The URL can be used to link to this page

boa_09 30 2002LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES SEPTEMBER 30, 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 August 26, 2002 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present: Members Absent William Ruck, Chairman Fred Gray, Vice Chairman Scott Richburg Andrew Francis Gary Langlais City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Z -5898-A 5308 Centerwood Road B. Z-7272 1712 Beechwood C. Z-7275 3801 West Street D. Z -6524-B 509 President Clinton Avenue NEW ITEMS: 1. Z -1348-A 2800 Vancouver Drive 2. Z -3392-A 10700 Rodney Parham Road 3. Z -3928-B 5100 Asher Avenue 4. Z -4036-B 2206 Country Club Lane 5. Z -4423-F 700 S. Bowman Road 6. Z -7079-C 8921 Fourche Dam Pike 7. Z -7103-B 120 Commerce Street 8. Z-7285 707 Parkway Place Drive 9. Z-7286 4701 Hillcrest Avenue 10. Z-7287 4607 West 61 st Street 11. Z-7288 1617 S. Elm Street 12. Z-7289 3300 West 11 t" Street Agenda, Page Two II. NEW ITEMS: 13. Z-7290 14. Z-7291 15. Z-7292 16. Z-7293 17. Z-7294 18. Z-7296 19. Z -3915-B (Cont.) 4421 N. Lookout Street 466 Midland Street 2111 Vancouver Drive 35 Beverly Place 3504 Hill Road 16701 Davis Cup Lane 12024 Interstate 30 2 N O O N •C: - O 3wd — a31ztla3 11nveIH1 ^ rn rr W �yJd�i7 W U _ N e°No Nvwa3a W � � o a_ � 0ti o NItlW W AYMOVOaa H NOSry� n r S3HO 83H30 0 �i s � nNIH iry _ �{- Oa000M x 3NId T aVa N0111wV IIOJS ti • r7 O NaVd avi , u 'r✓� N o A115a3AINn _ A11Sa3AINn S`JNIdd$ a3AD (� S3HOnHF- Idd155 SIW S 1001H0 810Aa3S3a MOaaVO NHOf 3 y b� �e 3AN13H — U O800NOtlHS o slaays (IJ Oa 3l OV 0 _ wtlHaVd A3NOOa _ � s y0J NV * — S11W1 A110 3001a AWN — ryJb0 J�Jb1S � M z�P a Nvmmns 1avM31s 5 VQ� C O SIM Allo=may 0 0 z � JjO1ryJ I VONa3J O m September 30, 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: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Nancy R. Lichty Revocable Trust 5308 Centerwood Road Lot 99, Prospect Terrace No. 2 Addition R-2 An appeal is requested from staff's administrative determination that the proposed use of the property does not conform to all of the home occupation standards. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential with Home Office The property at 5308 Centerwood Road is zoned R-2 and contains a two- story brick single family residence. There is a one-story frame accessory building/garage located along the rear (north) property line. Centerwood Road is located along the south property line, with "O" Street right-of-way along the north boundary. The garage portion of the accessory structure is accessed from "0" Street. The applicant, Larry E. Lichty, recently inquired of staff the possibility of locating his real estate business to this address and operating as a home occupation. The applicant proposes to locate the business in the existing accessory structure. Staff informed Mr. Lichty that a home occupation permit could not be administratively approved, based on the fact that an September 30, 2002 Item No.: A (Cont.) accessory building would be utilized for the home-based business. According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-253(b)(6): "a. Home occupations shall be permitted that will not: 1. Change the outside appearance of the dwelling or provide product display visible from the street. 2. Generate traffic, parking, sewage or water use in excess of what is normal in the residential neighborhood. 3. Create a hazard to persons or property, result in electric interference or become a nuisance. 4. Result in outside storage or display of any material or product. 5. Involve accessory buildings. 6. Result in signage beyond that which may be required by other government agencies. 7. Limited to five hundred (500) square feet in area, but in no case more than forty-nine (49) percent of the floor area in a dwelling. 8. Stock in trade shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the floor area of the accessory use. 9. Require the construction of, or the addition to, the residence of duplicate kitchens. 10. Requirement or cause the use or consumption on the premises of any food product produced thereon. 11. Provide medical treatment, therapeutic massage or similar activities." Mr. Lichty asks that he be granted a home occupation permit to allow his real estate business (home office) to be located within the existing accessory structure. He notes in the attached letter: 2 September 30, 2002 R411*11045W;WCIM "It would strictly be a place in which to locate furniture, equipment, business files, etc., open mail and conduct a quiet business consistent with those routinely allowed pursuant to Section 36-253 and Section 36-254 of the Little Rock City Code regulating residential districts. As such, I expect no business walk-in or vehicular traffic that would even approach much less exceed the level of personal visitors we have to our home now." To staff's knowledge, the issue related to use of the accessory structure is the only outstanding issue associated with the proposed home occupation. All other aspects of the proposed home occupation will conform with the ordinance standards. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 2002) The applicant was not present. The Board determined that a public hearing was necessary for this item, and therefore, a deferral was needed. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 30, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2002) Larry E. Lichty was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff briefly described the proposed appeal. Mr. Lichty addressed the Board in favor of the appeal. He briefly explained his proposal. Vice -Chairman Gray asked when the real estate office would be moved to the residence. Mr. Lichty stated that no specific date had been set, and that, he was trying to work out details. Chairman Ruck asked if any of the neighbors had a problem with the home occupation. Mr. Lichty stated that there were none that he knew of. There was a motion to approve the requested appeal and allow the home occupation to be operated in the accessory building. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 July 23, 2002 Mr. Dana Carney, Manager Zoning and Subdivision Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dana: Attached is my check in the amount of $50.00, the completed Application For Action On Administrative Appeals Or Interpretive Requests form pertaining to a home occupation request, a copy of my home survey and related pictures, along with five extra copies of this letter and the attached documents for distribution by your office to all members of the Little Rock Board of Adjustment prior to their August 26, 2002, meeting. As indicated in our conversation on July 10, 2002,1 am contemplating semi- retirement from my real estate business sometime in the future, but would like to retain my active real estate license, and use my home as an office. However, my preference would be to utilize the accessory structure behind our house for that purpose, rather than the house itself. It would strictly be a place in which to locate furniture, equipment, business files, etc., open mail and conduct a quiet business consistent with those routinely allowed pursuant to Section 36-253 and Section 36-254 of the Little Rock City Code regulating residential districts. As such, I expect no business walk-in or vehicular traffic that would even approach much less exceed the level of personal visitors we have to our home now. It is my understanding that this request will be placed on the August 26, 2002, Board of Adjustment agenda for their consideration, so please let me know if there is any additional information that is required to get this item on that agenda. Sinc e , �G Larry E. Lichty LEL/ntr Attachments cc Little Rock Board of Adjustment HAND DELIVERED 300 Spring Building 0 Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 • Phone AC501 378-7660 September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z-7272 Owner: Robert and Jennifer McGahee Address: 1712 Beechwood Description: Part of Lots 4 and 5, Cliffewood Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Sections 36-156 and 36-254 to allow building additions which do not conform to the minimum required setbacks and separation, and the maximum allowed coverage. 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 1712 Beechwood is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one-story brick and frame accessory building at the northwest corner of the property, and a single car driveway from Beechwood which accesses a carport structure located on the north side of the single family house. The applicants propose to remove the carport structure from the house and make building additions to the principal and accessory structures. The applicants propose to add a 16 foot by 33 foot covered, screened -in porch (breezeway) on the rear (west side) of the single family residence, which will connect to the existing accessory building. The applicants also propose to make a 7.5 foot by 16.5 foot addition to the accessory building (south side) which would be used for storage, and a 15 foot by 22 foot September 30, 2002 Item No.: B (Cont.) carport addition to the east side of the accessory structure. The applicants are requesting three (3) variances with the proposed additions. The first requested variance is for a reduced rear yard setback for the screened -in porch/breezeway addition to the principal structure. The porch/breezeway addition will be located approximately 10.5 feet from the rear (west) property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. The second requested variance is from the area provisions of Section 36-156(a)(2)b. of the Zoning Ordinance. This section requires that an accessory building be separated from a principal structure by at least six (6) feet. As noted previously, the porch/breezeway addition to the principal structure will connect to the existing accessory structure, leaving no separation between the two structures. The final variance is also from the area provisions of Section 36-156. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. requires that accessory buildings occupy no more than 30 percent of a required rear yard (rear 25 feet of the lot). The accessory structure will occupy 30.9 percent of the required rear yard, after the building additions are made. The additions to the accessory building will maintain the required front, side and rear yard setbacks. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The proposed additions to the principal and accessory structures will not be out of character with the general area, as many of the single family properties in the area have made similar additions. Staff also feels that the proposed additions will have no negative impact on the adjacent properties. However, staff will recommend that the carport addition remain unenclosed on the north and east sides, and the covered porch/breezeway addition not be enclosed with any more than screening materials. This will help minimize the mass of the overall building area. 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. The carport addition must remain unenclosed on the north and east sides. 3. The covered porch/breezeway addition must not be enclosed with any more than screening materials (south side only). 2 September 30, 2002 Item No.: B (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the September 30, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 30, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: Since the August 26, 2002 Board of Adjustment meeting, the applicant has slightly revised the originally submitted site plan. The width of the porch/breezeway and storage additions has been reduced from 16 feet to 12 feet. Additionally, the new carport structure has been "squared -up" and moved slightly closer to the north (side) property line. The carport has also been attached to the principal structure. The applicant has also noted that there will be a solid wall between the carport structure and the porch/breezeway structure. With the slight modification, an additional variance is needed, with one (1) of the previously requested variances being eliminated. Based on the fact that the carport addition is attached to the principal structure, it is now considered part of that structure and subject to its setback requirements. The carport addition is located three (3) feet from the north (side) property line. Section 36-254(d) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of 7.9 feet for principal structures. Therefore, this variance has been added to the request. The proposed three (3) foot side yard setback is the minimum setback required for accessory buildings. As noted previously in the staff analysis (paragraph B.), a variance was requested to exceed the maximum 30 percent rear yard coverage for the accessory structure. With the reduction of the width of the storage addition and the carport addition being considered part of the principal structure, the rear yard coverage is now 27 percent. Therefore, this variance has been eliminated. Staff continues to be in support of the requested variances, and recommends approval as noted in paragraph C. of this report. Staff feels that the building additions as proposed (and revised) will be compatible with the residential properties in this general area. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. 3 September 30, 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. 12 To: The Little Rock Board of Adjustment ' From: Robert C. McGahee and Jennifer McMinn-McGahee 1712 Beechwood, Little Rock, Ar 72207 July 26, 2002 Dear Board of Adjustment, Our family has grown enormously in the last three years with three small children age three and under. Our present home is not large enough to accommodate all of us. We need to utilize our existing guesthouse by connecting it to our home. We would like to do this by adding a two -car carport to the front of our guesthouse. Our house is the third house from Cantrell Road, we are therefore concerned about the safety of our children being further away from Cantrell when getting in and out of the car and one of our children is disabled). Also, under that same roof structure, we would add a covered porch that would give shelter from the rain when loading the children in the car while providing an access to the guesthouse. It is my understanding that I need a variance to connect these structures and then another variance because the guesthouse is five feet from the north property line. We would want to align the guest house and carport rooflines for this to be aesthetically pleasing. Both houses to the north of me have connected their house with their guesthouse and many more of my neighbors do not have the proper set backs for their garage. Considering I have talked with most of them and we are all in the same situation, I do not believe I will encounter any problems with these requests. Thanks for your consideration, Jenny and Bob McGahee 663-3201 September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: C File No.: Z-7275 Owner: Jose Tejeda Address: 3801 West Street Description: Lot 16, Block 1, West Heights Place Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a six (6) foot privacy fence between a building setback line and a street right-of-way. