The URL can be used to link to this page

boa_07 29 2002LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JULY 29, 2002 2:00 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the June 24, 2002 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present: Members Absent William Ruck, Chairman Scott Richburg Gary Langlais Andrew Francis Fred Gray, Vice Chairman City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA JULY 29, 2002 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Z -4283-A 7825 Y2 Stagecoach Road B. Z -4469-B 8822 Stagecoach Road II. NEW ITEMS: 1. Z -6040-A 7515 Baseline Road 2. Z -7078-A #2 Tracy Austin Court 3. Z -7079-B 8921 Fourche Dam Pike 4. Z-7247 323 Center Street 5. Z-7248 109 Main Street 6. Z-7249 1600 S. Pierce Street 7. Z-7250 4425 West 11 th Street 8. Z-7251 3800 Hill Road 9. Z-7252 10100 West 36th Street 10. Z-7254 1810 S. Franklin Street 11. Z-7255 54 Chenal Circle 12. Z-7256 NW corner Kavanaugh Blvd. and Midland Avenue 13. Z-7257 13001 Misty Glen Drive 14. Z-7260 521 Midland Avenue 15. Z-7262 2710 Kavanaugh Blvd. N O M N ■ � �� _ 3NId a31Zra3 � ¢ 6 co �+ eON� � NtlWa30 Lzz Lr) _ NIM W AVMOV088 Haar "No" 00 (V OMH0 ONIN lW a3H380 LO � ,g MOa000M g —13jN1S 3NId Q e � 3NId O an0 NOl11Wr 11005 N N�yb 1 s �NiydS' Q Nara alr3 h� Allsa3nlNn Allsa3nlNn m y�4 SONIadS a3A30 Q S31490H a $ Iddlss sin W sb IOJIHJ — o-� MAWS a MOaar6 NHOf y ye 3NN13H ON0131NDVHS S Oa 31 Jr S Slows ? o s WVNard A3Np0a R e' NY OA z ` sllrvn ul9 m � } x 39018 AWN SLIWII ALIO a�) � uil • p�a� z �S`P` Sllrvn A110 y � GR a g Nrnl3lnS w 1arM31s HSdb OOH tlMH IH yQ SilWn Allo 0JQ y4 �P / A V, r- "0 NJ 31VON833 c O 1/ 1 O l July 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Z -4283-A Albert Ross Sparks 7825 %Z Stagecoach Road Northeast corner of Stagecoach and Sibley Hole Roads C-1 A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-299 to allow a building addition with a reduced front yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Office and Catering Business Office and Catering Business 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. July 29, 2002 Item No.: A (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 July 29, 2002 Item No.: A (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. 9 July 29, 2002 Item No.: A (Cont.) r;r_»0to»•j_j�1 The applicant submitted a letter to staff on July 15, 2002 requesting that this application be deferred to the August 26, 2002 agenda. The applicant has noted that the will be out of town and unable to attend the July meeting. Staff supports the deferral request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that this application be deferred to the August 26, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 26, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. M - v7 -A * : +Ross arks+uil ler 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 % 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 comer 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 C1 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 CI zoning ordinance as it applies to our property. Sincerely, Ross Sparks Builders, Inc. Bry K. Sparks President Us encl. Six copies of site plan and survey cc: file July 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z -4469-B Owner: The Crackerbox, LLC Address: 8822 Stagecoach Road Description: Northwest corner of Stagecoach and Baseline Roads Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign regulations of Section 36-555 to permit incidental signs which exceed the 20 square foot maximum allowance. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Convenience store with gas pumps Proposed Use of Property: Convenience store with gas pumps STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: 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." 1 July 29, 2002 Item No.: B (Cont.) 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 facade 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. 2 July 29, 2002 Item No.: B (Cont.) The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 PUTNAM REALTY INC. SUITE 1820 UNION NATIONAL BANK BUILDING REAL ESTATE I?JVEST%%ENT c 0)U`SI-1i)f;� k A yLITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 June 11, 2002 IliIAGILiTEERS U PHONE AC 501 376-3616 Board of Adjustment City of Little Rock Planning Little Rock, Arkansas NEWROCK PARKING Dear Board Members: DECK TRAVELERS Crackerbox LLC is asking for a variance on the 20 square INSURANCE feet incidental window signs: BUILDING 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 10windows 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 GLENWOOD 3. Each of these windows have a 3'x 4' sign, HEIGHTS therefore, we are asking for a variance of 120 square feet. HOWARD JOHNSON MOTEL Sinc rely, i SCHOOLWOOD / ALLENDALE Jim Hill, Agent JAMESTOWN APARTMENTS JH / h j h WINDAMERE j APARTMENTS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING BUSINESS COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL SPECIALISTS i BUSINESS COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS '-- f REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS DIVESTMENTS & ACQUISITIONS APPRAISALS July 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z -6040-A Owner: Gil Chung Address: 7515 Baseline Road Description: Southeast corner of Baseline and Chicot Roads Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from Section 36- 557 to allow two (2) wall signs without public street frontage. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Convenience store with gas pumps Proposed Use of Property: Convenience store with gas pumps STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The property at 7515 Baseline Road is occupied by a newly constructed convenience store with gas pumps. There is a canopy structure which extends from the north side of the building, covering the gas pump islands. The applicant recently received permits to install two (2) wall signs on the west fagade of the canopy, facing Chicot Road. The applicant proposes to install the same two (2) signs on the east side of the canopy structure, which does not have street frontage. According to Section 36-557(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance: "All on -premises wall signs must face required street frontage except in complexes where a sign without street frontage would be the only means of identification for a tenant." July 29, 2002 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the two (2) wall signs on the east side of the canopy structure without public street frontage. Staff is supportive of the variance request. The two (2) proposed wall signs total approximately 21 square feet, and occupy only approximately 8.9 percent of the total canopy fagade area. Staff feels that signage on the east side of the canopy will provide much better identification of the convenience store to west -bound traffic, than would signage on the canopy's north face. With all of the properties east of the site (along Baseline Road) being occupied by commercial uses, the proposed signs on the canopy's east fagade should have no adverse impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to sign permits being obtained. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 W.R.. HESS oIL COMPANY ARKANSAS DISTRICT June 20, 2002 City of Little Rock Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Subject: Zoning Variance(Signs) 7515 Baseline Dear Addressees: -;4-/ -�0V0-4 This letter is to provide you with the reasons for our request to add two(2) signs to the canopy at the subject site. This would be identical to the approved signs on the west side of canopy. Since there is no street of the east side of site it is my understanding this requires our request for a variance. • This requested signage would provide auto's traveling west of Baseline to see brand of fuel(Hess) and name of store(Kwik Chek) • On seeing this signage several 100' from site they would be able to slow down, signal, enter left turn lane and turn. This would prevent the possibility of accidents. • At some point the trees on the OReilly Auto Parts Store which is neat to the Hess/KwikChek site on the east side will obstruct visibility to some degree. Since the canopy signage is at a level that this should not be a possible problem for years. • Sites next to and across from Hess/KwikChek are commerical and have extensive signage to assist their customers locate their services well in advance to them turning into their parking areas. I look forward to your approval to our request. Re rds; Jerry Di 'er District Manager Hess Oil Company Authorized Agent July 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -7078-A Owner: Dale and Eugenia McGinnis Address: #2 Tracy Austin Court Description: Lot 491 RR, Otter Creek Community Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow construction of a six (6) foot fence between a building setback line and a street right-of- way. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at #2 Tracy Austin Court contains a one-story brick single family residence. The applicant proposes to construct a six (6) foot high fence (approximately 118 linear feet total) along the north property line, within the northwest portion of the property. The proposed fence would be constructed as a four (4) foot solid wood structure, with two (2) feet of lattice at the top. There will be seven (7) foot high wood columns between the fence panels and eight (8) foot high columns at the entry gate. The applicant has already constructed the four (4) foot high portion of the fence, and has planted small evergreen trees between the fence and the curb line of Wimbledon Loop. July 29, 2002 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) Section 36-516(e)(1)a. requires that fences located between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way have a maximum height of four (4) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot fence height. