Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
boa_11 25 2002
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES NOVEMBER 25, 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 October 28, 2002 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present Members Absent: William Ruck, Chairman Andrew Francis Garytanglais Scott Richburg Fred Gray, Vice Chairman City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA NOVEMBER 25, 2002 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Z -6524-B 509 President Clinton Avenue B. Z -6774-A 5513 S. Grandview Road NEW ITEMS: 1. Z -4518-A 8711 Shelley Drive 2. Z -4642-A 2701 N. University Avenue 3. Z -5943-A 5713 Kavanaugh Blvd. 4. Z -5953-A 11200 Otter Creek East Blvd. 5. Z-7316 17 Chalamont Way 6. Z-7317 1810 Iris Street 7. Z-7318 521 President Clinton Avenue 8. Z-7319 1914 Wellington Woods Drive 9. Z-7320 7 Southmont Circle 10. Z-7321 2 Beverly Place 11. Z-7322 2715 S. Broadway 12. Z-7323 4609 Princeton Drive 1 N O O 3NId101MU n LO 1mreIN1 /1 i co rrvrv09 83 �U CL A MOY s3Na �oai � a3N3aa � �r''�bi d Lo ONIN a O fj R MO N IN � N011IryY ll0.?5 s N u�sa3alNn € A1sta,INn _ �� � Soo& a3130 3HDnN dd6S Iry d g — P�G,P 100IN3 P\ MOMS NHOr = 3h 0a033WM }� V 25 y S10aY5 II NY09 sllYlll Allo EK 300% AMIh k sllrvn Alp T 00 � survn un � N z NVA1Tlf1$ 1 WM31S L d7y s11Nll Alio aNa33 b � M 0 m November 25, 2002 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z -6524-B Owner: Julia May Porbeck Larrison Revocable Trust Address: 509 President Clinton Avenue Description: South side of President Clinton Avenue, between Commerce and Sherman Streets Zoned: UU 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 A. 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. November 25, 2002 Item No.: A (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 (August 13, 2002) the awning and awning sign and 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 November 25, 2002 Item No.: A (Co STAFF UPDATE: On August 19, 2002 the River Market Design Review Committee met and reconsidered its vote of August 13, 2002. After further review, the DRC voted to approve the awning and sign as installed by the applicant. The DRC recommends a two-year review to assure the proper maintenance of the sign and awning. Therefore, staff will revise its recommendation as follows: Staff recommends approval of the sign and awning variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. A franchise must be obtained for the awning and sign. 2. A sign permit must be obtained. 3. A reinspection will be conducted by staff every two (2) years to assure proper maintenance of the sign and awning. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 28, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the November 25, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the November 25, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 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 big- j-mlpres s i®ns Date:.06/25/02 Zoning Enforcement Administrator 723 W. Markham St. Little. Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4792 Attention: Monte Moore Re: BOA Review 509 President Clinton Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1729 501-301-9031 ph. 501-301-9032 fax http://wWw.big-impressions.biz swallace@big-impressions.biz 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.reduirements 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 toi 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) River M Market FrankPorbeck, Chairman Design Tim Heiple, Member Review Jim Schimmer, Member Committee Melissa Tanner, Member P W' f Id atty mg ie , ember 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, Brian Minya River Market DRC Staff l November 25, 2002 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z -6774-A Owner: William and Peyton Woodyard Address: 5513 S. Grandview Road Description: Lot 46, Grandview Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a carport/porch addition with reduced front and side yard setbacks, and which crosses a front platted building line. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 5513 S. Grandview Road is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. A concrete driveway at the northwest corner of the property serves as access. The property slopes from the front building line downward to the east. The applicant proposes to construct a porch and carport structure on front of the house. The carport structure will extend 25 feet out from the house, across a 30 foot platted building line, and be set back five (5) feet from the front property line. The structure will have a four (4) foot setback from the side (north) property line. The applicant notes in the attached letter that the structure will be unenclosed on the north, south and west sides, and November 25, 2002 IfM'ii1arm1<(� OM, that the addition will have a flat or slightly angled roofline. The applicant states that the porch/carport addition is needed to provide covered access and parking for his family. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet, and Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet. Additionally, Section 31- 12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that any encroachment over a platted building line be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff feels that the requested five (5) foot front yard setback will be out of character and not compatible with the other residential properties in this area, even though the applicant is proposing to leave the structure unenclosed on the north, south and west sides. As a result of an inspection of the area, staff observed no other single family properties in this immediate area which had intrusions into the front yard setback as proposed by the applicant. 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 addition. 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 denial of the variances as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 28, 2002) Bill and Peyton Woodyard were present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present in opposition. Staff briefly described the requested variances associated with the proposed carport/porch structure, with a recommendation of denial. Bill Woodyard addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented the Board with photos of the property with the proposed carport/porch addition noted on them. He noted that some of the notices to property owners within 200 feet of the site were late. Staff noted that the persons notified late indicated that they had no problem with the late notification. With a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent, the Board waived their bylaws and accepted the late notification. E November 25, 2002 Item No.: B Mr. Woodyard described the proposed carport/porch structure and explained the reasons for requesting the variances. He explained the photos submitted to the Board. He discussed the setback of the proposed structure from the front property line and the street. He also described the proposed construction of the structure. He noted that the structure would have a low profile. He presented a petition of support from the surrounding property owners. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if a shorter structure which covered only a portion of the vehicles would work. Mr. Woodyard indicated that it might be a possibility. The issue was briefly discussed. Mrs. W. B. Sipes addressed the Board in opposition to the application. She stated that the carport/porch addition would not be compatible with the neighborhood and that it would decrease the value of her property. She also noted that the structure would cut off her view and make an existing drainage problem between the two houses worse. She noted that she has lived on the property for 40 years. Vice -Chairman Gray asked Mrs. Sipes if she would support a shorter addition which had the appearance of a porch. She indicated that she was opposed to any addition on this corner of the house. Chairman Ruck asked Mr. Woodyard if he had looked at putting the carport/porch addition on the southwest corner of the house. Mr. Woodyard noted that a carport structure at the southwest corner of the house would eliminate all of the trees in the front yard (4 large trees). Peyton Woodyard noted that the carport addition at the northwest corner of the house allowed the easiest access to the house. This issue was briefly discussed. Chairman Ruck asked about an apparent easement along the south property line. Staff noted that there appeared to be some sort of an easement along the south property line which served the property further to the east. The issue was briefly discussed. Andrew Francis noted that he did not support the requested variances, as the proposed structure is out of character with the neighborhood. Mr. Woodyard asked if a carport which extended 20 feet from the front of the house would be acceptable. Vice -Chairman Gray noted that he would like to see how the carport structure would work into the existing house. This issue was briefly discussed. Gary Langlais asked if an architect had done plans for the carport/porch addition. Mr. Woodyard stated that the plans were not yet ready. 3 November 25, 2002 Item No.: B (Cont.) Mr. Francis noted that he also had a problem with a shorter carport structure. Other alternatives to the proposed carport/porch structure were discussed. The issue of deferring the application was discussed. Vice -Chairman Gray asked Mrs. Sipes if she would support any type of addition to the front of the house. She noted that a circular drive would be a possibility. Vice -Chairman Gray stated that he would support a deferral and explained. The issue of deferral was discussed. Mr. Woodyard stated that he would like to defer the application. There was a motion to defer the application to the November 25, 2002 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the December 23, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 23, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 9 BILL & PEYTON WOODYARD 5515 SOUTH GRANDVIEW RD. LITTLE ROCK, AR 72207 W(501) 664-8044 H(501) 664-2753 September 27, 2002 Dept. of Planning & Development Board of Adjustments 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Sir or Madam: V�� e (�?-"-Y') Attached, please find the required application and documents for making a request for a residential zoning variance. I am requesting this variance so that we can build a porch and carport to provide covered access and parking for my wife and expected twins. Currently, we have a 20 foot exposed walk through our yard to the parking pad. This house was built in 1975 with a one -car garage. Since that time, the garage was converted into a sitting area. When we purchased the home two years ago, the seller had removed the north/south walkway attaching the front walk with the driveway. The driveway was converted into a parking -pad 14 feet from the front of the house. Our plan is to build a covered front porch that extends from the front door to an open carport that is attached to the house and porch on the east side. Since the parking -pad starts 14 feet from the house, our cars currently extend 33 feet from the house. The new carport will only extend 25 feet from the house, bringing the cars to within five feet of the house and increasing the north/south line of sight by 8 feet. The porch and carport will be open on the north, south, and west sides, allowing a line of site through the structures. To limit the profile of each structure, the roofs of both will be flat or slightly angled into the roofline for drainage. Although this project will encroach on our front property line, there is an additional 13 feet to the street. This will help diminish the overall impression of the structures. Thank you for this consideration. If I you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me. Sincerely; Bill Woodyard IV H s �i +'cam .� ,_��c "� a ,��r,',�,� �' -+s.` �. `� �.,,,e� s�.0 �' � •^ a .: '-:�. ' S f � �%�� ��,�� �z�t tee, r Vttv, Z-Zf , tom. � i . RECEIVED OCT 212002 NAME ADDRESS DATE 2- (P110) 5 41 tiL, la bot 16 Z CIZ 6 8 �©� , I n fd Voq At FAU'diz- l0/a e66z Jz _ � � �7a-LT /6lz7 Jzoa� BILL & PEYTON WOODYARD 5515 SOUTH GRANDVIEW RD. _-7 7 L� LITTLE ROCK, AR 72207 W(501) 664-8044 H(501) 664-2753 i We the undersigned understand and are•in.favor of the V1 oodyard's plan to build a porch and carport at 5513 S. Grandview Rd. This new addition is a 10 foot covered front porch that extends from the front door to an open,. low profile, carport that is attached to•.the house and porch on the east side but open on the north, south, and west sides. The carport will extend 25 feet from the house, leaving five feet to the property line and Pin additional 13 feet to the street, per the following diagram. We understand th t appr� o�frthis variance will not establish a precedent for future neighborhoo tructures. 171 3G w _. N l Scor tbri �% fi v - 12.E zG,1 N � � 7 8 _ STREET 4 -..... NAME ADDRESS DATE 2- (P110) 5 41 tiL, la bot 16 Z CIZ 6 8 �©� , I n fd Voq At FAU'diz- l0/a e66z Jz _ � � �7a-LT /6lz7 Jzoa� NAME ADDRESS DATE !3 �w� a- \CA /Y ix, . 