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT U'1 Public Works Issues: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The fence encroaches on the public right-of-way of West Street and limits sight distance at the intersection of 38 and West. Remove fence from the 38th Street right-of-way back to the front building line. Obtain a franchise agreement with Public Works for the remainder of the fence. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 3801 West Street is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence and a one-story frame residential structure. There is a two -car driveway from West 38th Street which serves as access to the property. A six (6) foot tall wood screening fence was recently constructed along the west and south property lines. A portion of this fence was constructed between the required building setback line and the West Street right-of-way, and actually extends into the West Street right-of-way by two (2) feet at the southwest corner of the property. There is a 25 foot platted building line along the west property line of this lot. September 30, 2002 Item No.: C (Cont.) Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance states that fences constructed between a building setback line and a street right-of-way shall have a maximum height of four (4) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot tall wood fence. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. As noted in paragraph A. of this report, Public Works feels that the fence limits sight distance at the intersection of West 38th and West Streets. Public Works noted that a portion of the fence, starting at the northwest corner of the property and running 25.6 feet to the south, should be removed (or reduced to a height not exceeding 4 feet) in order to improve the sight distance. Also, a franchise agreement would be needed for the remainder of the fence, based on the fact that it is in the West Street right-of-way. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the application, as submitted. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the September 30, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 30, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: Since the August 26, 2002 Board of Adjustment meeting, the applicant has reduced the height of a portion of the fence, beginning at the northwest corner of the property and running south to just beyond the front wall of the house (slightly over 25 linear feet). This portion of the fence has been reduced to a height of four (4) feet. This, in staff's opinion, eliminates the sight distance problem as expressed previously. Therefore, staff is now in support of the application. REVISED STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained. 4 September 30, 2002 Item No.: C (Cont.) 2. A franchise permit must be obtained for that portion of the fence located within the West Street right-of-way. 3. The north 25.6 feet of the fence which runs along the west property line must be maintained at a height not exceeding four (4) feet. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 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 Z-72-75 June 20, 2002 To Whom It May Concern: My name is Jose Te j eda and I live at 3 801 West Street on the corner of 38th and West St. I just bought this house and after buying the house I noticed that neighbors where parking their cars on my property and they would have their music playing out loud while they played basketball or just visiting. Since I am 65 years old I have to sleep in a down stairs bedroom which is on the same side as their driveway and mine also. I totally have no privacy if I open up my blinds because I just don't have a neighbor but neighbors that are able to see everything that goes on in both of my side rooms. It's just really annoying and this sometimes keeps me up late. And furthermore I have several small grandchildren that play in the yard and need to be kept out of the street and as well for my neighbor's yards. I have shared my concerns with my neighbors about the six foot privacy fence and they have no problem with the fence. They actually expressed their thoughts on it and said that they thought it was a very good idea and made an improvement on the neighborhood. Since my property faces 3 8th Street and me having a very small back yard I need to be more cautious with my grand kids. That side of my property is the only piece of side yard I have for my grandkids to play in and keep bicycles and yard toys in. I hope and pray that you will let me keep my fence as it is now. Thank You for your consideration, Jose Tej eda September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: D File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z -6524-B Julia May Porbeck Larrison Revocable Trust 509 President Clinton Avenue South side of President Clinton Avenue, between Commerce and Sherman Streets W Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-353 and the awning provisions of Section 36-357 to allow an awning and awning sign which do not conform to the River Market Design Overlay District standards. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT 0 Public Works Issues: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Commercial/Office Commercial/Office The sign encroaches on the public right-of-way. Obtain Franchise Agreement with Public Works. B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 509 President Clinton Avenue is occupied by a two-story commercial building. There is a paved parking area on the west side of the building, with another commercial building further west. The second floor tenant, Big Impressions, recently installed an awning (blue in color) on front of the building between two (2) existing awnings (green) for The Flying Fish restaurant. Additionally, a sign was screen printed on the front face of the awning. The applicant is requesting two (2) variances associated with the awning and awning sign. September 30, 2002 Item No.: D (Cont. The first variance request is from Section 36-357(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. This section states that awnings shall relate to the shape of the building opening. The transom over the building's doorway is rectangular -shaped. The awning which was installed over the doorway is barrel-shaped at the top. Therefore, the shape of the awning is not consistent with the building's opening. The second variance request is from Section 36-353(a)(2)d. of the Zoning Ordinance. This section allows awning signs in the River Market District to have a maximum area of six (6) square feet. The sign which was screen printed on the awning face is approximately 17 square feet in area. Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. The River Market Design Review Committee (DRC) recently reviewed the awning and awning sign and, as noted in -the attached letter dated August 13, 2002, voted to recommend denial of this application to the Board of Adjustment. The general consensus of the committee was that the awning and awning sign needed to be redesigned. Staff agrees with the DRC and feels that the awning sign is too large and out of character with other awning signage within the River Market District. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the September 30, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 30, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the October 28, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the October 28, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 509 President Clinton Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1729 501-301-9031 ph. 501-301-9032 fax bi http:/hvww.big-impressions.biz ipr� s s i®ns swallace@big-impressions.biz Date: 06/25/02 Zoning Enforcement Administrator 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4792 Attention: Monte Moore IZ�: 47:IV r4 9t�.9 I am seeking BOA approval for a sign and awning variance(s) within the RiverMarket District. Due to previous approvals by the DRC the amount of usable space left directed me to exercised my option to combine two of my three signs into one larger one (see attachment "a") Considerations in respects to color, shape and size were made by reviewing the existing conditions within the RiverMarket. The proposed awning is within the height requirements of a nine -foot height from the sidewalk and it projects only thirty inches from the building. This also matches the dimensions of the existing awnings installed on both sides (see attachment "a") After reviewing the sign and awning guidelines I believe that the only item for concern is: Sec. 36-353. Signs (3) Lettering The proposed overall awning sign is approx 36" in height and 54" in width. At this time I also propose to place an architectural enhancement hanging securely from the upper west sidewall of the building and or two permanent banner type holders similar to the ones installed on the Museum of Discovery. These would not be designated signs nor a type of advertisement. It would be more of a mural or living canvas changing from time to time with the subject matter to be continually approved by the DRC. I would use it to emphasize projects related to Downtown & the RiverMarket such as Race For The Cure, Riverfest, Big Downtown Thursday's and other special events. Additional content might also display various types of art from local artist and events. The canvas size would be proportional to the graphic's size and vary based on graphical content (see attached) Planning dnd Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock • Arkansas • 72201.501-371-4790 • fax 371-6863 August 20, 2002 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Big Impressions Chairman and Members, The River Market DRC reconsidered its vote of August 13. It met on August 19, 2002 and reviewed the awning and signage at 509 East President Clinton for Big Impressions. The DRC did approve the awning as submitted. The motion was made to approve the awning and signage as installed with a two-year review and noting the fact that it was installed illegally. The final vote was 3 yes, 1 noes and 1 recusal. T ank you, EBrianinya River Market DRC Staff D r River � ; - Market FrankPorbeck, Chairman V84' %Design Tim Heiple, Member Jim Schimmer, Member Review Melissa Tanner, Member Committee Patty Wingfield, Member Planning dnd Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock • Arkansas • 72201.501-371-4790 • fax 371-6863 August 20, 2002 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Big Impressions Chairman and Members, The River Market DRC reconsidered its vote of August 13. It met on August 19, 2002 and reviewed the awning and signage at 509 East President Clinton for Big Impressions. The DRC did approve the awning as submitted. The motion was made to approve the awning and signage as installed with a two-year review and noting the fact that it was installed illegally. The final vote was 3 yes, 1 noes and 1 recusal. T ank you, EBrianinya River Market DRC Staff D September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-1 348-A Christopher Stewart 2800 Vancouver Drive Lot 42, Meadowbrook Subdivision R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12, the area provisions of Section 36-156 and the fence provisions of Section 36-516. 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 2800 Vancouver Drive (southwest corner of Vancouver Drive and West 28th Street) is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence. A single -car driveway from Vancouver Drive serves as access to the property. There is a small metal storage building located on the north side of the residence, next to a screened -in porch, with a second larger storage building being located at the southwest corner of the property. The small metal storage building, a portion of the screened -in porch and one corner of the larger storage building cross a 25 -foot platted building line, which runs along the north property line. Additionally, there is a six (6) foot tall wood fence which runs from the northwest corner of the single family house to the north property, and encloses the rear yard area of the site. September 30, 2002 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) The applicant is requesting several variances in order to recognize and legitimize the structures which extend over the platted building line, as well as the six (6) foot high wood fence. The first variance is from Section 31-12 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. This section requires that encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. As noted previously, a portion of the screened -in porch area, the small metal storage building and a small portion of the larger storage building encroach over the 25 foot platted building line. The applicant has noted a desire to enclose the screened patio area for additional living space. The second variance is from Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance. This section requires that fences located between building setback lines and street rights-of-way have a maximum height of four (4) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to recognize the existing six (6) foot tall fence location. This will allow the fence to be replaced when needed. The last variances are from Section 36-156(a)(2)b. and Section 36- 156(a)(2)c. These sections require that an accessory building be separated from a principal structure by at least six (6) feet and have a minimum setback of 60 feet from a front property line. The existing metal building is approximately one (1) foot from the house and 56 feet from the front (east) property line. The applicant is requesting these variances so that the storage building can be replaced in the future. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. This will allow the screened -in porch to be enclosed, with possible future replacement of the small metal storage building and six (6) foot wood screening fence. The requested variances are to recognize and legitimize building line and setback violations which have existed on the site for at least nine (9) years. Staff feels that approval of the requested variances will have no adverse impact on the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the front building line for the existing structures. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. 