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Although this property has a front yard relationship with the property immediately west, the applicant's proposed fence does not consist of six (6) foot high solid wood panels. In the past, staff has recommended the type of fence proposed by the applicant (four foot solid wood panels with two feet of lattice) where front yard relationships have existed. Therefore, staff feels that the six (6) foot fence, as proposed, will have no adverse impact on the adjacent property to the west or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. 2. The fence must be maintained with the solid wood portion being no higher than four (4) feet. A six (6) foot solid wood fence will not be allowed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff noted that the four (4) columns at the fence's entry gate were nine (9) feet in height, rather than eight (8) feet as noted in paragraph B. of the agenda report. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 June 20, 2002 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Sirs and/or Madams: T4 -e,- -- Z_ 2- 7,7Y -A I live at #2 Tracy Austin Court in Otter Creek Subdivisionand also own the house beside/behind me being, 14003 Wimbledon Loop. I'm requesting approval from the Board of Adjustment to install an additional two foot of trellis to be added on a four foot fence on a portion of my property on Wimbledon Loop. Please note that Wimbledon Loop is one of the two main streets through Otter Creek. It is very busy with both automobile traffic as well as joggers throughout the day. Two Tracy Austin is on the corner of Wimbledon Loop and Tracy Austin. My wife and I have a large dog and we would like to put a two foot trellis on top of a four foot wood fence to insure the safety of the residents in our area as well as keeping our dog inside our property lines. The proposed two foot additional trellis is approximately 65' back from the corner of Wimbledon and Tracy Austin intersection. Also, please note picture # 1& 2 with new fence of jogger and family member showing total non privacy. Each time we step out the back door.... Fishbowl.. I came before you about nine moths ago with a proposal to add a sunroom to the back of my house in place of a concrete patio with a lean to roof. Your committee approved it and I greatly appreciate it. At the time that I started remodeling the house there was an existing fence around the back yard and part of the side yard on the Wimbledon Loop side that had been therefor over ten years. It was a four foot wood fence with two feet of lattice on top (Please find enclosed pictures). During the construction, parts of the fence were damaged in addition to the normal aging and rotting. We totally removed the fence to clean up the area. We are replacing the fence to make it more aesthetically compatible with the neighborhood. We have had the property re -plated between the two houses I own to have more even boundary lines. When I went to get a permit to rebuild the fence we were denied permission to rebuild the portion of trellis above four feet because I already had the variance for the sunroom. Please find enclosed several pictures of the fence that pre-existed and a survey showing the fence at the time that I purchased the property approximately May, 2001. Also, I have neighbors that are in the process of writing letters of approval to build back the fence with four foot solid bottom and two foot trellis on top as well as approving all the improvements we have made to the property and thus the neighborhood. I appreciatethe oppertunity to answer any questions the board may have pertainingto this request. Thank You, Dale McGinnis July 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z -7079-B Lewis Gardner 8921 Fourche Dam Pike Tract C, Area 203, Little Rock Port Industrial Park C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from Section 36- 555 to permit a ground -mounted sign which exceeds the maximum height and area allowed by ordinance. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Convenience store with gas pumps (under construction) Convenience store with gas pumps A new convenience store with gas pumps is being constructed on the C-3 zoned property at the northeast corner of Fourche Dam Pike and Lindsey Road. The convenience store development will have access points from Fourche Dam Pike and Lindsey Road. Little Rock Port railroad property is located immediately north of the site, with Interstate 440 further north. On May 20, 2002 the Board of Adjustment denied variances for a proposed ground -mounted sign at this location. The proposed sign had a height of 60 feet and an area of 320 square feet. Staff supported the proposed sign height, but opposed the proposed sign area. July 29, 2002 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) Since that time the applicant has been working with staff on scaling down the area of the denied ground -mounted sign. The applicant is now proposing to construct a ground -mounted sign at the northwest corner of the development, with a height of 60 feet and an area of 241 square feet. Section 36-555 of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum ground - mounted sign height of 36 feet and a maximum area of 160 square feet. Based on the fact that the elevation of 1-440 is approximately 20.64 feet above the elevation of this property, staff could approve a sign height of 56.64 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances for the proposed ground -mounted sign height and area. Given the fact that this property has two (2) street frontages, the applicant would be allowed to install two (2) ground -mounted signs (one along each frontage), each having a maximum height of 36 feet and a maximum area of 160 square feet. In order to aid in the justification for the proposed variances, the applicant is willing to limit the height and area of the second ground -mounted sign. The applicant has stated that the second ground - mounted sign will be a monument -type sign, with a maximum height of 10 feet (including the base) and a maximum area of 78 square feet. The sign will be oriented to Lindsey Road. With the limitation proposed by the applicant for the second ground - mounted sign, staff is supportive of the requested variances to allow the ground -mounted sign to exceed the maximum sign height and area allowed by ordinance. The total ground -mounted sign area allowed by ordinance is 320 square feet (2 signs) for this corner property. The total sign area proposed by the applicant is 319 square feet. Staff feels that the ground -mounted signage as proposed will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties on the general area. Several variances (height and area) were previously granted for signs on the north side of 1-440 (Exxon, Texaco and McDonald's/Travelodge) by the former Sign Appeal Board and the Board of Adjustment. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow a ground -mounted sign which exceeds the maximum height and area allowed by ordinance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The ground -mounted sign will have a maximum height of 60 feet and a maximum area of 241 square feet. 2. The second ground -mounted sign on this property must be a monument -type sign, with a maximum height of 10 feet (including base) and a maximum area of 78 square feet. 3. Sign permits must be obtained for all signage. 2 C July 29, 2002 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) 4. The ground -mounted signs must be set back at least five (5) feet from any property line, as measured from the nearest edge of the sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 91 NEW ROCK PARKING DECK TRAVELERS INSURANCE BUILDING HOWARD JOHNSON RESTAURANT VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER STORYBOOK VILLAGE GLENWOOD HEIGHTS HOWARD JOHNSON MOTEL SCHOOLWOOD ALLENDALE JAMESTOWN APARTMENTS WINDAMERE APARTMENTS ;d PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING BUSINESS COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL SPECIALISTS REALESi'ATE INVE-EST`.IE,'J � �~ � �� ('0UN1 1:I.l�f,, 7, PUTNAM REALTY INC.IAIAGINTERS ....4.. » s_...... ,. s .._.., a........ _. _..�..»_ � .....�.. v._._..... _. . ..._ .�.._.».. . ... �,.... ..r ..... _..... .... ...e ..�........ .. .....................wa. �a .._ ..e, iA...... .....v r.... w.:Y� SUITE 1820 UNION NATIONAL BANK BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE AC 501376-3616 June 19, 2002 Board of Adjustment City of Little Rock Planning Little Rock, Arkansas RE: Signage For Crackerbox LLC Located at 8921 Fourche Dam Pike Dear Board Members: We are asking for the following variances: 1. Corner of Lindsey and Fourche Dam. Sign to be ground mounted, consisting of 80 square feet, to be no higher than 8 or 10 feet. This sign will have to be a new design. 2. The 60 foot pole mounted sign will be 241 square feet. Copies of this sign are attached. The reason for this size, is the location is 570 feet from centerline of I-440. 