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: A two-story single family residential structure is currently under construction on the R-2 zoned lot at 23 Chalamont Way. There are three (3) other single family residents at the end of Chalamont Way which are currently under construction. The property owner wishes to construct a 12 foot by 18 foot uncovered deck on the rear (west side) of the single family structure. The deck will maintain a 15 foot setback from the rear property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet for single family homes in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the property owner is requesting a variance to allow the deck construction with a reduced rear yard setback. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff feels that the variance is reasonable based on the unusual shape of the lot. This lot has only 94 June 24, 2002 Item No.: 10 (Cont. feet of lot depth, with an excessive slope. Staff feels that the deck addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. There were no lots shown to the rear (south and west) of this lot on the approved preliminary plat of this subdivision. Additionally, the property west and south of this lot has excessive slope that, in all likelihood, will not be conducive to any future development. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to the deck addition remaining uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 24, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 J "-4 ) C, To: Little Rock Board of Adjustments. Y-- `72- c From: Dave Taylor P.O. Box 241759 Little Rock, AR. 72223 Date: May 24, 2002. Re: 23 Chalmanot Way Variance request. Dear Little Rock Board of Adjustments. I am building a new home at 23 Chalamont Way in Little Rock. The house sets on a lot in a circle with a 25 percent slope going down away from the curb, additionally the lot is only 44 feet wide at the street and 94 feet deep. These two site conditions limit the area behind the house for constructing a sun deck without going over the 25 foot building line. I would greatly appreciate your time in reviewing my request in asking for a variance to constructing my sundeck over the 25 foot building line. Please remember that the base of Shinal Mt. Abuts my back property line and has a very steep slope and currently there are no plans to my knowledge that any thing will every be constructed there. Please call me at 501-517-6319 if you have any question. Sincerely Dave Taylor { June 24, 2002 ITEM NO.: 11 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-7241 Peggy Keyes 4717 Elmwood Drive Lot 10 and the South 30 feet of Lot 11, Block 9, Pike Addition MVA Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence height provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a six (6) foot high privacy fence between a required building setback and a street right-of-way. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The existing fence is located in the public right-of-way. Relocate fence to property boundary or obtain franchise agreement with Public Works. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 4717 Elmwood Drive contains a one-story frame single family residence. The property owner recently removed an old fence which enclosed the rear yard and began replacing it with a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence. The new privacy fence extends from the house to the south property line and along the majority of the south property line (along Brandon Drive right-of-way). The fence is actually located approximately 4.5 feet into the Brandon Drive right-of-way. The fence construction was halted when the property owner received a courtesy notice from the City's Zoning Enforcement Staff. Section 36- 516(e)(1) allows a maximum height of four (4) feet for fences located June 24, 2002 Item No.: 11 (Cont.) between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way. The minimum required building setback line along the south (Brandon Drive side) property line is eight (8) feet. Therefore, the property owner requests a variance to allow the six (6) high privacy fence between the required eight (8) foot side yard setback and the Brandon Drive right-of- way. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff feels that the new wood privacy fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. This property has a rear yard relationship with the property immediately east, with an alley separating the properties. Additionally, Public Works has noted that there are no sight/distance issues associated with the new fence. There is very little traffic in this immediate area along Elmwood Drive and Brandon Drive. Public Works has also noted support of a franchise permit to leave the fence in the Brandon Drive right-of-way. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance subject to a franchise permit being obtained for that portion of the fence located in the Brandon Drive right-of-way. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 24, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 Dear Sirs: I own a property at 4717 Elmwood Drive. My son, Douglas, lives in the house. The fence around the back yard was unsightly --falling down --and we decided we would replace it beginning with the street side. (The house is on the corner of Elmwood and Brandon). We put the new fence back where the old fence was not realizing that a six foot fence on the street side was against a city ordinance. The fence does not block any view for traffic or in any way cause a problem for neighbors. In fact, they thought it looked so much better. I am writing to ask you for a variance to the ordinance so that we might leave the fence. We have gotten the signatures of the neighbors and none of them object to the fence. Thank you for your consideration and help in this matter. Si cerely, ea 4ee June 24, 2002 ITEM NO.: 12 File No.: Z-7242 Owner: Thomas and Beverly Reed Address: 33 Montvale Drive Description: Lot 66, Pebble Beach Estates Subdivision Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a deck addition with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 33 Montvale Drive contains a two-story, brick single family residence. There is an existing deck (approximately 300 square feet) located on the rear (east side) of the structure. The deck has a setback from the rear property line of 10 feet. Staff is unaware of any previous approval being granted for the existing deck. The property owner proposes to cover and enclose (screen -in) the existing deck structure and add approximately 120 square feet of new deck on the south side of the existing deck. The new deck addition will be unenclosed and uncovered, and located 11.5 feet to 14 feet from the rear property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the property owner is requesting a variance to allow the deck structures with a reduced rear yard setback. June 24, 2002 Item No.: 12 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff feels that the request is reasonable, based on the unusual configuration of the lot. The lot has a 25 foot front building line, but because of the narrowness of the front portion of the lot, the house is set back 31 feet from the front property line. If the front portion of the lot were wider and allowed the house to be pulled up to the building line and more parallel with the front property line, the rear yard setback would be close to the minimum requirement. Additionally, staff feels that the deck addition will have no adverse impact on adjacent properties. The property immediately east (rear) of the site is undeveloped and wooded. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance subject to the new deck addition remaining uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 24, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 0 Thomas Reed 33 Montvale Dr. Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 May 24, 2002 Board of Adjustment City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas To Whom It May Concern: Please accept the enclosed Application For Zoning Variance and this letter as formal request for a variance from the rear yard setback provisions of §36-254(d)(3) of the Little Rock City Code for my residence located at 33 Montvale Dr., Little Rock, Arkansas. I would like to screen in the existing deck and add a smaller landing and deck. The proposed improvements will provide greater privacy for our enjoyment of the deck. The variance requested will not actually result in the footprint of the structure being moved closer to the rear line because the existing deck is already inside the 25' foot setback. The deck was present when we purchased the home in May 2000 and, frankly, I was unaware of the setback provisions until I applied for the permit to screen in the porch. To my knowledge, the deck was built originally with the house; although, the original survey did not indicate a deck. Due to the fact the elevation at the rear of the house is approximately 10' above grade, it is apparent a deck/landing of some sort was required. Inasmuch as the rear line of the house is right on the 25' setback line, any landing and/or deck would encroach upon the setback line. The existing deck is approximately 10' off the rear property line and is not over the 10' utility easement running along the rear property line. The proposed deck addition will not be any closer to the rear property line and will not encroach the 10' easement as shown on the attached survey. Your kind consideration will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Tommy Reed , E7 Ll 0 fy O U W W I- O z Q LL O Q O' 00 W Q 0-0 0 ., m i. .41 E- z w U) m w Q z Ol w d TF' 0 w r F- o o z M � Z Q W � Z _ U z > m Lij � Q U � 1- LL U _3 e � LU Z } O U) O UJ LU Uu-<�� zQ (DCr = U U W 2 � C7 Q cr- 0-0 0 ., m i. .41 E- z w U) m w Q z Ol w d TF' 0 w r F- o o z M � Z Q W � Z _ U z > m Lij � Q U � 1- LL U _3 0-0 0 ., m i. .41 E- z w U) m w Q z Ol w d June 24, 2002 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. ,LZ� Z_ Chairman