2 September 30, 2002 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 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 August 23, 2002 Request for Variance Cover Letter Christopher and Annette Stewart Meadowlark Subdivision Lot #42 2800 Vancouver Drive Little Rock, 72204 Y - Submitted to the Board of Adjustment for consideration on September 30, 2002 Dear Board Member, My wife and I purchased this property in 1993 as newlyweds. It was listed as a HUD home and was in obvious cosmetic disrepair. Over the last 9 years we have taken on small projects to improve the appearance. Now, our family has grown, and we have decided to expand the size of our living space. Because a survey never accompanied the original mortgage, I had one done to satisfy requirements for the issuance of a permit. Surprisingly, this survey indicated several variances from the original 25 -foot building line. I had no idea of this 25 -foot ordinance because there are other lots in my subdivision that seem to be closer. When I visited the zoning department, I discovered that several corner lots in my neighborhood had variances issued when the subdivision was under development. My lot was not one of them, but the original owners or some owner in between must have had the same observation that I had and thought that this lot had more building space. Therefore, I'm requesting variances for structures that sit on my property because there is no evidence that this was ever done. Each item is listed below and a copy of the survey identifies the sizes and locations. • Portion of a screened in patio on concrete slab foundation (attached to house). This patio is about 7 feet in variance and appears to be almost as old as the house. It is the primary space where I want to put the new addition. • Six foot Cedar fence (may be original). About 70 feet are in variance due to height. • Shed (may be original). In variance. • Building with foundation (fairly good condition). About 6 inches of one corner are in variance. Thank you for September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z -3392-A The Village at Pleasant Valley, LLC 10700 Rodney Parham Road Northwest corner of Rodney Parham Road at Interstate 430 C-3 A variance is requested from the development provisions of Section 36-301 to allow outdoor restaurant seating. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Commercial Commercial The C-3 zoned property at the northwest corner of Interstate 430 and Rodney Parham Road is occupied by The Village at Pleasant Valley commercial development. One of the commercial tenants, Wild Oats Market (formerly Beans and Grains), recently added outside restaurant - style seating as part of its operation. The outside seating is located within the entry/courtyard area in front of the Wild Oats Market. The outside seating area consists of five (5) concrete tables, with chairs and benches. Umbrellas are used to cover the individual tables. Section 36-301(b) of the City's Zoning Ordinance states that all commercial uses shall be restricted to closed buildings, except parking lots, seasonal and temporary sales per Section 36-298.4, and the normal pump island services of service station operations. Therefore, the September 30, 2002 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) applicant is requesting a variance to allow the outside restaurant seating within this C-3 zoned commercial development. Staff supports the requested variance. Staff feels that the requested variance is very minor in nature, as the outside seating occupies a small portion of the building's entry/courtyard area. The seating area, as it currently exists, does not block the entry to Wild Oats Market or the other adjacent tenants. Additionally, the seating does not block the sidewalk between the commercial building and the parking area. Staff feels that the outside seating area will have no adverse impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow outside restaurant seating, subject to all of the tables, chairs and benches being located within the entry/courtyard area and not encroaching onto the sidewalk between the building and the parking lot, or blocking public access to any building entrances/exits. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 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. 0 vp WILLIP-11��A-Wra-se", MARKETS, INC. August 1, 2002 Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Application for Application for Zoning Variance Wild Oats Markets, Inc. d/b/a Wild Oats Market Space C-1, 10700 Rodney Parham Rd. Little Rock, AR Dear Sir or Madam: f t-:;47 3 Attached please find an Application for Zoning Variance for the above location. We are requesting that the Wild Oats Market in Little Rock, Arkansas, be allowed to maintain the outdoor cafe seating and benches in front of its store. The tables, umbrellas, chairs and benches are set back from the sidewalk, and do not block ingress or egress along the sidewalk. In fact, the cafe seating has been at this location for five years now, and is an important customer service for Wild Oats at this location. There is ample room outside the store for the seating, and it is appreciated not only by Wild Oats customers, but by tenants and their clients on either side of the store. The cafe seating is a fundamental customer amenity that is not outweighed by either public health or safety considerations. We respectfully request that the Department and the Board of Adjustment grant our zoning variance to allow the seating to remain at the store. Sincerely, G. Melodyis ett Corporate Counsel 3375 Mitchell Lane ♦ Boulder, CO 80301-2244 ♦ Tel 720-562-4821 ♦ Fax 720-562-5022 ♦ mmpickettLcv ildoats.com September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z -3928-B Owner: Kaufman Lumber Company Address: 5100 Asher Avenue Description: Lots 2-4, Block 25, Lots 1-3, Block 28 and Lots 1-15, Block 29, Brack's Addition Zoned: 1-2 and C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Sections 36-301 and 36-320 to allow the construction of a lumber storage building, with reduced rear and side yard setbacks. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues.- No ssues: No Comments. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Lumber yard Lumber yard A twenty-two (22) percent upgrade in landscaping toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance will be required. There is considerable flexibility as to placement and type of landscaping to be installed. C. Staff Analysis: The 1-2/C-3 zoned property at 5100 Asher Avenue is occupied by Kaufman Lumber Company facilities. Kaufman also has lumberyard facilities across Brack Street to the north and Mary Street to the west. The applicant proposes to remove the 11,516 square foot lumber warehouse building at the northwest corner of the main lumber yard September 30, 2002 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) development (southeast corner of Mary and Brack Streets), and replace it with two (2) smaller buildings. The northernmost proposed building will be an open lumber warehouse (open only to the south) consisting of 4,200 square feet. The second proposed building will also be an open lumber warehouse with an area of 6,240 square feet. The second building will be located 54 feet south of the north property line. The northernmost building will be located on the west and north property lines, and will align with the larger warehouse building to the east. The majority of each proposed building is located within the C-3 zoned portion of the property, with small portion of the buildings in 1-2 zoning. Section 36-301(e)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet in C-3 zoning, with Section 36-301(e)(2) requiring a minimum 25 -foot side yard setback. Section 36-320(e) also requires a minimum 25 -foot rear yard setback for 1-2 zoned property. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances for reduced side and rear yard setbacks for the proposed northernmost building. As noted previously, the building will have no setback from the north and west property lines. The proposed southernmost building complies with the setback requirements. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the variance requests are reasonable, and that the new buildings will provide a nice upgrade to the property. The removal of the existing building and construction of the two (2) new buildings will result in a net decrease in building area (-1,076 square feet). Additionally, due to the fact that the northernmost building will have a solid wall on the north and west sides, better screening will be provided for the residential properties to the north and northwest. The proposed new buildings should have no adverse impact on the genera area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear and side yard setback variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the landscape and buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of this report. 2. No eaves or overhangs will be allowed over the north and west property lines. 2 September 30, 2002 Item No.: 3 (Cont. 3. The north and west walls of the northernmost building must be constructed of solid, opaque materials. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 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. 9 © WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Q 24 Rahling Circle 0 Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 August 23, 2002 Mr. Monte Moore, Zoning Administrator City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72223 RE: Kaufman Lumber Site Plan Mr. Moore, 3 2--Y--3 Please find attached six copies of the site plan for the above referenced project. The developer would like to raze one of the large lumber storage buildings on the main property and replace this building with two smaller buildings. Currently, this building sits in the middle of the site with chain link fence and razor wire on the property line. One of the new buildings would be constructed adjacent to the Brack St. right-of-way and replace the chain link fence. The developer feels that this would be a much better look from the street and match the existing building to the east. Please place this item on the next available Board of Adjustment's agenda. Do not hesitate to call should you have any questions or require additional information. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated Re ar�ds, e D. White, Jr. CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z -4036-B Jack Hartsell 2206 Country Club Lane Lot 3R, Block 11, Country Club Heights R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area requirements of Section 36-254 to allow construction of a new single family residence with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Anal: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residence under construction Single Family Residential A single family residence is currently under construction on the R-2 zoned property located at 2206 Country Club Lane. The new structure is located 45 feet back from the front (east) property line. There is a 25 -foot front platted building line on this lot. The applicant proposes to add a 10 foot by 23.5 foot section on the rear (west side) of the residential structure. This would bring the single family structure to within 15 feet of the rear property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. September 30, 2002 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) Staff is supportive.of the variance request. Staff believes that the 15 -foot rear yard setback would have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. The applicant has provided a 45 -foot front yard setback (25 foot setback required) in order to keep the house in line with the other residences along Country Club Lane. If the residential structure were pulled up to the 25 -foot platted building line, the rear yard setback would not be an issue. Staff feels that the proposed rear yard setback will not be out of character with other residential properties in this general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff explained that the signatures obtained (by the applicant) from some of the property owners within 200 feet of the site were obtained three (3) days late. With a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent, the Board waived their bylaws and accepted the notification of surrounding property owners as completed by the applicant. 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 Jack Hartsell Construction Co. 319 Gill Street MILLWORK DIVISION Bus: 501-376-2871 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Fax: 501-375-6653 City of Little Rock Dept of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR Dear Sir: Re: 2206 Country Club Lane 4 We are requesting a variance for a 15' rear yard set back on the property at 2206 Country Club Lane. In order to maintain the curb appeal along that street we have exceeded the R2 requirements for the 25' front yard set back by 20', therefore pushing the house back on the property. Sincerely ,% Jack Hartsell September 30, 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. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Z -4423-F Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 700 S. Bowman Road Southwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road C-3 A variance is requested from the development standards of Section 36-301 to allow the outdoor storage of merchandise. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Commercial Commercial Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping, including screening, meet with ordinance requirements. C. Staff Analysis: The property at 700 S. Bowman Road (southwest corner of Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway) is occupied by a Wal-Mart retail store development. Wal-Mart offers a "lay -a -way" program for its customers, who can pay money down on Christmas purchases, and then pay off those purchases over a 90 day period. Because of the demand for this service, Wal-Mart must utilize temporary/seasonal storage containers for the excess "lay -a -way" and Christmas merchandise each year. September 30, 2002 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) Wal-Mart proposes to utilize no more than thirty (30) temporary/seasonal storage containers to be located along the paved drive and on the grassy area behind the store. Wal-Mart requests that these storage containers be utilized from September 1St through January 15th of each year. After the temporary/seasonal storage containers are removed, the grass will be reseeded. Last year the Planning Commission approved (by way of a conditional use permit) the 30 temporary/seasonal storage containers from October 1, 2001 through January 1, 2002 (90 days) only. It was determined at that time that future requests for temporary/seasonal storage containers or trailers be dealt with by the Board of Adjustment as a variance from the development standards of Section 36-301(b) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Section 36-301(b) states that all commercial uses within the C-3 zoning district shall be restricted to closed buildings, except parking lots, seasonal and temporary sales per Section 36-298.4, and the normal pump island services of service station operations. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow up to 30 temporary/seasonal storage containers to be located on the site from September 1St through January 15th of each year. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff believes the request is reasonable. The containers are located in the service area behind the store. Due to the presence of a retaining wall, privacy fence and a 50 -foot open space strip, the containers are not visible from adjacent properties behind the site. The applicant has planted a dense landscape screen along the north perimeter of the service area to further screen that area from Chenal Parkway. The screening has been extended beyond the containers to cover the entire north perimeter of the service area. Some of the containers are on the service drive adjacent to the back wall of the store. A 20 -foot driveway remains. The applicant must satisfy Fire Department requirements that sprinkler FDC's and hydrants are not blocked. The grassy area where some of the containers are located will be reseeded each year after the containers are removed. That area may be paved since it is not part of any required landscape or buffer area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The placement of the storage containers is limited to September 1St through January 15th of each year. 2 f September 30, 2002 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) 2. The storage containers must not block any sprinkler FDC's or fire hydrants, as per the Little Rock Fire Department. 3. The grassy area used for placement of some of the storage containers must be reseeded within thirty (30) days of removal of the containers each year and properly maintained. If not, the area must be paved or the issue will be brought back to the Board for reconsideration. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 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 Timothy W. Grooms tgrooms@ggtb.com Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 111 Center Street Suite 1900 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 August 23, 2002 Mr. Monte Moore Zoning and Enforcement Administrator City of Little Rock Department Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. / Bowman Road Application for a Non -Residential Zoning Variance Dear Monte: (501) 379-1700 Telecopier (501) 379-1701 Writer's Direct Dial (501) 379-1713 via HAND DELIVERY Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart") operates a discount retail store located at 700 South Bowman Road in Little Rock, Arkansas. As you may be aware, Wal-Mart offers a "lay -a -way" program for its customers, wherein citizens of Little Rock can pay money down on their Christmas purchases, and then pay off those purchases over a ninety (90) day period. Because of the demand for this service, Wal-Mart must utilize temporary/seasonal storage trailers for the excess "lay -a -way" and Christmas merchandise each year. Enclosed are six (6) copies of the site plan showing the location of the temporary/seasonal storage trailers. Wal-Mart shall utilize no more than thirty (30) storage trailers on a grassy area behind its store, from September 1 st through January 15th of each year. After the temporary/seasonal trailers are removed, the grass will be re -seeded. The intent of this letter is to respectfully request approval to allow Wal-Mart to operate, on a temporary/seasonal basis, with thirty (30) storage trailers, in the location shown on the site plan, this year, and each subsequent year, from a time period of September 1 st through January 15th. Thank you for your consideration and please call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL & BURROW PLLC LIM TWG:ess Enclosures W. Grooms September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: File No.: Z -7079-C Owner: Crackerbox, LLC Address: 8921 Fourche Dam Pike Description: Part of Tract C, Area 203, Little Rock Port Authority Zoned: C-3 and 1-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the paving requirements of Section 36-508 to allow overflow gravel truck parking. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No direct access to Lindsey Road from the gravel parking area will be allowed. All access must be through the convenience store development. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The front twenty-one (21) feet along Lindsey Road must be reserved for the street buffer landscaping area. This area will be required to be irrigated. C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 8921 Fourche Dam Pike is occupied by a convenience store with gas pumps which is currently under construction. The Board of Adjustment recently granted a sign variance for the development. The property owner recently acquired a 100 foot wide strip of undeveloped 1-2 zoned property immediately east of the convenience September 30, 2002 Item No.: 6 (Co store development. The owner requests that this additional area be used for overflow, gravel, truck parking. Section 36-508 of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that every parcel of land which is devoted to a parking area be paved where subject to wheeled traffic. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement for the proposed gravel parking area. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Given the surrounding zoning and uses which exist, staff feels that the proposed gravel parking area will have no adverse impact on the general area. However, staff feels that if the gravel parking area becomes a problem (dust, maintenance, etc.), the issue should come back before the Board for further consideration, and possible paving requirement. As noted in paragraph A. of this report, Public Works states that the gravel parking area is to have no direct access to Lindsey Road. All 'access is to be through the paved convenience store site. In addition, the Little Rock Port Authority has no objection to the proposed gravel parking area (see attached letter dated July 22, 2002 from Paul Latture, Executive Director of the Little Rock Port Authority). D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow an overflow gravel truck parking area, subject to the following conditions: Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs A and B of this report. 2. If, in staff's opinion, the overflow gravel truck parking area becomes a problem (dust, maintenance, etc.) the issue will be brought back to the Board of Adjustment for further consideration, and possible paving requirement. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 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 IMAGINEERED L7 NEWROCK PARKING DECK 0 TRAVELERS INSURANCE BUILDING 19 HOWARD JOHNSON RESTAURANT 0 VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER ag STORYBOOK VILLAGE GLENWOOD HEIGHTS 0 HOWARD JOHNSON MOTEL N SCHOOLWOOD ALLENDALE M JAMESTOWN APARTMENTS M WINDAMERE APARTMENTS R PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL SPECIALISTS , PUTNAM REALTY INC. SUITE 1820 UNION NATIONAL BANK BUILDING REAL ESTATE INVESTNiEtiT ('()i�'titi1:LI)1, 1 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 a August 9, 2002 Board of Adjustment City of Little Rock Planning Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Board Member: f,J -7 4�s IMAGINEERS PHONE AC 501 376-3616 Crackerbox LLC is asking for a variance on the paving portion of Auxillary Parking at 8912 Fourche Dam Pike. This parking will be used only as an overflow parking for trucks. Crackerbox would comply with all other items pertaining to parking lots such as landscaping, egress and ingress. A copy of a letter from the Little Rock Port Authority stating their approval, is attached. Sincerely, im Hill, Agent JH/hjh Attachment BUSINESS COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS r REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS DIVESTMENTS & ACQUISITIONS <<: APPRAISALS LITTLE ROCK max PORT AUTHORI --7o-71--C_ July 22, 2002 Mr. Jim Hill Putnam Realty Company 1829 Union National Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Jim: As a condition of the offer you submitted to the Little Rock Port Authority on July 19, which was accepted by the Port's Board of Directors, you requested a letter from the Port Authority regarding the surface of the excess parking area to be placed on the property being purchased. The Bill of Assurance of the Little Rock Port Authority would not prohibit the use of either "Donnafill" or of gravel for a surface area on the 100' x 380' strip of land on the east side of the Cracker Box project. We would have no objection to either of these surfaces. However, the City of Little Rock may have requirements that are beyond our scope or control. We look forward to this project and to hearing from you. Sincerely Latture utive Director I!:I \L PARK PORT RAILROAD RIVER TERMINAL FOREIGN TRADE ZONE 7500 Lindsey Road • Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 490-1468 9 Fax: (501) 490-1800 * E-mail: Irpa@gte.net September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z -7103-B Owner: City of Little Rock as trustee for the Central Arkansas Library System Address: 120 Commerce Street Description: Lots 1-3, Block 8, Pope's Addition Zoned: UU Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-557 to allow a sign without street frontage. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Commercial/Office Commercial/Office The property at 120 Commerce Street is zoned UU and is occupied by the Cox Building, which contains a mixture of office and commercial uses. The Board of Adjustment recently approved variances to allow banner signs to be placed on the building. A new building tenant, Boulevard Bread Company, wishes to place a sign on (under) the west metal canopy of the building. The sign would be 3 feet by 8 feet in area and face President Clinton Avenue. There is an alley and public parking lot located between the Cox Building and President Clinton Avenue. September 30, 2002 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) Section 36-557(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance reads as follows: "(a) All on -premises wall signs must face required street frontage except in complexes where a sign without street frontage would be the only means of identification for a tenant." Based on the fact that there is private property between the north side of the Cox Building and President Clinton Avenue, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff feels that the proposed sign will not be out of character with existing signs in the River Market District. The sign should provide the restaurant with adequate identification as viewed from the high traffic River Market area to the north. As noted in an attached letter, the River Market Design Review Committee approved the proposed sign without street frontage on September 3, 2002. The revised sign as noted in the DRC letter dated September 10, 2002 was for a change in background color only. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a sign without street frontage, as revised and approved by the River Market Design Review Committee. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 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. THE PUBLIC LIBRARY LITTLE ROCK - JACKSONVILLE - PULASKI and PERRY COUNTIES - MAUMELI - SHERWOOD 447 :Z--7io3--8 August 23, 2002 Little Rock Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham St. Little Rock. AR 72201 RE: Requesting a sign be placed on the north side of the metal canopy located on the west end of the Cox Building, 120 Commerce St., Little Rock, Arkansas. Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: The Boulevard Bread Company will become a new tenant on the first floor of the Cox Building in October 2002. The Bread Company wants to let the public know of its new satellite location in the Cox Building by attaching signage to the west metal canopy of the Cox Building. The tenant proposes to place a `Boulevard Bread" sign on the north side of the canopy facing President Clinton Ave. because the vast majority of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic travel down President Clinton Ave. in the River. Market. The fixed sign will not interfere with any pedestrian or vehicular traffic and will face an alley and parking lot and will (if approved) be seen by people traveling President Clinton Ave. to the north of the building. Attached is a copy of the sign located on the Cox Building. Please call if you have any questions or request additional information. Sincerely, �� &ktv, 1,0, Susan Schallhorn, Assistant Director Central Arkansas Library System Manager, Cox Building 501-918-3033 CENTRAL ARKANSAS LIBRARY SYSTEM MAIN LIBRARY - 100 ROCK STREET - LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 - 501-918-3000 - FAX 501-375-7451 WWW.CALS.LIB.AR.US River Market Frank Porbeck, Chairman I ItDesign Tim Heiple, Member �•� Jim Schimmer, Member Review Melissa Tanner, Member Committee Patty Wingfield, Member Planning end Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock • Arkansas • 72201.501-371-4790 • fax 371-6863 September 10, 2002 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: boulevard Bread Chairman and Members, The River Market DRC met on September 3, 2002 and reviewed the signage at the Cox Building for the Boulevard Bread Company. The DRC did approve the signage as revised as a sign without street frontage for the northern sign only. The final vote was 4 yes, 0 noes and 1 absent. Thank you, Brian Minyard River Market DRC Staff September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Owner: Address- Description- Zoned: ddress:Description:Zoned: Z-7285 Sandy R. Sanders 707 Parkway Place Drive Lot 2, Block 6, Cedar Ridge Subdivision Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the area provisions of Section 36-254 to permit a deck addition which crosses a platted building line, with a reduced front yard setback. 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 707 Parkway Place Drive is occupied by a one- story frame single family residence. An existing two -car driveway from Parkway Place Drive serves as access to the property. The property slopes upward from Parkway Place Drive to the east. The property owner recently constructed a new deck structure on the front (west side) of the single family residence. The deck structure extends from the front of the residential structure, across a platted 25 foot building line, to within 13.5 feet of the front property line. The owner is requesting variances to allow a reduced front yard setback and an encroachment over the platted front building line. September 30, 2002 Item No.: 8 (Cont.) Section 31-12 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. As noted previously, the new deck structure is located 13.5 feet back from the front (west) property line. Staff is supportive of the variance requests. Staff feels that the requested variances are relatively minor in nature. A majority of the main deck structure is located behind the 25 foot platted building line, with a smaller portion of the main deck structure and the deck's landing and stairs being between the building line and the front property line. Staff feels that if the deck structure remains uncovered and unenclosed, it will continue to be unobtrusive, and have no adverse impact on the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line for the proposed deck. 