7S ely, im Hill, Agent JH/hjh Attachment BUSINESS COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTSREAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS ?j DIVESTMENTS & ACQUISITIONS APPRAISALS i July 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-7247 Owner: Catlett Tower Building Address: 323 Center Street Description: North side of West 4th Street, between Center and Louisiana Streets Zoned: UU Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the use regulations of Section 36-342.1 to allow outside restaurant seating in the UU Zoning District. 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 Office and Commercial Mixed Office and Commercial Public Works has no objection to the outdoor dining as long as none of the tables or chairs are located in the right-of-way blocking any portion of the sidewalk. B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 323 Center Street is occupied by the Catlett Tower Building, a multi -story office/commercial building. There is an alcove area located along the south side of the building (north side of West 4th Street). The Downtown Deli, one of the ground floor tenants, recently placed tables and chairs within this alcove area, creating an outdoor dining area. The restaurant owner recently received a notice from the City's Zoning Enforcement staff to cease the outside seating based on the fact that outside commercial uses are not allowed in the UU Zoning District. Therefore, the applicant requests a variance from this standard. July 29, 2002 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) "According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36- 342.1(d)(1), UU Urban Use District standards: `Permitted uses. Uses permitted shall include all those allowed in the residential districts, office districts and commercial districts as "permitted uses," in this chapter 36. Except that, all uses must be inside or enclosed.' Staff is supportive of the requested variance. To staff's knowledge, all of the outside seating areas will be located on the owner's property and not in the public right-of-way. It appears that the outside seating areas will not affect the sidewalk along West 4th Street in any way. The outside seating area should have no adverse impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow outside restaurant seating, subject to all of the tables and chairs being located within the alcove area and not encroaching onto the sidewalk (public right-of-way) along West 4th Street or blocking public access to the building entrances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 61 6/II/02 City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Developement To whom it may concern, r -f-f 4- 7 2 4 7 Downtown Deli wishes to request a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Downtown Deli wishes to have outside patio tables under the Catlett Tower Builditng awning due to the internal structural configurations. These tables will stay under the awning at all times not impeding the sidewalk on Fourth Street. Downtown Deli has approval from the Catlett Tower Building and has spoken with all tenants within two hundred square feet of proposed tables. Sincerely, P. M. Zello /�, `66 - 3116 0 Fax July 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7248 Block 2 Limited Partnership 109 Main Street Part of Block 2, Original City of Little Rock UU Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Sections 36-553 and the development provisions of Section 36-342.1 to allow a projecting sign which extends into the public right-of-way. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Mixed Office, Commercial and Residential Mixed Office, Commercial and Residential The UU zoned property at 109 Main Street contains an existing building, which is currently being redeveloped for a mixture of office, commercial and residential uses. The tenant (Sims Bar -B -Q) who is located on the ground floor of the building is requesting variances to allow a projecting sign which extends over the property line and into the public right-of-way. The building at this location sits on the property line. The proposed sign will have an area of approximately 9.62 square feet, with a minimum clearance of nine (9) feet above the sidewalk. The sign will be perpendicular to the building and Main Street. The sign will have a circular shape, contain the wording "Sims Bar B -Q" and be neon lighted. July 29, 2002 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) According to Section 36-342.1(c)(9)a. (UU District Development Criteria), "objects shall not project from the building fagade over the public right-of- way except for awnings and balconies." In addition, Section 36- 342.1(c)(11) permits signage in the UU district as allowed in Section 36- 553, signs permitted in institutional and office zones. Section 36-553 allows one (1) projecting sign per occupancy, not to exceed 12 square feet in area, with a minimum setback of five (5) feet from property lines. The sign is required to have a minimum clearance of nine (9) feet over sidewalks. In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 36-342.1(c)(9)a. to allow a sign which projects from the building into the right-of-way, and a variance from Section 36-553 to allow the projecting sign to have no setback from property lines. The applicant has applied for a franchise permit for the sign. The franchise application has gone through the review process, with approval by the Board of Adjustment being the only outstanding issue. Once the Board approves the variances associated with the sign, the franchise can be granted. Staff believes that the requested variance is reasonable and supports the application. The proposed projecting sign should aid in the identification and location of the business, and would not be out of character with other signs in the general area. Staff feels that the projecting sign will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance for the proposed projecting sign subject to the following conditions: 1. A franchise must be obtained for the sign. 2. A sign permit must be obtained for the sign. 3. The sign will have a maximum area of 12 square feet. 4. The sign must maintain a minimum nine (9) foot clearance above the sidewalk. 5. Only one (1) projecting sign will be allowed for this occupancy. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. 2 July 29, 2002 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 Planning & Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Sims Bar- B- Que Sign Mr. Moore My business is located at 109 Main Street. I now have a wall sign and I would like to change it to a projection sign. It is hard to see the sign when walking down Markham or Main Street unless you are directly in front of my Restaurant. I am going to have made a nice double face projecting sign with neon faces for illumination. I feel this will look nice and also dress up Main Street at my location. Thank you in advance for your consideration. July 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7249 O. C. McMahon 1600 S. Pierce Street Lot 1, Block 6, Cherry and Cox Addition R-3 Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow a carport structure with a reduced side yard setback and separation from the principal structure. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-3 zoned property at 1600 S. Pierce Street is occupied by a one- story frame single family residence. There is an existing driveway from West 16th Street, with an 18 foot by 20 foot metal carport structure over a concrete parking pad. The property owner recently received a Courtesy Notice from the City's Zoning Enforcement staff based on the fact that the carport structure does not comply with the minimum street side yard setback or the minimum separation from the principal structure. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum street side yard setback of 15 feet for accessory buildings. Also, Section 36-156(a)(2)b. requires that accessory buildings be separated from principal structures by a minimum of six (6) feet. The existing carport July 29, 2002 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) structure is located on the north property line, with no street side yard setback. The structure is also located three (3) to four (4) feet from the northwest corner of the principal residential structure. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these standards. Staff supports the requested variances. Staff's support is based primarily on the fact that the carport structure is needed for a disabled resident. Therefore, staff feels that it is reasonable to place the carport structure over the existing concrete parking pad. Although staff supports the variance requests, given the fact that the carport structure is not on a permanent foundation, staff feels that the variances should be approved for this property owner's use only. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances for reduced street side yard setback and building separation associated with the accessory carport structure, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances be approved for the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. O. C. McMahon, only. 2. If the property is sold, or Mr. and Mrs. McMahon vacate the property, the carport structure must be removed from the site or moved to meet the minimum required setbacks. Staff will inspect the property every five (5) years to verify the ownership and occupancy of the property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 e, ,2— 72—f? We are requesting a variance from the city zoning ordinance to allow a existing carport cover to remain over the driveway at 1600 S Pierce. Since my father is disabled this carport provides him shelter from the elements when going to and from the car. Due to the small size of the lot moving the cover back 15' from the property line will effectively cut off access to the back of their yard. Thank you for your considerati�onn�---- July 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Owner: Address.