7. a� 17 /9 Af. .1 z� s % S . ra �,J R �nl` 7 't. zZ � '` ir� �` t�� U1 f� 'o, / 0 / ��a xZ--- A November 25, 2002 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z -4518-A Harry and Joyce Butler 8711 Shelly Drive East side of Shelly Drive, approximately 150 feet north of Baseline Road C-4 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a security fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Mini -warehouse development Proposed Use of Property: Mini -warehouse development STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The C-4 zoned property at 8711 Shelly Road is occupied by a two -building mini -warehouse development. There are two (2) access points from Shelly Drive. The property owner recently constructed a six (6) foot high chain link fence around the perimeter of the site (north, south and west sides), with taller support posts. The support posts were left taller based on the fact that the property owner would like to replace the six (6) foot high chain link with eight (8) foot high chain link, with additional security wire on top of that. Section 36-516(e)(2)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows for the following fence heights in commercial zoning: t November 25, 2002 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) { "a. Between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way, the maximum height shall be six (6) feet. Other fences may be erected to a maximum height of eight (8) feet." Based on the fact that the fence as proposed will be well over eight (8) feet in height/with the security wire), the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement. The majority of the fence will be located between the required 45 -foot front yard setback and the Shelly Drive right- of-way. Staff does not support the variance as requested. Staff does not feel that the fence as proposed, which will approach ten (10) feet in height with the security wire, is reasonable. Staff feels that placing security wire on top of the existing six (6) foot high chain link fence will provide adequate security for the mini -warehouse development. Therefore, staff would support a variance to allow the six (6) foot chain link fence with up to two (2) feet of security wire, for an overall height not to exceed eight (8) feet. Additionally, Section 36-516(d) requires that any security wire not extend outside the vertical plane of the enclosed property. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the fence variance, as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the December 23, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 23, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 seumest win! stemme P.0- Box 193461 * btqe Rock, AR 72219 Phone (501) 412-7974 + Fax (501} 470-44GI October 23, 2002 TO: Little Rock Board of Adjustment REFERENCE: Application For A Zoning Variance '14 �si8 ✓} LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 8711 Shelley Drive, LR.: Southlarrid Acres 5324 Tof TR Lot 8 EXC S130' Dear Board Members: Our property has been the hold-up location for illegal activity because of its ease of access. We are trying to improve the neighborhood by denymgaccessibility to this area. We are thus forth asking this Board to consider allowing a Variance in the Code, from a 6 foot fence to an 8 foot fence with wire on top. We feet this will give us the opportunity to prevent crime to this neighborhood by denying these hoodlums an area to stage their activities from. Just a couple of blocks away the new Post Office was allowed an 8 foot fence with wire. If the Federal Government felt this was required to protect their property in the same neighborhood, then we do too. We respectfully ask for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, HaTry Joyce Butler, owners November 25, 2002 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -4642-A Owner: Jim Dyer Address: 2701 N. University Avenue Description: Northeast corner of University Avenue and "Y" Street Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with reduced side and rear yard setbacks. Justification.- Present ustification: 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 2701 N. University Avenue is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. There is an attached two -car carport at the east end of the residence, with vehicular access from "Y" Street. The carport is unenclosed on the north and east sides. The carport is approximately five (5) feet from the side (south) property line and 9.5 feet from the rear (east) property line. The applicant proposes to construct a four (4) foot enclosed addition to the east end of the carport and also enclose the carport's north wall. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of seven (7) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. The November 25, 2002 Item No.: 2 (Co proposed addition would maintain the existing five (5) foot side (south) yard setback, with the rear yard setback being 5.5 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements. Staff is supportive of the variance requests. Staff feels that the variance requests are reasonable and will not be out of character with other structures in this general area. Several of the other structures along "Y" Street are located as close or closer to the "Y" Street right-of-way as the residence in question. Staff's main concern is that the addition not be located any closer to the south property line than the existing carport. Staff feels that the rear yard setback as proposed will have no negative impact on the property to the east, as there is an existing concrete screening wall located between the two properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained for the proposed construction. 2. The building addition must not be located any closer to the south and east property lines than indicated on the survey submitted to staff, and described above. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 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. October 21, 2002 2701 North University Ave Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Board Members: In request for a Residential Zoning Variance, this letter is to explain the reasons for the variance. My current two -car garage has openings on the North and East sides of the garage. Each side of the garage has two openings that are 8 feet wide. I am proposing to close these openings in order to provide better protection for items that are in my garage. On the East side I would like to extend the garage by four feet leaving six feet between the proposed addition and the privacy fence. Within the four feet, I plan to build a workbench and cabinets and storage for some woodworking tools. This would give me an opportunity to have a small workshop. On the North side of the garage (backyard), one of the openings would have a sliding door that would allow vehicular entrance to the backyard. The other opening on the North and the two opening on the East would have siding that would match the rest of the house. With the current privacy fence around our back yard, this addition would not be noticeable from the Y Street. The proposed addition would be constructed by professionals. Entrance to Backyard Page 2, Request for Residential Zoning Variance (View from Y Street) Your approval of this request for Residential Zoning Variance would be appreciated. sincerely d ,grim Dyer November 25, 2002 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z -5943-A Owner: Fields -Williams Family Partnership Address: 5713 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: South side of Kavanaugh Blvd., between Pierce and Fillmore Streets Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: The request is to amend a previously approved parking variance (Spaule Restaurant) by removing a condition that limited the hours of operation of the restaurant. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Restaurant (dinner and Sunday lunch) Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant (lunch and dinner) STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The Board of Adjustment approved a parking variance for Spaule Restaurant at 5713 Kavanaugh Blvd. on February 13, 1995. The restaurant proposed to locate in a 2,200 square foot building which has no off-street parking, and was previously occupied by a retail establishment. Changing from a retail use to a restaurant use required that the applicant provide 15 off-street parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant filed a parking variance which was approved by the Board conditioned on the restaurant only being open 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Sunday 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The hours of operation were proposed by the restaurant owner (amended application) at that time. �J November 25, 2002 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) The current restaurant owners, Shawna and Danny McGill, request to amend the previous approval by allowing the restaurant to open during the lunch hours. Please see the attached letter from the McGills, which explains their justification for the request. They feel that there has been a dramatic change in circumstances in the area since 1995. Staff does not support the requested amendment to the previously approved parking variance. Although staff supported the applicant's amended application in 1995, staff did not support the original submittal which included the restaurant being open during the lunch hour (see attached February 13, 1995 minute record). Staff recognized that there was a parking problem within this area of the Heights, which was a concern not only to staff but also to neighborhood residents and other business owners. To staff's knowledge, there has been no substantial change in the parking situation since that time. If the applicants can provide specific information showing that, "due to a drop in area traffic that the circumstances from then to now have changed dramatically," staff might have a different opinion of the situation. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not support the amendment to the previously approved parking variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the December 23, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 23, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 1 • September 23, 2002 Members of the Board of Adjustments SPAULE' _ Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Dear Members, In reference to the parking ordinance in place for the area of 5713 Kavanaugh, we would like to apply for a variance for Spaule' Restaurant during the hours of 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Spaule' has been established at 5713 Kavanaugh for a period of seven years. During this time, we have had the opportunity to serve our patrons from all over the state of Arkansas and the country. We have created a good rapport and have enjoyed working with the people of Little Rock as well as many dignitaries from abroad. We would also like to fulfill the city's need for fine dining during the lunch hour. Our customers, who are mostly successful business men and women, have expressed to us their desire for a place where they can bring business prospects or corporate executives to dine in style and prospectively gain that persons' business for their firm. This in tum will drive more revenue into the local economy. It is for these reasons that we submit our application to you at this time. We are aware of an application filed by the previous owner, Scott Swander, in 1995. We feel that due to a drop in area traffic that the circumstances from then to now have changed dramatically. We have been reviewing the parking availability in our area for the past two months and have concluded that there is more than ample parking to accommodate the volume of customers we can capacitate. Our neighboring merchants either have their own designated parking areas, or have a lull in customer base during that time because everyone is eating lunch in other parts of the city. We have attached the signatures of our neighbors for your review. They too have expressed a great desire for us to open for lunch to increase lunch hour business. Spaule' Restaurant has generated a huge amount of revenue for the Heights area and the city during our evening dining hours. This variance is sure to bring even more revenue not only for us, but to the neighboring merchants by bringing more consumers by their windows. We ask that you diligently consider our request for the variance. Any questions or suggestions you may have regarding this matter will be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to contact us at the number below. Respectfully, LU ox Shawna and Danny McGill Owner and Operators of Spaule' Restaurant 5713 KAVANAUGH BLVD. • LITTLE ROCK, AR 72207 • IN THE HEIGHTS • 501 -664 -FOOD - FAX 501-664-4041 February 1, , 3-.9.95 3 �.