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 deck structure is to remain uncovered and unenclosed. 3. A building permit must be obtained for the deck construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 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 August 19, 2002 -7 Department of Planning and Development Board of Adjustment City of Little Rock, Arkansas Subject: Hardship Statement Dear Sirs, My back yard has a tremendous water problem due to the slope of my neighbors back yards. Their yards have higher ground than mine and the water funnels to my yard, travels down the side of my house to the street and down the hill to my neighbors south of me. Because of this water during a very heavy rain cascades over my landscaping ties and has forced me to cut the bottom of my private gate to allow the water to flow out of my yard. Even after I did this I would still have to open my gate, and for several days after a rain, water still flows down the side of my home in a stream and makes it impossible to use the side yard or get to our back yard through our privacy gate. Since last years ice storm the neighbors above me have lost several trees and the problem has increased! I have installed a french drain to the street with minimal results and have started to build a retaining wall to try and control the water seepage thru the hill and to control the water in the heavy rains.( In a heavy rain the water will be up to my ankles). The water problem has made it difficult to use our back yard area to entertain or to permit my children to play. The obvious answer was to built a deck in the front yard! After measuring for the building line (25'), I thought I had more than enough area outside of the building line and set back and in good faith proceeded. After a neighbor complained before I ,vas moble to show them the finished product I ordered a current survey as suggested by the code enforcement officer to show them the deck was outside of the building set back line. I was soon shocked to see where the survey stakes were placed which were well into my front yard due to a city easement or right a way. That pushed the building set back lines further into my front yard. After remeasuring I found the building set back line falls some were in the middle of my deck. To make my deck attractive to the neighborhood I built a quality and aesthetically pleasing deck and I have landscaped the front yard in front of the deck with extensive amounts of trees, shrubs and flowers. I have installed white lattice work beneath the deck to match the new white vinyl siding on my home and I had the front yard completely sodded in zoysia. I have made extensive improvements to our home to enhance our property value and that of my neighbors! In view of all this I am asking the City of Little Rock to grant me a variance for the deck Sincerely, andy Sander September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7286 Owner: Thomas and Elizabeth Small Address: 4701 Hillcrest Avenue Description: Lots 1 and 2, Block 62, Pulaski Heights Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Sections 36-156 to allow the construction of an accessory building with a reduced street side yard setback. 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 4701 Hillcrest Avenue is occupied by a 2 Y2 story rock and stucco single family residence. There is a driveway from Hillcrest Avenue which serves as access to the property. There is also a paved alley along the west property line. The applicant proposes to construct an 816 square foot garage/storage building near the northwest corner of the property. The northeast corner of the garage structure will be located two (2) feet from the north (Hillcrest Avenue) street side property line. The new structure will be located one (1) foot from the west (alley) property line. The applicant is proposing a new circular driveway from Hillcrest Avenue. The applicant is also proposing to relocate the wood privacy fence and gates (northwest portion September 30, 2002 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) of the property), which are located within the Hillcrest Avenue right-of-way, to the north property line. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory buildings be located at least 15 feet back from street side property lines. As noted earlier, the proposed garage/storage structure will be located two (2) feet back from the north street side property line, as measured from the northeast corner of the proposed structure. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Given the irregular shape of the lot, staff feels that the requested variance is reasonable. The proposed accessory structure will have a two (2) foot setback from the street side property line at the structure's northeast corner, with the setback increasing as the structure runs to the west. The proposed accessory building will not be out of character with other structures in this area, and should have no adverse impact on adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested street side yard setback variance, subject to the garage door being located on the east side of the structure, with no loading/access directly from Hillcrest Avenue (no garage door on the north side of the structure). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 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. K V '�. r/ i /'1U�U�l L.J,tLUVL - -+- '+ r r s r , f t' -1 c k. C J fa T i � Mr sMonte Moore, f f "- ZOiling Admmrstrdtor "� " s l Department ofi Planning and Development z 4 Y` y23 W Markham St r �' a 4 rY r J 1 ittle Rock; AR !220 I r° F { r', x Re ;4�0I Hillcrest Avenue r i Single Family Residential -Zoning Vanance t .3' 11 4 ! + 1 f Dear Mr Moore ' r } x f S �, ,' On behalf of El¢abeth and Thomas Small owners of the referenced residence Williams & i?ean Associated Architects is making application for a Single'Family Residential Zoning,.anarice from the Little Rock Cgde of Ordinances r ' e The Owners wish to:construcE a freestanding detached garage, and off street parting foraheir sirigie fami� residence Space is limited and; complicated bythe' irregular shape of the lot and'by it being a s I ' corner lot Parking is restricted on Hillcrest Avenue along the length of.the property } '` The, proposed garage and driveway have been designed to be 'sympathetic to the context and , architectural ;flavor of the neighborhood Matenal5 will_ be similar to those used..on the residence The garage/storage building is designed to be fragmented i� plan, thus reducing its mass and keeping it in , 1 I scale and context with` neighbonng structures It is located with a setback to align with aq existing garage: 7 to the wesf t A J iJ- 1 `Y �' y.' ^r., r7 4 c. . J M The double entry driveway provides much needed off street Parking for the owners and their guests The canfiguratign of the dnve also allows for cars to pull out onto Hillcrest Avenue ratherthan backing out into traffic r 4 ? i } t' �; In conjunction with the construction of th6 new structure, an existing yvood pnvacy fence wig be relocated tothe property line and out of the public right of way { .. + a - r r x, r 'cam L i �" .i.. �' t t .,t. L i : a ti i Should fou need anyjhing further, please do not hesitate f all meat a 24 1900 a ? F v RfrS e a ! 5 y r y r 1 �- >- t f< ,, , JOhnJ h SOn } Et r n i h` z £? Williams & Deap Associated Architects yr n + -}t 4 i. v S 1 .s - v , .. '' o r n .� 1 ti EIGHT`C. y a L Cc Gary Dean, AfA ; Wil6arr}s $c Dean Associated Architects = 3' t � Thomas and El"z Ufh Srrtall v ; , CORPORATE HILLfl! Y i �t �r e' r �� c s IM f LITTEE BOCK 4lR 7Z.' t .i t:S r� 3F ,�,, l r,k i i �',F.. �' s 'y Y .t F !, .r, t� 5 °L. w x 'r r { t .t T r -3r l -a' T '^ -'�-r , , * t J t . , _ r , �, 3' l -t -t - r t [ 7 /j '' l r jf j' `^2 1 l=1 ZM1/_' ^S. - i T Y r` fit xJ `r5 ,4 / Y 7 x }: :i �� .701 2241. �, J - ,,,. �.-r a ' ' fry �, t x .-t , > J 1 , { - ,.s: r s, , FAX SOT 224 0 +a. i .� J- f .s'R f< ' i 3 x t t k .� - r. .',i v Y ��,: 7 , 4 4 } k , T k .r �+, r a" Y, .' . �•- - Jr r ' 1 ..y� a 1 S3�� n i'�� i�} ?f rYt- S.ry n} E,�, 1 1.Y 'S .S ,`✓ x f i.N. .'il i t ! y �: �" Yf• G j ., ia:.yh + F p t / t,t. { 7 '�. } t Sl 1. ,?" ` j'y �' ,M1b�ay 'W�t sc i�,�.y`� 5 r r +�r ?� h ��.. J� A $ %,�� 4 i?. 5 ,- ; Kr .c F` it [j K}'< SL 'h _x t''1 `' a f. yf. September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Z-7287 Owner: Claude Skelton Address: 4607 West 61St Street Description: South side of West 61St Street, west of Patterson Road Zoned: 1-2 Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested to determine that the storage of vehicles on the site should not be classified as a salvage yard operation. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Offices and maintenance facility for cab company Proposed Use of Property: Offices and maintenance facility for cab company STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The property at 4607 West 61St Street is zoned 1-2 and contains a one- story building which houses Capitol Transportation. Capitol Transportation is a cab company, with offices, dispatch services and an auto repair shop at this location. The only vehicles repaired at this site are company owned cabs which are involved in accidents or in need of repair. Those vehicles involved in accidents are parked within a fenced area along the east property line until the insurance company settles with the cab company. At that time, the vehicles are either picked up and hauled off as salvage or repaired. September 30, 2002 Item No.: 10 (Cont.) Capitol Transportation recently received notice from the City's Zoning Enforcement Staff to cease the salvaging of vehicles on the site. According to the City's Zoning Ordinance the definition of a junk or salvage yard reads as follows: "Junk or salvage yard means any establishment maintained, used or operated for the storing, keeping, dismantling, salvaging, buying or selling of: (1) Scraps or discarded pieces of metal, paper, rags, tires, bottles and other materials. (2) Inoperable, wrecked, scrapped, ruined or discarded automobiles, automobile parts, machinery or appliances. A junk or salvage yard shall not include premises on which such uses are conducted entirely within a completely enclosed building, nor shall a junk or salvage yard include premises used primarily for the sale or storage of operable automobiles or for the overhaul or full repair thereof, so long as no inoperable junk or wrecked automobile remains outside more than thirty (30) days. Any premises on which there remains outside more than thirty (30) days an inoperable, partially dismantled, wrecked or junked automobile shall be deemed for the purpose of this chapter, a junk or salvage yard." According to the applicant, some vehicles could remain parked on the site for extended periods of time (possibly several months) while waiting on insurance companies to release them. The applicant also notes that they do not sell or part out any vehicles to the public. Additionally, no junk vehicles are kept on the site and used for spare parts. Therefore, Capitol Transportation is requesting an administrative appeal and asking the Board of Adjustment to determine that the storage of vehicles on this site not be classified as a salvage yard operation. The applicant notes that every effort will be made to have the vehicles removed or repaired as soon as they are released by the insurance companies. OA, September 30, 2002 Item No.: 10 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2002) Donna Fisher was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff briefly described the proposed appeal. Ms. Fisher addressed the Board in favor of the appeal. She explained that it often took several months to obtain settlements from insurance companies on damaged vehicles. Scott Richburg asked if the damaged vehicles were kept behind a screening fence. Ms. Fisher stated that they were kept behind a chain link security fence. Mr. Richburg asked how many vehicles awaiting repair were currently on the site. Ms. Fisher stated that there were approximately five (5). Vice -Chairman Gray asked how many of the vehicles which are involved in accidents are stored on the site for more than 30 days. Ms. Fisher stated that approximately 75 percent of the damaged vehicles are kept on the site for more than 30 days, and most of those are repaired within 60 days. Andrew Francis asked if Capitol Transportation repaired vehicles for other companies. Ms. Fisher stated that they do not and explained. Chairman Ruck asked if the vehicles stored on the site were in one piece. Ms. Fisher explained that they are. Chairman Ruck asked if any of the neighbors had a problem with the wrecked cars being stored on the property. Ms. Fisher stated that she has had no complaints from neighbors. There was a motion to approve the requested appeal and determine that the storage of wrecked vehicles on this site not be classified as a salvage operation. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 0 T�nSport?