- Description: ddress:Description: Zoned: Z-7250 0011rrIMMU MiRNIPTe i1 4425 West 11 t" Street Southeast corner of West 11th and Washington Streets R-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow a carport structure with reduced setbacks and separation from the principal structure. A waiver of the filing fee is also requested. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-3 zoned property at 4425 West 11th Street is occupied by a one- story frame single family residential structure. There is a metal carport structure located over a concrete parking pad at the northwest corner of the house. The carport structure is accessed from Washington Street. The property owner recently received a courtesy notice from the City's Zoning Enforcement Staff based on the fact that the carport structure does not comply with the minimum front and street side yard setbacks, or the minimum separation from the principal structure. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 60 feet and a minimum street side yard setback of July 29, 2002 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) 15 feet for accessory buildings. Also, Section 36-156(a)(2)b. requires that accessory buildings be separated from principal structures by a minimum of six (6) feet. The existing carport structure is located approximately 19 feet from the front (north) property line, with the structure extending over the west property line into the right-of-way of Washington Street. The structure is also located 2.5 feet to 4.5 feet from the northwest corner of the principal residential structure. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these standards. Staff supports the requested variances. Staff's support is based primarily on the fact that the carport structure is needed by the property owner for health and security reasons. Therefore, staff feels that it is reasonable to place the carport structure over the existing concrete parking pad. Although staff supports the variance requests, given the fact that the carport structure is not on a permanent foundation, staff feels that the variances should be approved for this property owner's use only. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the $85.00 filing fee. The applicant notes in the attached letter that she is a senior citizen on a very limited income and has rather large medication bills each month. Staff supports the waiver of the filing fee. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with the accessory carport structure, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances be approved for the property owner, Willie Mae Madison, only. 2. If the property is sold, or if Ms. Madison vacates the property, the carport structure must be removed from the site or moved to meet the minimum required setbacks. 3. A franchise must be obtained for that portion of the carport structure which extends into the public right-of-way. 4. Staff also supports the requested waiver of the $85.00 filing fee. Staff will inspect the property every five (5) years to verify the ownership and occupancy of the property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. 2 July 29, 2002 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 i I J, an UJ4��, a�k� J I{`rf�i F N ------! f f � t�'�`��i�v _v�c•�•--___`�.j_ J_�/_.x-iu�-v rcrl'u.�v ___. � ,civ ��.�_�Ue� �/u� ��.� u/rv.� �,.� a ��,�.� :,Tc� wu-•�,�..-- L''U rx--ZX e.> �i Giz .—�`—'?` `- - ---------- --- -- �-J """l�j.�Gc.�.�L_Z �/C.iic--p- C�rCL•�4��la�r •'u'`'�-tt-`sem-� J �-�y-�-� �v�i--- I f/ d� Ki7V' h••�- 'i1'�$, t f —a-4-i—Ltd! CiC..4�'Q.Ri C,G •[.-fC�� Ll.�� ,P _. vUl I n 0 7 J � arc �� Cf'.�G[iv`•' _v7't(1ct�,t��,L�*,e.J lc�.�� _. � ,N l 5 A!f"V - ��v✓_5.r�"� v�1('i'.' ,�.6/+� � _ ��nn'{{{Jn�Ctl�..t�j___-'S.�t.'v -- i 44, ��YL! tet/ R��✓ •,� -� i i 40 air.. r Al a �� f 4 / � / l./� f � � /f- V D G� July 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7251 Owner: Doug and Denise Martin Address: 3800 Hill Road Description: Lots 1, 2 and 3 and Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 14, Pulaski Heights Addition; Lot 6, Block 3, Oakwood Place Addition; Lot E, Mildred M. Moss Replat Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: R-3 and R-5 Variances are requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 and the area provisions of Section 36-259 to allow construction of a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed and a swimming pool with a reduced rear yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential and Multifamily Residential Single Family Residential and Multifamily Residential The property at 3800 Hill Road (Lots 1, 2, 3 and Lots 10, 11, 12, Block 14, Pulaski Heights Addition) is zoned R -3/R-5 and contains a two-story brick single family residence, with a large grass -covered rear yard area. Lot E, Mildred M. Moss Replat (zoned R-5) is located at the northwest corner of the single family property and is occupied by a multifamily structure which the property owner proposes to remove from the site. Lot 6, Block 3, July 29, 2002 Item No.: 8 Oakwood Place Addition is immediately to the north and contains a two- story apartment building. All of the above referenced property is owned by Doug and Denise Martin. The Martins are proposing to make several improvements to the property. A swimming pool with cabana is proposed to be constructed within the grass -covered rear yard area north of the single family residence. After removal of the multifamily structure from Lot E, Mildred M. Moss Replat, a tennis court (enclosed by a 10 foot fence) and a gazebo will be constructed on this lot. The tennis court, gazebo and swimming pool/cabana will be for the use and benefit of the single family residence. A second swimming pool is proposed to be constructed at the southeast corner of Lot 6, Block 3, Oakwood Place Addition. This swimming pool will be used by the tenants of the multifamily structure on this lot. The applicants are requesting two (2) variances for the proposed construction. The first variance is the fence height regulations of Section 36-516. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. allows a maximum residential fence height of six (6) feet. As noted previously, the fence which is proposed to enclose the tennis court is 10 feet in height. The second variance is from the area provisions of Section 36-259. Section 36-259(d)(3) requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet for structures constructed in R-5 zoning. The swimming pool proposed to be constructed at the southeast corner of Lot 6, Block 3, Oakwood Place Addition has a rear yard setback of approximately nine (9) feet from the rear property line (the centerline of a closed alley). The swimming pool/cabana to be constructed within the rear yard area of the single family residence complies with ordinance standards. Staff is supportive of the variance requests. The 10 foot high fence proposed around the tennis court is a standard size fence for the perimeter of a tennis court. The fence should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Multifamily structures are located north, south and west of the tennis court site. The swimming pool construction proposed for Lot 6, Block 3, Oakwood Place Addition should also prove to have no adverse impact on the general area. The rear yard setback variance proposed is along a common lot line of property owned by the Martins. Based on the fact that this swimming pool will be part of the multifamily development, a screening fence will be required between Lot 6, Block 3, Oakwood Place Addition and the single family property immediately east in order to screen the outdoor multifamily activities. Additionally, any lighting of the tennis court and swimming pool areas must be low-level and directed away from the adjacent single family residential properties. 2 f July 29, 2002 Item No.: 8 (Cont.) C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained for all construction. 2. A six (6) foot high screening fence with its face side directed outward will be required along the east property line of Lot 6, Block 3, Oakwood Place Addition, in order to screen the swimming pool area from the adjacent single family property. 3. Any site lighting for the swimming pool and tennis court areas must be low-level and directed away from adjacent single family property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 MCGEHEE DESIGN GrR0UP, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING June 21, 2002 Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR. 72201 Dear Members: As authorized agent for Mr. Doug Martin, I would like to request a zoning variance on the residence located at 3800 Hill Road, Little Rock, Arkansas. Mr. Martin proposes to build a tennis court with a standard 10- foot tall fence surrounding said court. It has been explained to me by The Department of Planning and Development that a variance is needed for the standard fence height on said tennis court. The design calls for the fence to be located within 2 feet of the west property line and 2 feet of the south property line. The Department explain the normal setback on the west side would be 25 feet from the center line of Cedar Street (which is actually now a private drive were it abuts the property, and 5 feet on the south side. The tennis court would be built where there is now a 2 -story brick apartment building owned by Mr. Martin. This building would be razed. My client asked for a variance for the following reasons (please see Site Plan): i) Because of the unusual lot configuration, the court fits into this corner of the site like a glove. Without a variance there would be an inaccessible, 25 x 60 foot "dead" space west of the court. 