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