��Ot\ Members of the Board And Whom It May Concern 4607 West 61 st Street ■ Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (501) 568-2020 ■ FAX (501) 562-4066 800-563-4634 J -44J c� f 2�e August 21, 2002 Greater Little Rock Transportation Services, LLC and Pulaski County Transportation Services, LLC, operate Black & White Cab, Yellow Cab, Capital Cab and Veterans Cab from the premises of 4607 West 61"1 Street, Little Rock AR 72209. The offices, dispatch services and shop are at this location. On July 24, 2002, we were issued a Courtesy Notice by afield officer from Zoning and Code Enforcement. We immediately took measures to rectify the areas he determined were problems. On August 14, 2002, Mr. Smith visited again. At this time he made clear that it was the vehicles that were wrecked that were causing the problem. I explained that due to subrogation claims, we were required to keep these vehicles until they were either picked up as salvage or released to us by the insurance companies involved. It was at this time that he suggested I contact Mr. Monte Moore to request an Administrative Ruling to allow us to keep these vehicles on the property without violating City Code. I have included my letters to Mr. Moore with this application. I would like to add that all vehicles involved in an accident are subject to inspection and approval by Mr. Carl Pettus who represents the City of Little Rock's Fleet Services. He is responsible for inspecting and permitting every taxi in Little Rock before it is allowed to operate. I have included a copy of the section in the Transportation Code that deals with a Taxi that is involved in an accident. We are requesting an Administrative Ruling that will allow us to keep these vehicles on the property without being in danger of breaking the Zoning Codes. We make every effort to either have these vehicles removed or repaired as soon as we are allowed to do so. Respectfully, bm J ` Donna MFisher General Manager -7;-?9� 2 - Zoning & Code Enforcement Administrator City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 August 14, 2002 Re: Courtesy Notice of 07/24/2002 Dear Monte, Mr. Kelly Smith, the enforcement officer who issued the notice, stopped by today to see if we had complied with his requests. We took a tour of our lot and the vehicles he still had questions / reserves about are ones that have been involved in accidents. We are waiting on the insurance companies to release them. A couple of these will simply be hauled away, but after we receive the Subro Payment from the insurance companies, we will have the rest repaired and put back onto our Fleet. I provided Mr. Kelly with the documentation on each vehicle. My problem is that we have no idea how long it will take the insurance companies to settle after an accident. Our shop is "in-house " only. Our mechanics work on company owned vehicles. We do not take in work from the public sector. We do not sell salvage or spare parts. The mechanics put these vehicles back into service as soon as possible after an accident. The company earns no income from a vehicle that is left sitting on the lot. What we would like to request is to be allowed to keep these company vehicles on our property, without being in danger of breaking one of the Zoning Codes. Is there any way we can request a variance or an Administrative Ruling that will allow us to do this? If so, Please send me any information or documentation that is required on this matter. Thank you for any help you can give me in completing this matter. If you need to contact me, you can reach me at 501) 568-2020. I look forward to hearing from you. Respectfully, Donna M Fisher Zoning & Code Enforcement Administrator City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Courtesy Notice of 07/24/2002 Dear Monte, ,-7zS�--7 (. � -3- ) August 20, 2002 I would like to express my appreciation for your help with this matter. When Mr. Smith first issued this notice, we immediately took steps to rectify the items he felt were not meeting city codes. In my letter of August 14, 2002, I tried to be specific about the type of work that our Fleet Mechanics are engaged in. After our conversation of 08/19/2002, I would like to reassure you once again that "salvage " is not the business we operate. We do not sell or part out any vehicles to the public. We do not keep junk vehicles around to use only for spare parts. When my Fleet Manager decides to permanently remove a vehicle from one of our fleets, he schedules it into the shop for removal of the lights, meter, radio and any other parts that he wants to keep. He then contacts Frank Harrison & Sons to schedule the removal of the vehicle. They have removed between thirty (30) and forty (40) vehicles since the first of this year. It is our policy to have all non-viable vehicles removed from our lot ASAP. I hope this note clarified our procedures for vehicle removal. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 501) 568-2020. Respectfully, Donna M Fisher t ;F— 72-0 7 K`f Fj s- j Page, CITY OF LITTLE ROCK TRANSPORTATION CODE CHAPTER 34 ARTICLE III SEC. 34-38 INSPECTIONS 7 (f) f. A taxicab involved in an accident shall be inspected by the administrator within thirty (30) days after notification of the accident. If the administrator's inspection reveals that the taxicab has been damaged and has failed to be repaired to an extent that it is not in a reasonably good operating condition from the standpoint of the safety, health, and comfort of passengers, the taxicab shall be ordered out of service until the administrator has authorized the return of the taxicab to the taxicab operations, which authorization shall not be given until proper repairs or corrections have been made JAMES C; LINDERSMITH August 19, 2002 -72-2Y% (57'1.x) L & R, AD STMENT CC:',, INC. Greater Little Rock Transportation 4607 W. 61s' St. Little Rock, AR 72209 ATTN: Donna Fisher SIXTH REPORT ENCLOSURES E AMt L �Ol14Jp(Hi NSUNQ ANDREW R. ROSSI Insured Driver: r-.vid Bewley Date of Loss: 2/Z,'`02 Location: Fair P_ -k & 13th File Number: 0'7-9300 1. Copy of letter sent to Allstate Insurance on this date. SUBROGATION We are enclosing a copy of our letter sent to Allstate. More than likel,, they will make a counter offer. In reviewing the NADA Used Car Guide it quoted an,: --erage retail of $3,950.00 on the insured vehicle before the deduction for mileage. `' ur vehicle had 250,409 miles on it at the time of the accident. ,.. Once we receive a response from Allstate we will notify your office. TO BE DONE 1. Pursue subrogation. Next report due September 18, 2002. CHRIS ANDERSEN CA/er encl. 2723 FOXCROFT ROAD • P. O. BOX 55125 • LITTLE ROCK, AR 72215 • (501) 227-5222 • FAX 501-227-7811 September 30, 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-7288 Letha Marie Osborne 1617 S. Elm Street Lot 5, Block 8, Braddock's Addition A variance is requested from Section 36-156 to allow a carport structure with reduced front and side yard setbacks. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-3 zoned property at 1617 S. Elm Street is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. There is an existing two -car driveway from Elm Street. An existing 10 foot by 18 foot detached metal carport structure is located at the southwest corner of the property and covers a portion of the driveway. The carport structure is flush against (but not attached to) the front of the single family residence, and is located on the front (west) and side (south) property lines. Section 36-156(a)(2)b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that an accessory structure be separated by at least six (6) feet from principal structure. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. requires a minimum front yard setback of 60 feet for accessory structures, and Section 36-156(a)(2)f. requires a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from these standards. As noted previously, there is September 30, 2002 Item No.: 11 (Cont.) no separation between the accessory carport structure and the principal structure, and the structure has no setback from the front or south side property lines. Staff supports the requested variances. Staff's support is based primarily on the fact that the carport structure has been in place for years, with no complaints from neighbors. The City's enforcement staff observed the carport during a neighborhood inspection. 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 isnot 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 front yard setback, 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 owner, Letha Marie Osborne, only. 2. If the property is sold, or Ms. Osborne vacates the property, the carport structure must be removed from the site or moved to meet the minimum required setbacks. 3. The carport structure must remain unenclosed on the north, south and west sides. Staff will inspect the property every five (5) years to verify the ownership and occupancy of the property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the October 28, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the October 28, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 6 Letha Marie Osborne 1617 S. Elm Street Little Rock, AR 72204 RE: Variance for Lot 5, Block 8, Braddock's Addition To the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas August 12, 2002 To The Little Rock Board of Adjustment: On Tuesday evening, August 6, 2002, I arrived home from work to find a notice that the carport located in my front yard was in violation of Ordinance 36 -156A -2-C. The notice states that the referenced ordinance requires 60' placement behind the front property line. Therefore, I am hereby applying for a variance to, at a minimum, keep the existing portable carport, which is held in place with four (4) bolts. If possible, I would like to have a carport built onto the front of the house, this would cover the existing concrete to the property line. The above mentioned carport protects my car from the falling tree limbs, the tree is located next door, and other elements of nature, including hail. Thanking you in advance for reviewing my case. Sincerely, Letha Marie Osborne September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: 12 File No.: Z-7289 Owner: Mattie Irby Rhodes Address: 3300 West 11th Street Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Owen's and Worthen 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 fence between a building setback line and a street right-of-way. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 3300 West 11th Street (northwest corner of West 11th and Brown Streets) contains a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property owner recently removed an old fence along the north and east property lines and replaced it with a new six (6) foot high wood screening fence. There is a gate near the northeast corner of the fence, which allows vehicular access to the rear yard area. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows fences in residential zones as follows: September 30, 2002 Item No.: 12 (Cont.) "Between a required building setback line and a street right- of-way, the maximum height shall be four (4) feet. Other fences may be erected to a maximum height of six (6) feet." The required side yard setback along the east (Brown Street) property line is 5.1 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot wood privacy fence between the east 5.1 foot side yard setback and the Brown Street right-of-way. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The applicant constructed the new six (6) foot high privacy fence in place of an old fence. Additionally, the new fence creates no sight -distance problems for traffic at the intersection of West 11th and Brown Streets. The new fence should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence variance, subject to a building permit being obtained. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 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 August 21, 2002 Whom it may concern: City Of Little Rock RE: Mrs. Mattie Rhodes Privacy Fence I need a new fence and I replaced it with a privacy fence. I have already had it put up. I always wanted one so that I could feel safe in my home. I didn't know that a person had to go threw so much to secure their home and feel safe in their home. I'm trying to take the proper procedures to keep my privacy fence. Sincerely, Mrs. Mattie Rhodes September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: 13 File No.: Z-7290 Owner: Alton L. Crawford, Jr. Address: 4421 N. Lookout Street Description: Lot 6, Block 12, Hillcrest Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provision of Section 36-516 to allow a fence -type structure which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 4421 N. Lookout Street is occupied by a one- story frame single family residence. There is a paved alley along the south property line which serves as access to the property. The applicant recently constructed a 10 foot high canvas screening fence just inside an existing six (6) foot high wood fence located along the south property line. The canvas screening fence has wood support posts and runs for approximately 30 linear feet, enclosing a small rear yard area. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. requires that fences in residential zoning have a maximum height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement. The applicant notes in the attached letter that the canvas screening fence provides privacy for his September 30, 2002 Item No.: 13 (Co home, as the house is at the bottom of an extreme slope, with the houses to the south overlooking this property. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the requested variance is very minor, with the canvas screening fence running only approximately 30 linear feet. Based on the fact that there is an existing wood screening fence along the south property line, staff will suggest that the variance to allow the 10 foot high canvas screening fence be for this property owner only. Additionally, staff will suggest a review (staff -level) every two (2) years to assure that the canvas screen is properly maintained. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance be approved for the property owner, Kenneth D. Trantham, only. If Mr. Trantham sells or vacates the property, the canvas fence structure must be removed from the site or reduced to a height of six (6) feet. 2. A staff -level review will be conducted every two (2) years to assure that the canvas screening fence is properly maintained, and to verify the ownership and occupancy of the property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 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. 