2) Placement allows access from the upper part of the property to the lower part. 3) There is an excessive slope due north of the court. 4) Moving the court to the west keeps the court off a utility easement to the east, and away from a utility light pole. 5) Best fit in order to preserve natural wooded area and mature tree to the north, while still preserving naturalized area west of the court. It is my clients hope that you find the above reasons adequate to allow for the zoning variance he seeks. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 7 Stewart B. McGehee McGehee Design Group, President 2000 Magnolia, Suite 157 (501) 661-1702 Little Rock, AR. 72202 MCGEHEE DESIGN GROUP, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING , ` ff ,Z- 7zS June 26, 2002 Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Members: My client is asking for a zoning variance at 3800 Hill Road, Little Rock, AR; as per the letter dated June 21, 2002. The Department of Planning and Development has asked for the following clarification: the swimming pool at the north end of the property will be for tenants of the owner's property, as well as the owner. The tennis court, and the larger pool next to the residence will be for the owner only. Thank you. Sincerely, AL{�v i Stewart B. McGehee, ASLA McGehee Design Group, President 2000 Magnolia, Suite 157 (501) 661-1702 Little Rock, AR. 72202 MCGEIIEE DESIGN GROUP, INC. LANDSCAPEARCHITECTUREAND PLANNING X 2- 7z!S�t July 3, 2002 Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR. 72201 Dear Members: My client is asking for a zoning variance at 3800 Hill Road; Little Rock, AR 72205, as per the letter dated June 21, 2002. The Department of Planning and Development has informed my client that a 2 zoning variance needs be requested with respect to the smaller swimming pool proposed near the 2 -story rock apartment house. The variance is for a rear -yard setback with respect to said swimming pool. Thank you. Sincerely, F r v Stewart B. McGehee, ASLA McGehee Design Group, President 2000 Magnolia, Suite 157 (501) 661-1702 Little Rock, AR. 72202 July 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7252 Owner: Donald and Patricia Jefferson Address: 10100 West 36th Street Description: Lot 222, Kensington Place Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow for the construction of steps with a reduced front setback and which cross a front platted building line. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 10100 West 36th Street is occupied by a newly constructed two-story brick single family residence. There is a driveway from West 36th Street which serves as access to the property. After construction of the residence, the property owner realized that the steps leading to the front door of the structure would cross the 25 foot front platted building line by approximately 2.5 to 3 feet. The resulting front yard setback would be 22 to 22.5 feet. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments over platted building lines be July 29, 2002 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow for the construction of the front steps. Staff supports the requested variances. The encroachment of the front steps over the 25 foot platted building line is very minor in nature. It appears that (as per the survey) only the two (2) lower steps will cross the platted building line. Staff feels that approval of these variances will have no negative impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line for the proposed house. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The portion of the front steps which extend over the platted building line must remain unenclosed and uncovered. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 -1 -�� r- t I d®r42 �.� VZ,�%moi" l LA-) fid u.s� 4R, TZZ4 l v to'�- July 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Z-7254 Owner: Lionel P. Jenkins Address: 1.810 S. Franklin Street Description: Lot 18, Block 2, H. F. Buhler's 10th Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a carport structure which does not meet the minimum required front and side yard setbacks, and which extends over a front platted building line. 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 Public Works recommends denial. The carport structure encroaches on a public storm sewer easement. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 1810 S. Franklin Street is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. There is an existing driveway from Franklin Street, with an 18 foot by 20 -foot metal carport structure over a concrete parking pad. The carport structure is located approximately 1.5 feet from the front property line and extends over the side (north) property line by 7.5 feet, into a 10 -foot storm drainage easement. The carport structure is also located across a 25 -foot front platted building line. July 29, 2002 Item No.: 10 (Cont.) Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 60 feet for accessory buildings. Additionally, Section 36- 156(a)(2)f. requires a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that the Board of Adjustment review and approve encroachments over platted building lines. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these standards to allow for placement of the metal carport structure. Staff does not support the requested variances. Although staff has no real problem with a carport structure being located in the front yard of this property, staff cannot support the structure extending over the side (north) property line and into a 10 -foot platted storm drainage easement, which contains an existing storm drainage structure. If the Board decides to support this application, or some variation thereof, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line for the carport structure. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item noting that the property owner had revised the application, moving the carport structure out of the drainage easement which runs along the north side of the property. Staff recommended approval of the revised application for reduced front and side yard setbacks and a building line variance associated with the accessory carport structure, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances be approved for the property owner, Lionel P. Jenkins, only. 2. If the property is sold, or Lionel Jenkins vacates the property, the carport structure must be removed from the site or moved to meet the minimum required setbacks. 3. Based on the fact that the carport structure is temporary and not on a permanent foundation, staff recommends that a one -lot replat, to move the platted building line, not be required. Staff will inspect the property every five (5) years to verify the ownership and occupancy of the property. E July 29, 2002 Item No.: 10 (Cont.) The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved, as revised and recommended by staff, by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 J L 0 7ZS - - - G��C� V G`� .. -... LCL--�'l �t✓i. l�(.�'.!i " July 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: 11 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7255 Sam Alley 54 Chenal Circle Lot 10R, Chenal Valley Addition IMOM A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with a reduced rear yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 54 Chenal Circle is occupied by a two-story stucco single family residence. There is a circular drive which serves as access to the property from Chenal Circle. The property backs up to the Chenal Golf Course. The applicant proposes to construct a 1,100 square foot building addition (one-story) at the southeast corner of the residential structure. The proposed addition will be located 22 feet to 24.5 feet from the rear (south) property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the building addition with a reduced rear yard setback. July 29, 2002 Item No.: 11 (Cont. Staff supports the requested variance. The variance is very minor in nature, with the addition encroaching only 0.5 to 3 feet into the required rear yard. Additionally, the rear property line of this lot is not parallel to the front property line. If it were parallel running from the southwest corner of the property eastward, no variance would be needed. Staff feels that the requested variance will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance for a reduced rear yard setback, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. June 21, 2002 Mr. Monte Moore Dept. of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 1202 Main RE: Alley Residence Suite 230 54 Chenal Circle Little Rock Little Rock, Arkansas Arkansas A/E #0218 72202 376-3676 FAX 376-3766 Dear Mr. Moore: 7ZsS Attached please find application for residential zoning variance on the above referenced project. The Owner desires to add a family/media room to the east side of the existing residence. Since the rear property line does not parallel the front (street side) property line, the addition will protrude into the rear yard set -back by one foot where it attaches to the existing structure and by four feet at the southeast corner. We appreciate your consideration on this application. If there are any questions or additional information is needed, please call. Yours very truly, Ter G. Burruss, AIA July 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: 12 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-7256 Johnny and Deborah Kincaid Northwest corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. and Midland Avenue East Y2 of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 11, East Pulaski Heights Addition M Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-255 to allow for the construction of a new single family residence with reduced setbacks. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF NOTE The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential (2 lots) Staff determined that the lot where the single family residence is proposed to be constructed is not a legal lot of record, as the overall lot (East '/z of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 11, East Pulaski Heights Addition) has never been replatted. Based on the fact that the two (2) resulting lots will not comply with all of the Subdivision Ordinance standards, a PRD rezoning will be required. Therefore, the applicants submitted a letter to staff on July 9, 2002 requesting that this application be withdrawn, so that a PRD application can be filed. Staff supports the withdrawal as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. Brent & Denise Whittington 2200 Riverfront Drive #5206 Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 p Home Phone: 501-663-4641 / Cell Phone: 501-351-7800 2-725(, ( 2-,P ) June 21, 2002 City of Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Sir or Madam I am writing this letter in conjunction with the filing of my Application for Zoning Variance related to real estate located on Kavanaugh Road in Hillcrest. I have proposed to purchase this property from the current owners, John & Deborah Kincaid. A more detailed description of the property is listed on the attached application. Based on my discussions with the applicable city and local officials, I have determined that this property is zoned R-3 and is a legal subdivision. The dimensions of the lot are approximately 70' by 70'. Given the fact that the home we propose to build would face Kavanaugh, the related setbacks would be 25' from both the front and back of the property line and 5' on each side. After allowing for the existing setbacks, without a variance, this would indicate that only a 20' by 60' structure would fit on this lot. This is clearly too small to allow construction of a home that would fit in with the types of homes within the neighborhood and provide the needs of new home construction today. Due to the above, we are requested zoning variances such that the lot will be suitable for new construction, consistent with its original intended use. As requested, we have attached a survey showing the proposed footprint of the home we would hope to build on this lot, which is currently vacant. You will note that we propose to keep the setbacks on each side of the property consistent with current zoning requirements at 5'. However, we have asked that the setback on the front of the property (facing Kavanaugh) be reduced to 12' and that the setback on the back of the property be reduced to 0'. For ease of reference, it is the south lot on the survey to which I am referring. I believe this request is reasonable due to the following: • The lot is already zoned R-3 and was intended for residential construction; however, the size/slope of the lot is not suitable for construction without a variance. • The lot has a steep grade and thus will require extensive work to build up a foundation. This will likely result in some type of terracing of the property which further reduces the area available for construction. • There is an existing residence adjacent to this property (due west) which has setbacks very similar to those I am requesting above_ In fact, this property has a garage which is setback 0' off of Kavanaugh. This home is still very appealing from the street and adds to the character of the neighborhood. • Without approval of a variance, this lot will always remain vacant thereby limiting the market value of the property. In summary, I ask that you approve this request for Zoning Variance due to the factors outlined above. As you can see by reviewing the survey, you simply could not build a new home on this vacant lot without the relief on setbacks I have requested. Further, we plan to build a new home on this lot that • Page 2 June 21, 2002 will fit in with the homes in the neighborhood which should have a positive impact on the related market values. As you evaluate this request, should you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to give me a call at 501-351-7800. Thank you very much for your consideration and I appreciate your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brent ittington July 9, 2002 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Planning & Zoning City of Little Rock 723 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Subject: File No. Z-7256 Northwest Corner of Kavanaugh & Midland Dear Mr. Moore: Since it is now evident that the captioned property must be platted and rezoned to accommodate our construction requirements, we formally request that our application for a set back waiver be withdrawn from the Board of Adjustments agenda. Furthermore, it is our understanding, pursuant to your conversations with Johnny Kincaid, our $85.00 application fee will be held by the City of Little Rock and applied to our application for a PRD, which we intend to file on or about August 12, 2002. We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to working with you on the PRD when it is ultimately filed. Regards; .. J.� Denise and Brent Whittington RECEIVE'- JUL ECEIV'-JUL 9 taut i BY: July 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: 13 File No.: Z-7257 Owner: Mark Headley Address: 13001 Misty Glen Drive Description: Lot 6, Westhampton Subdivision Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow construction of a six (6) foot high screening fence between a building setback line and a street right-of-way. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 13001 Misty Glen Drive is occupied by a two- story brick and frame single family residence, with an access drive from Misty Glen Drive. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and contain single family homes. The property owner proposes to construct a six (6) foot high wood screening fence extending from the southeast corner of the residential structure to the east property line (Gamble Road side), and then south to the southeast corner of the property. There is a 25 foot platted building line along the east property line. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that fences constructed between a required building setback line and a street right-of- way have a maximum height of four (4) feet. Therefore, the applicant is July 29, 2002 Item No.: 13 (Cont.) requesting a variance to allow construction of a six (6) foot wood screening fence between the platted 25 foot building setback line and the Gamble Road right-of-way. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Based on the fact that the residential property immediately to the south has a rear yard relationship to this property, with a six (6) foot wood fence enclosing its rear yard, the proposed fence will have no adverse impact on that adjacent property, or the general area. Additionally, the fence will be located far enough south on this lot as to create no sight -distance problems for traffic turning left from Misty Glen Drive onto Gamble Road. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance subject to a building permit being obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that this application be deferred to the August 26, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 26, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. K 14-e. 4 /3 13001 Misty Glen Drive 7 2-'S; % Little Rock, AR 72211 21 June 2002 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Re: Zoning Ordinance Variance for 13001 Misty Glen Drive (Lot 6) in the Westhampton Subdivision to the City of Little Rock Dear Sir: As required by the Instructions for Making Application for a Residential Zoning Variance, I am providing here the details of my proposal and reasons and justification for requesting a variance from the Zoning Ordinance for the above subject property. The requested variance is to allow the construction of a 6 ft high treated pine or cedar fence within the established 25 ft setback from the Building Line along the east side of the property (west side of Gamble Road). As indicated on the attached copy of the property survey, I intend to fence the back yard of the property from the back corners of the house east and west to within 1 ft of the Property Lines and then south to within 1 ft of the Property Line. Finally, approximately 6 ft of fence will be required to close the back of the property to the side Property Line of the lot behind this one. The intention is to place a 4 ft wide walk gate at the back of the house along the north fence line, west of the house, and a 12 ft wide vehicular gate along the east fence line. The vehicular gate is intended to provide access by utility companies to the easements along the east and south sides of the property. The reason for the requested variance is to