1►i August 20, 2002 % 4-e, 7 4 i C--) Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 My name is Kenny Trantham and I am in the process of purchasing the property at 4421 North Lookout Rd, Little Rock, AR 72205. I have resided and leased this property from Mr. Alton L Crawford for 5 years. I received notice from this department that a translucent screen erected by Maple Leaf Canvas and Fence located in Sherwood, AR, in November, 2001, is not in compliance with a city zoning ordinance requiring the above mentioned screen to be no higher than six feet in height, as is any fence in Little Rock. I was not aware of such ordinance and was not advised as such by Maple Leaf. The screen is not located on a public street (it is in an alleyway), nor does it in any way obstruct a view of Allsop Park, which is located across the street from my home. I have several neighbors that have admired the screen and I will present letters stating this fact. The reason for erecting the screen was twofold: First, it is a sun screen which filters light within a courtyard area in the back of my home. Secondly, it provides privacy for my home which is located at the bottom of an extremely steep slope, specifically at the point where the 1100 block of North Ash Street intersects with the 4500 block of N Lookout Rd. The screen extends approximately 4 feet above a wooden fence from the courtyard edge to gate. I have done extensive landscaping within this area and it has been admired and shared with area neighbors. Please find enclosed 3 copies of a survey of the property conducted by Blaylock Threet Engineers on September 13, 2001. I look forward to meeting with the board in September to answer questions, if any, and apologize to the department for not knowing a variance approval was required prior to the installation of the screen. Sincerely, your; enneth D. Tran am 4421 N Lookout Rd Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 663-2096 (home) or (501) 320-1100 (work) September 30, 2002 1110&6L*1 i 11 File No.: Z-7291 Owner: Richard and Mitzi Bonner Address: 466 Midland Street Description: Lot 4, Block 12, Midland Hills Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-255 to permit a building addition with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 466 Midland Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The residence is located 43 feet back from the front property line. There is a paved alley along the south property line. The property slopes downward from the alley to Midland Street. The applicants propose to construct a 600 square foot building addition at the southeast corner of the single family structure. The addition will include a master bedroom and bath. The addition will be located 7.5 feet from the east (side) property line and 11 feet from the south (rear) property line. Section 36-255(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement. September 30, 2002 Item No.: 14 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the variance request as relatively minor. As noted earlier, the single family structure is located 43 feet back from the front property line. A minimum 25 foot front yard setback is required in R-3 zoning. If the residential structure were pulled up to the 25 foot front setback line, the rear yard setback would not be an issue. Additionally, Midland Street has a very wide right-of-way (76 feet) which adds to the appearance of the house being a large distance (69 feet) from the street curbline. Staff feels that the proposed rear yard setback will have no adverse" impact, nor be out of character with single family properties in this general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 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. 4 Richard T. Bonner and Mitzi K. Bonner — f 466 Midland Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Monte Moore Zoning and Enforcement Administrator Department of Planning and Development. 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Sir: We are currently planning an addition to our three bedroom one bathroom home. The addition will include a master bedroom with a large closet and bathroom. It will be attached to the back of the existing house. The work is expected to be completed by the end of November. It will add approximately 600 square feet to our existing 1300 square foot home. The addition will cover an unusable sloped back yard and add needed space. The design will be the same as the original 1930's construction when the home was built. A concrete and rock patio was added to the back of our house in 1999. The cost of this construction was $3800.00. It is not desirable for us to build on this area. Therefore, we would like to add the area described on the plot plan which would place the back of our house closer to the property line. If you have any questions contact Bean Construction at 501- 224-3016 . Thank you for your assistance in this project. Sincerely, Mitzi K. Bonner September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: 15 File No.: Z-7292 Owner: Charles Etta Bolden Address: 2111 Vancouver Drive Description: Lot 2, Block 3, Phase I, Parkwood Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow a carport structure which crosses on platted building line and has a reduced front yard setback and building separation. 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 2111 Vancouver Drive is occupied by a one- story brick single family residence. There is an existing two -car driveway from Vancouver Drive. The applicant requests to place an 18 foot by 20 foot detached metal carport structure over a portion of the driveway. The proposed structure will be separated from the residence by 2.5 feet, with a setbacks of 4.5 feet from the front property line and 15.5 feet from the street curb. There is a 25 foot platted front building line along the west (Vancouver Drive) property line. The applicant is requesting three (3) variances for the proposed carport structure. September 30, 2002 Item No.: 15 (Cont.) The first variance is from Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. This section requires that any encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. The entire proposed carport structure is located across the front platted building line. The second variance is from Section 36-156(a)(2)b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance. This section requires that an accessory structure be separated from a principal structure by at least six (6) feet. As noted previously, the proposed carport structure will be located approximately 2.5 feet from the principal structure. The final variance is from Section 36-156(a)(2)c. This section states that accessory buildings must be located at least 60 feet back from a front property line. The proposed carport structure is located 4.5 feet from the front (west) property line. Staff does not support the requested variances. Although the carport structure will be unenclosed, staff does not feel that the applicant has provided justification to support the requested variances. To staff's knowledge, none of the other single family residences fronting on Vancouver Drive have carport structures which extend into the required front yard. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not support the requested variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2002) Charles Etta Bolden was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff briefly described the proposed variances associated with this application. Ms. Bolden explained the proposed carport structure. Vice -Chairman Gray asked Ms. Bolden if she had checked with the carport manufacturer about a smaller (less deep) structure. Ms. Bolden stated that she had, and the structure could be 17 feet deep. Scott Richburg asked if there was a medical condition that the carport would help. Ms. Bolden stated that there was not. She explained that the carport would be to shade her car and the west side of her house. 2 r September 30, 2002 Item No.: 15 (Cont.) Chairman Ruck stated that awnings could be put on the house to aid in shading. Ms. Bolden stated that the carport structure was needed to shade the car as well as the house and explained. There was a motion to approve the variances, as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent. The application was denied. 3 7 2 - PL September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: 16 File No.: Z-7293 Owner: James and Josephine Osborne Address: 35 Beverly Place Description: Lot 14, Beverly Place Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with a reduced side yard setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 35 Beverly Place is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence. There is a frame carport structure approximately 16 feet from the northeast corner of the residence. The carport structure is located 2.7 feet from the north (side) property line. There is a concrete driveway from Beverly Place which serves as access to the property. The applicant proposes to construct a building addition to the east end of the residence, which will incorporate a new 22 foot by 21 foot carport connected to a new mudroom, master bedroom and bath. The new addition will be 1 '/z stories with an eave height of 14 feet. There will be a game room and study built into the roof with dormers on a second story. The new carport and covered walkway will be located 1.5 feet from the September 30, 2002 Item No.: 16 (Cont.) north (side) property line (to nearest edge of structure). The new carport and covered walkway will be unenclosed. The new carport structure will be constructed of wood or permacast columns, and will incorporate the architectural style of the existing residential structure and other surrounding structures. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of seven (7) feet for this 70 foot wide lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the building addition with a reduced (1.5 foot) side yard setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The portion of the building addition located within 1.5 feet of the north property line represents only 36 feet of the 147 foot overall lot depth. The proposed new carport and covered walkway should have no greater impact on the adjacent property than does the existing carport structure. The proposed building addition will not be out of character with other residential structures in the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The carport /covered walkway portion of the overall building addition must remain unenclosed on the north, east and west sides. 2. Guttering must be installed on the building addition to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the north. 3. No portion of the structure is to be located closer than 1.5 feet to the north property line. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 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 Yeary Lindsey Architects 2-7273 August 23, 2002 t Dana Carney Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Residence of James and Josephine Osborne, 35 Beverly Place, Little Rock, AR Dear Dana, We are requesting a north side yard setback variance for the residence of Jim and Josephine Osborne at 35 Beverly Place. The Osbornes have an existing 2 car carport with outdoor storage currently located 15.9' to the east of their existing main house structure. The north side of this carport is 2.7' off of the north side property line. The Osbornes plan to build a new structure which will incorporate a new 22'w x 21'd carport connected to a new mudroom, master bedroom and bath. The new carport / bedroom structure will be 1 1/2 stories with an eave height of 14' and will have a gameroom and study built "into" the roof with dormers as a second story. The location of the new carport necessitates an encroachment of 5.5' into the existing 7' side yard setback. The length of this encroachment will be 36' (east to west) including the 21' depth of the carport and a 15' long by 5.5' wide covered breezeway between the carport and backyard. All of the structure encroaching into the sideyard setback will be open air non heated and cooled space at the ground level. The carport will be constructed of wood or permacast columns with a tongue and groove wood or gyp board ceiling and will incorporate the general architectural style of the Osborne's existing house and surrounding structures. We feel that the rebuilt carport attached to the new master suite will be comparable to the existing carport situation and that the new construction will enhance the carport's appearance and presence from the north side. We thank you for your serious consideration of our variance request. Sincerely, ak Ok Ellen Yea IA 319 President Clinton Ave., Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-5940 FX: 501-707-0118 September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: 17 File No.: Z-7294 Owner: Winthrop P. and Lisenne D. Rockefeller Address: 3504 Hill Road Description: Lots 1-6, Block 7, Auten and Moss Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow construction of rock walls which exceed the maximum height allowed. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-3 zoned property at 3504 Hill Road is occupied by a two-story rock and stucco single family residence. The property slopes downward from Hill Road to the north. The elevation of the majority of the rear yard area was raised to match the elevation of the first floor of the house. A series of retaining walls within this northern portion of the property and along the east property line has existed for a number of years. The property owner recently began renovating the rear yard area, which includes a new pool area and new rock walls. A new rock wall has been constructed along the east property line, turning west and running almost the entire width of the property. The highest portion of the wall is located at the north end of the north/south wall. The height at this point is approximately 20 feet from grade as viewed from the north. The September 30, 2002 No.: 17 (Cont. east/west wall varies in height (approximately 10 feet tall at the highest point), becoming shorter as the wall runs to the west. The applicant has noted that the north/south wall (along the east property line) was constructed in the same location as another rock wall which was determined to be unsafe and structurally unsound. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence/wall height of six (6) feet in residential zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement for the new construction/reconstruction of the rock walls. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The tallest rock wall on the property (along the east property line) is being constructed to replace a wall of comparable size which was removed due to being structurally unsound. Although the rock wall along the east property line has a height of approximately 20 feet as viewed from the north, its height as viewed from the existing grades to the east and west (swimming pool area) range from 8 to 12 feet. Given the large size of the adjacent properties along the north side of Hill Road, and the existing typography associated with them, staff feels that the new rock walls within the northern portion of this property will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances fence/wall height variance, subject to a building permit being obtained for all construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 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-, 17 2 -- % '/ ATTACHMENT A TO APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE The variance is requested for a rock wall which was reconstructed at the site of another rock wall which had been on the site for some years. The previous wall was determined to be unsafe and structurally unsound during the course of permitted construction of improvements in proximity to the old wall. September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: 18 File No.: Z-7296 Owner: Earnest N. Luster Address: 16701 Davis Cup Lane Description: Lot 840, The Hills Subdivision, Otter Creek Community Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a room addition with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 16701 Davis Cup Lane (northeast corner of Davis Cup Lane and Pine Breeze Court) is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. A two -car driveway from Davis Cup Lane serves as access to the property. The property slopes downward from Davis Cup Lane to the east. The existing residential structure sits behind a 25 foot platted building line which runs along both street frontages. The applicant proposes to remove a 12 foot by 17.5 foot wood deck from the rear of the residential structure and replace it with a 12 foot by 29 foot sunroom addition. The northeast corner of the sunroom addition will be 6 feet from the rear property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning September 30, 2002 Item No.: 18 (Cont.) Ordinance states that when providing a 25 foot exterior side yard, the rear yard may be reduced to not less than 8 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the sunroom addition with a reduced rear yard setback. Staff supports the requested .variance. Staff feels that the requested variance is very minor. The proposed 6 foot rear yard setback occurs at the northeast corner of the sunroom addition only. The rear yard setback increases as the building addition runs to the south, with a rear yard setback of 11 feet at the addition's southeast corner. Staff feels that the proposed sunroom addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff explained that the signatures obtained (by the applicant) from some of the property owners within 200 feet of the site were obtained three (3) days late. With a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent, the Board waived their bylaws and accepted the notification of surrounding property owners as completed by the applicant. 