line up the proposed fence along Gamble Road with the fence along that same side of the lot behind this one. In addition, as required by the Subdivision's filed Bill of Assurance, the fence on the property is to be a privacy fence. Privacy for the subject lot will best be accomplished by placing it at the top of the side slope from Gamble Road, putting it approximately 1 ft inside the Property Line and approximately 1 ft from the sidewalk. In addition, the fence along the east side of the lot will effectively protect pedestrians (especially wheelchairs) from the down slope adjacent to the sidewalk along Gamble Road. I have already received verbal clearance from the Traffic Division in regards to sight distance. Thank you for your consideration of this request. I will be happy to provide you with any additional information you need for this request that I can. Sincerely, Mark S. Headley July 29, 2002 EM NO.: 14 File No.: Z-7260 Owner: James W. Martin Address: 521 Midland Avenue Description: Lot 5, Block 12, except the east 35 feet, East Pulaski Heights Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a six (6) foot high wood screening fence between a building setback line 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 Public Works recommends denial. Sight distance is already limited at the intersection or Kavanaugh and Midland. A fence located within, on, or near the right-of-way line at this location would further impair sight distance posing a potential traffic hazard. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 521 Midland Avenue is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. There is an accessory building located near the southeast corner of the property. The property sits approximately eight (8) feet below the grade of Kavanaugh Blvd. The applicant proposes to construct a six (6) foot high wood screening fence, running from the northeast corner of the property approximately 75 linear feet to the west. The fence is proposed to be located in the Kavanaugh Blvd. right-of-way, approximately one (1) foot inside the existing sidewalk. July 29, 2002 Item No.: 14 (Cont. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that fences constructed between a required building setback line and a street right-of- way have a maximum height of four (4) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot high fence. The applicant is also proposing to construct a 28 foot by 28 foot wood deck on the east side of the existing residential structure. This proposed deck conforms to ordinance standards and requires no variances. Staff does not support the requested variance. As noted by Public Works in paragraph A. of this report, sight -distance is already limited at this intersection of Kavanaugh Blvd. and Midland Avenue. The grade of Midland Avenue combined with the curvature of Kavanaugh Blvd., existing landscaping and on -street parking in this immediate area make sight - distance a problem at this intersection. The addition of the proposed fence would further exacerbate this site -distance problem, and make the left-hand turn from Midland Avenue (north -bound) onto Kavanaugh Blvd. very dangerous. If the Board approves this application, the applicant must obtain a franchise permit from the City's Public Works Department. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested fence height variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had verbally requested that this application be withdrawn, without prejudice. Staff supported the withdrawal request, noting that the applicant had not submitted proof of notification of surrounding property owners. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn, without prejudice, by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. K -T -k, --�4 / 4 James Martin z� _ % 2 CO 521 Midland St. Lube Rock, Ari 722-05 r'?car Rnarri• I am applying fora variance to build a fence and a deck. ff8 ferice Wouiu De six Fee[ i`figf( drfu smy teet i0rig Mace or wood - exCeridir(g fr-Or-A ll"fe- eastern property line west 60 ft. Located adjacent to the sidewalk. I am applying for this �-wianre harm dee of the cvrne-thio elnna in t- -ie Inratinn I am rnnrerncr� ��{ith the possibility that someone could step of the sidewalk and fall and be injured on my property. A six foot fence setback six feet from the sidewalk would make the top of the fence at the levet of the sidewalk or below. -rt,, .,.,.... ,a .....:.. ..... I .,.....,!-,:. - X. -'!,, a„ - nn ;& L,.e nn u ,...,,,a... a.,,.i..,a:.,.,,, ,i &- I I Ir- -=--% Jl ili vol7Lal 1VG i Lti ii GII.,Y'.7'Y"rz� v%.n l.7 iv i.,nAilV rA 4.. -LI LV ll.. Y'iVV'ilGl7 i:;G1.T. L1lijLYVTil 11 YV the rear of the residence. Thank you for the time to look at this matter, James Martin July 29, 2002 ITEM NO.: 15 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7262 Pulaski Heights Masonic Lodge 2710 Kavanaugh Blvd. Northwest corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. and Ash Street C-3 An appeal is requested from the administrative procedure/policy regarding the restrictions for the placement of temporary buildings on commercial property. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Masonic Lodge Masonic Lodge and snow cone stand The property at 2710 Kavanaugh Blvd. is zoned C-3 and contains a two- story Masonic Lodge building within the west half of the property, with a paved parking lot within the eastern portion of the site. The parking lot will accommodate approximately 16 vehicles. There is also a temporary structure (snow cone stand) located at the southwest corner of the parking lot. Jason Files, the owner of the snow cone stand, was recently issued a notice by the City's Zoning Enforcement Staff based on the fact that the temporary building was placed on the site without as approved application for its placement. Mr. Files then submitted an application for the July 29, 2002 Item No.: 15 (Cont.) placement of the snow cone stand. The application was denied based on the fact that the site does not conform to the minimum standards for the placement of temporary buildings. Staff's procedure guidelines, including the minimum siting standards for the placement of temporary buildings, are provided on an attached form for Board of Adjustment review. As noted in paragraph C. of the attached procedure guidelines, staff's review of the application ceases at the time certain circumstances exist. This particular site does not conform to items 2, 3 and 6 as noted in paragraph C. The site is less than one (1) acre in size, and contains less than 50 parking spaces. Additionally, the temporary building as placed on the site does not meet the minimum 25 -foot front yard setback as required in C-3 zoning. Mr. Files asks that he be granted a permit to allow the placement of his snow cone stand at 2710 Kavanaugh Blvd. He notes in the attached letter, "We feel that the Board can look beyond the technical requirements and see that our proposed use is in keeping with the feel of the proposed neighborhood and will not be a detriment in any way." Therefore, Mr. Files is requesting an appeal from the administrative procedure/policy regarding the restrictions for the placement of a temporary building on commercial property. If the Board decides to allow the use of the temporary building on this site, the standards listed in paragraphs D and E of the attached procedure guideline will still apply, and Mr. Files and staff will need to follow through with the application procedure. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) Jason Files was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff briefly described the requested appeal. Jason Files addressed the Board. He explained the reasons for locating the snow cone stand at this location, and explained the snow cone stand operation. He gave a brief description of the general area along Kavanaugh Blvd. He stated that he had no complaints relating to the snow cone stand from area residents. He stated that the snow cone stand had been moved back from Kavanaugh Blvd., but that he would like to move it back closer to the street. He noted that this would allow more room for parking. This issue was briefly discussed. Chairman Ruck asked how far forward the snow cone stand was in relation to the existing lodge building. Mr. Files noted that it was no closer to the street than the southwest corner of the lodge building. This issue was discussed further. Scott Richburg stated that the snow cone stand should be no closer to the street K July 29, 2002 Item No.: 15 (Cont.) than the fagade of the lodge building. Mr. Files stated that he had no problem with this setback. Chairman Ruck suggested fencing or cording off an area to prevent customers from getting into the street. He also noted that there was no one present in opposition to the application. Andy Francis stated that none of the chairs, tables, benches, umbrellas, etc. should obstruct the sidewalk area. Scott Richburg asked what time limits should be placed on the application. Staff noted that it should be no longer than six (6) months from the date staff first observed the snow cone stand. He also asked if the applicant would have to reapply and possibly come back before the Board next year. Staff responded that Mr. Files would have to reapply and come back before the Board for this same location next year., There was a motion to approve the requested appeal and issue a permit for the temporary building at 2701 Kavanaugh Blvd., subject to the following conditions: 1. The temporary building is to be no closer to the street (Kavanaugh Blvd.) than the fagade of the existing Masonic lodge building. 2. None of the seating (tables, chairs, benches, umbrellas, etc.) is to obstruct the public right-of-way (sidewalk). 3. The temporary structure must be removed by October 1, 2002. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The appeal was approved. 3 Revised 01-04-94 2-72-(,2 PROCEDURE OUTLINE C __p � l The following procedural guideline is for the placement of temporary building on properties zoned C-4, C-3, C-2. A. Applicants will submit to zoning/privilege license staff a written request for the use placement. The request shall consist of a photo or graphic depiction of the structure with dimensions, plus a survey of the existing site with all buildings shown or a detailed site plan by a design professional. The application shall be submitted in four (4) copies. The payment of a filing fee is required in the amount of $50.00 and is non-refundable. This fee may be applied to an appeal. This application shall be forwarded to Building Codes and Traffic for their review B. The applicant shall quantify his/her project by the submittal of a written request. The information shall include, but not be limited to: floor area; building height; number of parking spaces required; hour of operation; number of employees; number of take out or drive thru windows; and the date that unit will be removed from the site. C. Staff review will cease at the time when one of the following circumstances exist: 1. The chosen site is not zoned C-2, C-3, C-4. 2. The chosen site is less than one acre in area. 3. The chosen site.contains fewer than 50 parking spaces. 4. The chosen site contains an existing freestanding ancillary structure/building containing a business. 5. The use is proposed to be housed in any fashion other than a transportable structure with hard roof, walls and floor. 6. Fails to comply with district building setback standards. 7. The building is proposed for placement on a site which does not contain an existing permanent building. 8 Residential use is proposed for any portion of the structure. 9 Failure to include a date the building will be removed from the site. D. The staff shall review the site for: 1. Vehicle access to a -public street. 2. Circulation conflicts on and off site, whether created by the intended business or existing. 3. Utility access and easement conflict. 4. Total parking needs of the chosen site. 5. Structural integrity of the building. 6. Pedestrian safety.. 7. Signage S. Noise, dust odor, smoke or other noxious emissions. 9. Certification of approval by state Health Department. 10. Provision of sanitary facilities. E. The following conditions shall be places on the approval of applications. 1. Approval of permits to locate shall run with permit holder and shall not run with the land or be transferrable. 2. The permit authorizes the use to occupy the site for a period of six (6) month and shall be reviewed upon renewal of privilege license. Permits may be revoked for violation of permit standards. 3. The use is limited to a single module structure. No multi -sectionals are permitted. 4.- The structure is limited to a maximum of one hundred (100) sq. ft. of ground coverage including areas beneath canopies or awnings attached to the building. 5. The site may not be fenced with opaque materials. 61 The temporary unit must be removed by the end of the sixth (6) month period. Approved as to form and content. ��' j Date Lawson Dirpbtor of Neighborhoods and Planning 2 -- % 2-6 2 CAJUN SNOW 315 N. Schiller Little Rock, AR 72205 680-0555 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: permit application To the Board of Adjustment: Along with this letter please find my application for an interpretive request of the current city ordinance regarding placement of temporary structures. I have also included a copy of my original application which includes photos of the site as well as a diagram of the location. I am asking that the Board either interpret the current ordinance in such a way as to allow for the proposed use, or in the alternative to suggest any alternative which the Board believes would be feasible at this location. Cajun Snow is a seasonal business which sells shaved ice (snow cones). The proposed site for the business is 2710 Kavanaugh Boulevard, in the parking lot of the Masonic Lodge. This site is zoned C-3, general commercial, and is in an area composed of restaurants and retail stores. Directly across the street are "Damgoode Pies" and Moose drycleaners, and Bossa Nova restaurant. The zoning of the property allows for the proposed use. The Department of Planning and Development has been unable to approve the permit because of guidelines set up in interpretation of the city ordinances concerning temporary structures. Planning and development currently rejects any application if it does not meet certain guidelines. Our proposed site does not meet the guidelines in two respects: it is not one acre in size, and it does not contain 50 parking spaces. Because of the unique use of the permanent structure on the lot, we believe that the ordinance should be interpreted to allow the use of a temporary structure. The guidelines are not specifically tailored to any particular business. They require 50 parking spots regardless of the type of business proposed for the structure. In our case, we can only fantasize about needing 50 parking spots at one time. We do not attract quite that level of business. In addition, many of our customers are pedestrians— children from the neighborhood, dog walkers, and windowshoppers. Also, the primary structure in our case is not a public building. The lodge is a masonic temple, open only to members. It generates no traffic of its own from the public and is only infrequently used by the members for meetings. Our proposal is for one temporary structure, measuring 6 by 10 feet, to be allowed on the site along with the attendant seating. Normally we use three park benches, a picnic table, and several chairs under two umbrellas. The operation has been reconfigured so as not to require any equipment outside the structure. We believe that the operation adds to the ambience of the area, which already has a large amount of foot traffic. Cajun Snow provides a place to sit and watch the people go by while cooling off and relaxing. Planning and Zoning has requested that the building be placed at least 25 feet back o the property line to comply with setback provisions. Our current setup allows for this, and actually places our building farther from the property line than the majority of buildings in the area. This commercial district was developed long before the adoption of a unified zoning plan and has a hodgepodge of uses, often with no setback between the street and business other than the sidewalk. While the proposed site may not meet the guidelines set up by the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, these guidelines are not required by the Ordinance. The guidelines are meant to give general guidance in approving or disapproving a site so as to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. We feel that the Board can look beyond the technical requirements and see that our proposed use is in keeping with the feel of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment in any way. We have been told by area business people and residents alike how glad they are that we are in the neighborhood, and the feeling is certainly mutual. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, �� A Jason Files APPLICATION FOR PLACEMENT OF A TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL BUILDING This application is for placement of a mobile food service establishment (Cajun Snow Shaved Ice) at 2710 Kavanaugh Boulevard. 1. SURVEY/ PHOTOS: Attached. Includes the proposed location of the building, the existing structure, parking area, and dimensions of the property. The site currently houses the Pulaski Heights Masonic Lodge. 2. ZONING: The site is zoned C-3, general commercial. 3. BUILDING FLOOR AREA: 60 square feet (6 x 10) 4. BUILDING HEIGHT: 10 feet 5. PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: normal operation requires 3 to 4 parking spaces, peak operating times may require 7 to 8. The parking lot is currently unlined, but has room for 25-30 spaces. It is not currently used by anyone other than the Masons, who meet only once per month. 6. HOURS OF OPERATION: M -S Noon to 10 p.m., Sunday Noon to 8 p.m. Hours shorten after August 1 7. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES: two full time, two to three part time 8. NUMBER OF SERVICE WINDOWS: One, walk-up only. 9. DATE UNIT WILL BE REMOVED: September 31, 2002 10. OTHER STRUCTURES: There are no other ancillary structures 11. SETBACK: The proposed site has a deeper setback (20 feet) than the existing structure, or the surrounding structures in the area. 12. VEHICLE ACCESS: The site is accessed directly from Kavanaugh Boulevard and has two driveways 13. HEALTH DEPARTMENT CERTIFICATION: The structure has been approved by the Arkansas Department of Health as a mobile food establishment. pl,:., ir, 1;1 vi Z;A C, , pk,Vo tiq 0 1 z r+ 0 1 LLi A I Sjii F- D 0 W ED C F- 0 < U) < o Z z <LU < - U) f)� LL cr_ Z U >: < < cr- < ()�- < Z C) D p LE Z Q < CD U) < U� LL U) - CD :3 LU 0 < < -j W ry < LL O Z < _3 "I I PAI 01 SM, .984' E -W I, n 0 F- D 0 W ED C F- 0 < U) < o Z z <LU < - U) f)� LL cr_ Z U >: < < cr- < ()�- < Z C) D p LE I PAI 01 SM, .984' E -W I, n 0 July 29, 2002 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2.37 p.m. dl - Chairman