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 To: City of Little Rock Planning and Development From: Earnest N. Luster '// Y ")i 16701 Davis Cup Little Rock, AR 72210 (501) 455-5155 Date: September 3, 2002 Re: Sun Room Addition - 7 2- ) (3�"SJ I am requesting permission to remove an existing 12'x17' deck and replace it with a 12x29 sunroom. The outside will have 5'x3' windows made of brick and vinyl. The brick and vinyl will match that on the existing structure. The existing structure is now 81/2' from the property line, but the end of the new structure will be approximately 6' from the property line. For this reason I am also requesting a waiver. 7a � l 12x29 Sunroom 1. Construct 12x29 Room 2. Support lower part of deck to handle added. weight (blocks). 3. Six 3°x5° windows with one French door 4. Floor will be added to the 3/4" plywood and 1/2" backerboard on top to enable ceramic tile, which is to be picked out by the customer 5. All walls will be 2"x4"x8" —16" on center. 6. Rafters will be 2x6' — 2' on center. 7. Ceiling joists will be 2x6' — 2' on center. 8. Roofing will be 7/16" wafer board 9. Felt paper will be 415. 10. Shingles will match existing roof. 11. Siding will match existing on house. 12.Electrical work will be done by licensed electrician. 13.R-13 Insulation will be used in the walls. 14.R-19 Insulation will be used in the ceiling. 15 Any and all fireplace work will be done by homeowner 16.Remove siding, Soffitt and Fascia on Porch. 17.Remove window and case in. 18.Roof Design will be Gable end. 19.Soffitt and Fascia will match existing home. 20. Ceiling fan and necessary outlets will be installed. Customer to choose fan of choice. 21.Entire interior will be constructed with Knotty Pine. 22.All necessary trim will be installed with includes windows, doors, baseboards, and ceiling. 23.Homeowner will get building permit as needed. 24. All "extras" or changes will be mutually discussed and price will be agreed upon. September 30, 2002 ITEM NO.: 19 File No.: Z -3915-B Owner: CalArk Trucking Address: 12024 Interstate 30 Type of Issues: Status report regarding the paving of the vehicular use areas located within the CalArk Trucking facility at 12024 1-30. STAFF REPORT: CalArk Trucking Company is located at 12024 1-30; a 30± acre, C-4 zoned tract bounded by Otter Creek Road on the north and 1-30 on the southeast. The trucking company is located on the western 22± acres of the tract. On November 24, 1997, the Board of Adjustment granted a two-year deferral of the paving requirements of Section 36-508, allowing the trucking company to utilize a gravel parking area for the company's trucks and employee vehicles. There was some question, at that time, of a possible realignment of the Otter Creek Road overpass over 1-30 which could have affected this site. That two-year deferral expired on November 24, 1999. On November 11, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat, dividing the easternmost 8± acres of the site into 4 lots which were to be sold for potential development by other parties. CalArk stated it was uncertain how the truck terminal facility would be "laid out" on the remaining property. It appeared that the possible realignment of the overpass was no longer an issue. The 4 -lot plat was approved without the realignment issue being of concern, other than for some specific driveway placement. On January 31, 2000, the Board approved an additional deferral, through November 24, 2000. Although staff supported the additional 12 months, it was clear that the support was only for a deferral through November 24, 2000. On January 29, 2001, the Board approved an additional deferral, through January 30, 2002. Staff did not support the deferral request, noting that the 4 -lot preliminary plat (which was the basis of the last deferral) had expired. Staff also noted that at some point, the site must be developed to city code. On March 25, 2002, the Board approved an additional deferral, through March 25, 2003. Staff did not support the additional deferral request. The justification offered by the applicant related to the current financial situation of September 30, 2002 Item No.: 19 (Cont.) the trucking company. A condition of the approval was that the applicant appear at the September 2002 Board of Adjustment hearing and provide a status/progress report regarding the paving issue. A copy of the March 25, 2002 Board of Adjustment minute record is attached for Board review. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2002) Bill Hope, of Hope Engineers, was present, representing CalArk Trucking. Staff briefly introduced the item. Mr. Hope gave a brief history of the paving issue. Mr. Hope noted that the vehicular use area would be covered with a recycled asphalt material. Mr. Hope stated that he felt sure that the paving would be accomplished by the March 25, 2003 deadline, and explained. He explained what portion of the property would be paved. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the type of material proposed to be used for paving the parking lot. Staff noted uncertainty as to whether the material proposed for the paving conformed to ordinance standards. The paving requirements found in Section 36-508 of the City's Zoning Ordinance were read and discussed. Andrew Francis stated that another variance may need to be filed by the applicant if the proposed paving materials do not conform to ordinance standards. He noted that the Board could not address a variance at this meeting. This issue was discussed further. Vice -Chairman Gray stated that he wished to see the site paved by March 2003. The issue involving the type of paving materials to be used was discussed further. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, stated that the applicant needed to meet with staff and determine if the type of paving materials proposed met ordinance standards. She stated that the paving of the parking lot would have to conform to the City's Zoning and Landscape Ordinances. Scott Richburg also noted that he wished to see the site paved by March 2003. There being no further issues for discussion, the presentation was adjourned. E � March`_,, 2002 tel'. /. )� � .d - 25 ITEM NO.: 2 .t. S V File No.. Z -3915-B - 3q 5 " Owner: CalArk Trucking Address: 12024 Interstate 30 Type of Issue: Time extension of previously approved variance from the pavement requirements of Section 36-508. The variance was initially approved on November 24, 1997. Extensions were granted through January 30, 2002. STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Comply with conditions in Public Works minute record of November 1997. B. Staff Analysis: CalArk Trucking Company is located at 12024 I-30; a 30± acre, C-4 zoned tract bounded by Otter Creek Road on the north and I-30 on the southeast. The trucking company is located on the western 22± acres of the tract. On November 24, 1997, the Board of Adjustment granted a two-year deferral of the paving requirements of Section 36-508, allowing the trucking company to utilize a gravel parking area for the company's trucks and employee vehicles. There was some question, at that time, of a possible realignment of the Otter Creek Road overpass over I-30 which could have affected this site. That two-year deferral expired on November 24, 1999. On November 11, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat, dividing the easternmost 8± acres of the site into 4 lots which were to be sold for potential development by other parties. CalArk stated it was uncertain how the truck terminal facility would March _-), 2002 � 7 Item No.: 2 be "laid out" on the remaining property. It appeared that the possible realignment of the overpass was no longer an issue. The 4 -lot plat was approved without the realignment issue being of concern, other than for some specific driveway placement. On January 31, 2000, the Board approved an additional deferral, through November 24, 2000. Although staff supported the additional 12 months, it was clear that the support was only for a deferral through November 24, 2000. On January 29, 2001, the Board approved an additional deferral, through January 30, 2002. Staff did not support the deferral request, noting that the 4 -lot preliminary plat (which was the basis of the last deferral) had expired. Staff also noted that at some point, the site must be developed to city code. The applicant is now requesting an additional 12 -month deferral of the paving requirement. The justification offered by the applicant relates to the current financial situation of the trucking company. Please see the attached letter from Rochelle Gorman of CalArk for additional details. Staff is not supportive of an additional deferral. Staff feels that the applicant has had ample time to plan for the pavement of the parking area. This property has over 2,100 linear feet of frontage along Interstate 30, one of the main entries into the City of Little Rock. Staff feels that it is time that the site be paved and landscaped as per city code requirements, in order to improve the property's appearance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend approval of the requested 12 - month extension of the previously granted deferrals of the paving requirement of Section 36-508. 2 March 25, 2002 ^3 S -- Item -_Item No.: 2 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002) Rochelle Gorman was present, representing the application. There were no persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Rochelle Gorman addressed the Board in support of the requested paving extension. She gave a brief history of the property, including the past extensions granted. She noted that pavement for tractor/trailer trucks had to be thicker than standard parking lots because of the weight. She noted that the cost to pave the parking area was estimated at $500,000. She offered the current financial status of the business as a reason for the additional deferral. She stated that her company wanted to do the paving, but that money was not currently available. Vice -Chairman Gray stated that he felt the economy would positively affect the trucking business in the near future, based on the information he had seen. He asked the applicant about this issue. The issue was briefly discussed by the applicant. Vice -Chairman Gray noted that the corner tract of this property was for sale and briefly discussed this property with relation to other properties in the area. Andrew Francis asked when the exit ramp for I-30 would be completed. Ms. Gorman stated that she did not know. Chairman Ruck asked if the new plan for the I-30 overpass required Otter Creek Road to be realigned. Mike Hood, of Public Works, stated that he did not know to what extent the road would be realigned. Staff asked what preparations the applicant had made during the past five (5) years for the paving. Ms. Gorman noted that the sale of part of the property would help finance the paving. Andrew Francis asked about the I-30 exit ramp and the realignment of Otter Creek Road. This issue was briefly discussed. Also discussed were issues related to the previous extensions. 3 March 25, 2002 Item No.: 2 Chairman Ruck stated that he had no problem with another extension, given the status of other properties in the area. This issue was briefly discussed. Andrew Francis asked if there had been any complaints about the property related to safety issues. Staff stated that there had been none. A motion was made to approve an extension for 12 months from this date. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, suggested a condition that would require CalArk to give the Board a progress report in six (6) months. The motion was amended, adding the requirement that the applicant appear at the September 2002 Board of Adjustment meeting and provide the Board with a status report. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The time extension was approved. 4 January 29, 2002 Mr. Monte Moore Zoning and Code Enforcement Administrator 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Re: 120241-30 Paving Extension (2-3915-13) Dear Mr. Moore: 1 �a lArk The wheels of American business P.O. Box 990 Mabelvale, AR 72103-0990 501/455.3399 800/444-3399 501/455-5241 FAX I would like to request an extension to the previously granted extension for an additional 12 months. We would certainly like to comply with the ordinance but it could not come at a worse time for a company in the trucking industry to have to come up with a large sum of money to pave a parking lot. Our industry has been hit particularly hard with the down turn in the economy, increased fuel prices, and the insurance markets have almost doubled in the last year. We are doing every thing possible to make sure that we meet our daily obligation to our over 400 employees and our customers. To take a large sum of money to pave the parking area would drastically effect daily operations. We would hope that you consider our situation, not unlike the current financial situation our city government is operating in at this current time. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 455-3399 (3327) Sincerely, Rochelle B. Gorman President CalArk, Inc. :RF-CE-IVED JAN 3 0 2002 : O U W w w H O F - z w M 0 a LL O 0 a O m w :r e a ^W W 2i n W Q z ON W \d 1 wl' I S � O Q 0 � Q W U J W< � z U � LL CD J Of ^W W 2i n W Q z ON W \d September 30, 2002 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. Date: Secr tary