�-- I t -em No -A �13 ,/! f � i�l+t �'r► w i � _File No..: Z-5943 Owner:..: Fields Family Ltd. Partnership Aaar-es s: 5713 Kavanaugh Blvd. .Description: Lot 7, Block 6, Mountain Park Addition Zoned:. C-3 Variance Recruested: From the off-street parking. regulations of Section 36-502 to permit a restaurant with no on-site parking. The Ordinance requires a 2,200 square foot, restaurant to provide 22 on-site parking spaces. Justification: As is true of many of the Properties in the Heights Commercial District, the building Occupies the entirety of the lot. There is no portion of the property available for use as parking. Present Use of Property: vacant commercial building Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant �r Staff Report: A. Engineering Issues: The pavement adjacent to the curb is cracked and sagging, repair is recommended. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant proposes to locate a restaurant in -.this. existing, 21F200 square foot, C-3 zoned building. The restaurant will occupy a portion of a building which was formerly occupied by a retail shoe store. There is no on- site parking available and the occupant is requesting a variance from the Ordinance Parking Requirements to allow the restaurant to occupy this former retail space. When the 2,200 square foot area was used as a retail shoe store, it had a parking requirement of 7 spaces. This same square_ footage, when used as s restaurant, requires 22 parking spaces. The property, as is true of many in the Heights commercial area, has a non -conforming status in relationship February -13, 1995 Item No.: A (Cont.) to its parking requirement. If another retail use were Proposed for this site, that non -conforming status would be continued and no parking variance would be required. The increase in parking requirement generates the request for a variance. Section 36-506 of the Code of Ordinances states: When a building or structure erected prior to or after the effective date of this chapter shall undergo any increase in number of dwelling units, gross floor area, seating capacity, number of employees or other unit of measure used in determining required parking facilities, and when the increase would result in a requirement for additional parking-faciities, such additional facilities shall be accordingly, provided as a condition for obtaining a building permit or privilege license. In computing the number of spaces required for such a building, however, only the increase in unit measure shall be considered. Based on this Section, the restaurant must provide for the increased requirement of 15 on-site parking spaces. Based on data submitted by the applicant, the restaurant will generate the following numbers for lunch and dinner service: Lunch - 65 to 70 persons per day Dinner - 80 to 100 persons per day The restaurant will accommodate approximately 60 seats at one time. The issue of parking in the Heights is of great concern to staff, neighborhood residents and adjacent commercial uses. Staff recognizes that there is a shortage of available parking and is concerned about how this shortage affects not only existing businesses but proposed businesses as well. There is no easy solution to this dilemma. Until such time as this issue is addressed on a broader scope, staff feels that a more conservative approach must be taken when addressing the question of parking in the Heights. While it is true that many of the adjacent commercial uses are not open during this proposed restaurant's dinner hour (5:30 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.), and more parking would be available in the area, the additional traffic generated during the lunch hours (11:30 a.m._ - 2:00 p.m.) would only exacerbate an already difficult situation. V, February 13, 1995 Item No.: A (Cont.) As such, staff cannot support the requested parking variance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested parking variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 30, 1995) Scott Swander was present representing the applicant. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Staff also made reference to three letters which had been presented to the Board. One letter was in support of the variance from the Heights Merchants and Professional Association. Two letters were in opposition to the variance; one from Ron Tunnell, Attorney representing the owners of the property at 5717 and 5719 Kavanaugh Blvd. and one letter from Flake, Tabor, Tucker, Wells and Kelley, a property management company representing the owners of the Heights Theatre. at 5600 Kavanaugh, Harvest Foods at 5501 Kavanaugh and the commercial center at 1818 North Taylor. Mr. Swander presented a map of the area around the 5700 block of Kavanaugh Blvd. He pointed out the availability of 60 parking spaces, counting on street parking as well as some private, off- street parking. Chairman Borchert asked what the seating capacity of the restaurant would be. Mr. Swander responded that the seating capacity would be approximately 60. After further discussion, Jeff Hathaway asked staff to give a history of the nonconforming status of parking in the Heights. Richard Wood responded by stating that the majority of the commercial area in the Heights was developed prior to the parking requirement being placed in the Zoning Ordinance in 1958 or 1959. Since that time, new commercial development has had to comply with the on-site parking requirement. Andrew Melton addressed the Board in support of the variance. He stated the Heights Merchants and Professional Association was concerned about businesses leaving the area and was in support of the proposed restaurant. Mr. Melton stated he did not understand the Board's opposition to granting the variance since there is parking available in the vicinity of the proposed restaurant. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, reminded the Board that the letters of opposition came from the owners of parking lots in the vicinity of the proposed restaurant. Some of the parking which Mr. Swander had indicated as available for use by the restaurant was in fact parking which is required by other businesses. 3 February 13, 1995 Item No.: A (Cont.) Chairman Borchert stated that he was concerned about parking and traffic in the area. Jeff Hathaway asked how many neighborhood businesses were members of the Heights Merchants and Professional Association. Mr. Swander responded that nearly 100% of the businesses had membership in the Association. During the ensuing discussion, several board members indicated an inclination to approve the variance but also expressed concerns about the impact on neighboring businesses which have on-site parking. Paul Hickey then addressed the Board in support of the variance. Several board members then urged the applicant to try to find a business with excess parking which would allow the restaurant to use some of its parking spaces. A motion was made to defer the item to the February 27, 1995 Board meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to locate some available parking. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position. (NOTES TO FILE) After the January 30, 1995 Board meeting, the applicant approached staff with an amended application which limited the proposed restaurant's opening hours to only the dinner hours of 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a Sunday lunch from 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. In addition to amending the application, the applicant requested a special meeting of the Board. The reason being, if the applicant failed to get the approved variance by February 15, 1995, then the property would be up for lease consideration to another party. Staff approached Chairman Borchert who gave approval to poll the Board members about a special meeting to review the amended application. After polling the Board members and receiving unanimous consent, a special meeting was set for February 13, 1995 at 1:30 p.m. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 13, 1995) Scott Swander was present representing the applicant. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and advised the Board of the amended application which eliminated the restaurant's lunch hours. The hours of the restaurant would be 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a Sunday lunch from 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The applicant's reasoning behind the amended application is that most of the businesses in the immediate vicinity close by 6:00 p.m. and are not open at all on Sunday. Therefore, by eliminating the lunch hour, the proposed restaurant 4 February 13, 1995 ' Item No.: A (Cont.) should not create a parking conflict with the other businesses. Staff advised the Board that they agreed with this assessment and were offering a recommendation of approval of the amended application. Mr. Swander addressed the Board and confirmed the amended application. Chairman Borchert asked Mr. Swander if he had made contact with the two individuals who wrote letters in opposition to the parking variance. Mr. Swander responded that he had spoken with both Mr. Wells and Mr. Tunnell and neither appeared to have any objections to the amended application. Chairman Borchert asked if staff had received any comment on the item. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that letters had been sent to both Mr. Wells and Mr. Tunnell advising them of the amended application and the February 13, 1995 Special Board meeting. Mr. Carney stated that there was no response to the letters. Chairman Borchert stated that he and other Board members had received a phone call in opposition to the variance request from Sam Anderson of the firm of Barnes, Quinn, Flake and Anderson. A motion was then made to approve the amended application for a parking variance subject to the restaurant being open only for the dinner hours of 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the Sunday lunch hours of 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The motion was approved with a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open position. 5 1 October 16 2002 y We, the below listed Heights business owners, believe it would be beneficial to our community for Spaule'.to open for lunch. The added revenue to the area would make it a welcome addition to our shopping district'. Name Business Date. , D C00%ol:4, MA-Ifthw, ago z ez=1=4/c tl-jx -10 ❑ 10 Ld C),; El ❑ Y ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ MARY HEALEYIs FINE JEWELRY October 18, 2002 Members of Board ofdjustmen' s Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Members: 14, I have learned that Spaule' a neighbor business is seeking permission to open for lunch. I am very hopeful that this request is approved for I believe this addition to the service for the area would definitely, be positive for the Heights neighborhood. I appreciate your time and consideration. I anticipate your decision with great interest. A sincere "thank you" to each of you. Truly. I CERTIFIED qR GEMOLOGIST AMERICAN GEM SOCIETY 5600 Kavanaugh • Old Heights Theater Building • Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 501 _ • :> �..:e�---�.�.4.__.(?0.1.)...661-9.368..Fax October 28, 2002 Members of Board of Adjustments Dept of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Board Members, I am writing to express my support for the McGill's request to open their restaurant, Spaule, during daytime hours. An increase in Heights pedestrian traffic can only serve to benefit surrounding retailers like myself. I understand that a particular store owner has concerns regarding the parking situation; I do not share that concern. Street parking on Kavanaugh Blvd. is rarely full and I do not foresee any problems with parking. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter. Thank you. Sincerely, Melissa Rowland, Owner The Great Southern Sauce Company 5705 Kavanaugh Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72207 663-3338 E2ECEIVED OCT 3 120102 BY: November 25, 2002 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z -5953-A Owner: Brad -US, LLC Address: 11200 Otter Creek East Boulevard Description: Lots 7 and 8, Area 103, Otter Creek Industrial Park Zoned: 1-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the paving requirements of Section 36-508 to allow an unpaved vehicular use area. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Lot 7 — Vacant industrial building Lot 8 — Undeveloped Lot 7 — Truck maintenance facility Lot 8 — Unpaved truck parking and vehicular use area 1. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 2. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Lot 8 must provide for a minimum fifteen (15) feet wide on-site street buffer along Otter Creek East Blvd. Trees and evergreen screening shrubs will be required within this street buffer. Additionally, a minimum nine (9) foot wide landscape strip will be required along the southern perimeter of Lot 8 for the first fifty (50) feet from Otter Creek East Blvd. November 25, 2002 No.: 4 !Cont. Outside storage of materials .will be required to be screened by a six (6) foot high wood fence with its face side directed outward or a wall. C. Staff Analysis: The 1-2 zoned property at 11200 Otter Creek East Blvd. (Lot 7, Area 103, Otter Creek Industrial Park) is occupied by a one-story metal industrial building. The property immediately to the south (Lot 8, Area 103, Otter Creek Industrial Park) is also zoned 1-2 and is undeveloped and grass - covered, with some small trees near the rear of the lot. Hanson Concrete is proposing to purchase the two (2) lots and utilize the existing building (Lot 7) as a truck maintenance facility. As a component of the development, Hanson proposes to place a 4" S132 base on Lot 8 and utilize it for the parking of concrete trucks and tankers awaiting repair and pick-up after repair. A small portion of Lot 8 will be used to store rebar. In addition to the proposed use of the lots, the applicant proposes to widen the existing driveway between the two (2) lots to 36 feet and add another 36 foot wide drive near the southeast corner of the property. Section 36-508 of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that any parcel of land which is changed to a vehicular use area shall be paved where subject to wheeled traffic. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow Lot 8 to be utilized as an unpaved vehicular use area. As noted previously, Lot 8 will be used to park concrete trucks and tankers which are awaiting repair and pick-up after repair, and a small amount of rebar storage. Staff is supportive of the requested variance on a temporary basis. Staff feels that a temporary unpaved vehicular use area, being located in an industrial park with industrial uses on all adjacent property, will have no adverse impact on the general area. It has been past staff policy to support unpaved vehicular use areas as temporary uses. Therefore, staff will suggest that the variance'to allow the unpaved vehicular use area be approved for five (5) years. At the end of that time the applicant will need to pave the area or come back to the Board of Adjustment and request an extension. Additionally, according to the industrial zoning standards, the portion of Lot 8 which will be used for rebar storage must be screened with a six (6) foot high opaque fence or wall. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested paving variance subject to the following conditions: 2 November 25, 2002 Item No.: 4 (Cont._ 1. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs A and B of this report. 2. The unpaved vehicular use area be allowed for five (5) years. At the end of that time the area must be paved or an extension from the Board of Adjustment must be requested. 3. All appropriate permits must be obtained prior to any site work. 4. The required landscaping and screening are to be installed prior to use of Lot 8 for vehicular use or storage. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 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 October 24, 2002 City of Little Rock 723 West Markham .Little Rock, AR 72223 To Whom It May Concern: ■e■ "Hanson Hanson Concrete South Central 7609 Young Road North Little Rock, Arkansas 72118 Tel 501-812-0670 Fax 501-758-0815 www.hansonpfc.com Wiz, 1 A Hanson Concrete is proposing to purchase two lots in the Otter Creek area. Tlie address is 11200 Otter Creek East Boulevard, Lots 7 & 8. Lot 7 has an existing building on it and Lot 8 is an unused field. We are proposing to grade Lot 8 and place a 4" base of SB2. This will be used as a storage area for vehicles that will be parked while maintenance is being performed in the building. Currently, there is a shared driveway for Lots 7& Q. We -wo-,fla ;ik 0 Lair s this to a commercial entrance of 36' and also add another 36' entrance on thy, south"vcst And of Lot 8. This would provide us access for our trucks to pull in to the Lot and gain access into our maintenance facility. We will also fence in Lot 8 and add security lighting for Lot 8. There will also be a small concrete pad poured in the Southeast corner. Lot 8 is one lot from the end of the boulevard where a cul-de-sac is located. These minor variances Nvill allow us to be a long time resident of the Otter Creek industrial area. Sincerely, Matt Daniel Area Manager November 25, 2002 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-7316 Owner: Rector Phillips Morse Address: 17 Chalamont Way Description: Lot 35, Block 73, Chalamont Place Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a single family residence with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification.- Present ustification: 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 residence (under construction) Single family residential The R-2 zoned property at 17 Chalamont Way is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence which is under construction, and nearing completion. A two -car driveway from Chalamont Way will serve as access. The applicant notes that an error occurred in the initial layout of the single family residence. As a result, the structure extends approximately seven (7) feet into the required rear yard setback, at the structure's southeast corner. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. The southeast corner of the structure is located approximately 18 feet from the rear property line, with the November 25, 2002 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) southwest corner being set back 24.3 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff feels that it was an honest mistake that was made in the initial layout of the single family residence which caused it to be located too close to the rear property line. The survey which was used to obtain the building permit showed a rear yard setback of approximately 26 feet at the structure's southeast corner. Staff feels that the reduced rear yard setback will have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 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 Rector Phillips Morse 800 Prospect Building, 1501 North University, Little Rock, Arkansas Mail Address: P.O. Box 7300, Little Rock, Arkansas 72217 (501)664-7807 Fax(501)664-0104 October 11, 2002 Department of Planning & Development Board of Adjustments 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72205 RE: Request for Variance 17 Chalamont Way, Little Rock, AR Gentlemen: Arkansas Realtors Association Certified Commercial -Investment Member (Individual Member) Commercial -Investment Real Estate Institute Institute of Real Estate Management International Council of Shopping Centers Little Rock Realtors Association National Association of Realtors Realtors National Marketing Institute Society of Industrial and Office Realtors (Individual Member) Womens Council of Realtors Our justification for requesting a variance on the above property is that an error occurred in the layout process. This remiss on our part resulted in a back corner of the structure to protrude approximately six (6) feet into the rear setback. Regretfully, the problem wasn't acknowledged until pins were reset by engineers on the property lines nearby. By this stage of construction, the house was completely in the dry. It is in our confidence that by proposing to construct a six (6) foot privacy fence on the boundaries with our neighbors (which we are hereby agreeing to do), we can conceal a large part of this error. Any consideration for an acceptance of this variance on the part of the City of Little Rock will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, RECTOR PHILLIPS MORSE, INC. Rick Alexander Development Department Y T Enclosure November 25, 2002 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7317 Justin and Meredith Eisele 1810 Iris Street Lot 101, Riverside Addition R-3 Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow construction of a new single family residence which crosses platted building lines. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. .: Single family residence (fire damaged) Single family residential The R-3 zoned property at 1810 Iris Street is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence which was recently destroyed by fire. There is a gravel drive from Iris Street which serves as access. The lot has 30 foot platted building lines along the west (front) and north (side) property lines and a 25 foot platted building line along the east (rear) property line. The existing structure is located 17.7 feet from north property line and 23 feet from the west property line. Therefore, the existing structure encroaches over the 30 foot platted building line to the north approximately 12 feet and over the 30 foot platted building line to the west approximately seven (7) feet. t November 25, 2002 The applicants propose to remove the existing fire damaged structure and construct a new single family residence on the lot. The new structure will be located 21 feet from the north (side) property line and 25 feet from the west (front) property line. The new single family residence meets or exceeds all of the minimum setbacks as required by the City's Zoning Ordinance. However, as with the existing structure, the new residence will encroach over the 30 foot platted building lines along the north and west property lines. Therefore the applicants are requesting variances for the building line encroachments. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the requested building line encroachments are reasonable, given the fact that the platted building lines as shown on the survey are in excess of what the ordinance requires for minimum building setbacks and platted building line placement. The ordinance only requires that a platted building line be located along the front property line for new subdivisions. Additionally, location of the new structure 25 feet back from the front (west) property line will keep the structure in line with the other houses along Iris Street to the south, and maintain a larger rear yard setback where adjacent to Rebsamen Park Road. If the Board approves the building line variances, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the front and side building lines for the proposed house. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested building line variances, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the front and side platted building lines as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 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 October 23, 2002 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72099 Dear Sir or Madam: 731-7 On Saturday October 5, 2002, our home, located at 1810 Iris Street lot 101, Riverside addition to the city of Little Rock, AR, was destroyed by fire. A survey we had done on October 10, 2002, reveals that our home was built (in approximate 1950) beyond the legal building lines in certain areas as shown on the survey we are providing. We would like to rebuild on our lot but we cannot build a home like ours within the legal lines, and the additional setback from property line of six feet eight inches. Therefore we are requesting a variance from existing building line requirements as shown on survey provided. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Justin Thomas Eis le Meredith Lee Eisele JUSTIN THOMAS AND MEREDITH LEE EISELE P.O. BOX 1047 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203 November 25, 2002 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-7318 Owner: G.S.J. Properties, LLC. Address: 521 President Clinton Avenue Description: Southwest corner of President Clinton Avenue and Sherman Street Zoned: UU Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the height provisions of Section 36-342.1 to allow construction of a new building which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant office -warehouse building Proposed Use of Property: Mixed use building STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The Urban Use Zoning District requires one three-inch (3) caliper tree be planted along President Clinton Avenue and along Sherman Street for every 30 linear feet of street frontage. C. Staff Analysis: The property at the southwest corner of President Clinton Avenue and Sherman Street is zoned UU and contains a one-story brick office - warehouse building. There is a gravel parking area, with access from Sherman Street, along the south side of the building. The building and parking occupy approximately one-fourth of the block. November 25, 2002 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) The applicants propose to remove the existing building and construct a new 14 -story building which will be called the "First Security Center". The new building will occupy the majority of this one-fourth block area, with future access to a parking deck which will be constructed on city property within the south one-half of the block. The proposed building will be occupied by a hotel, office use and residential condominiums. Please see the attached cover letter for a more complete project summary. Section 36-342.1(e) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum height in the UU District of five (5) stories or 75 feet, whichever is less. An additional two (2) stories is allowed for developments which provide at least 20 percent of the gross floor area as residential use. The applicant is proposing a 14 -story building, with a maximum overall height of 190 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from the UU District height allowance. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff feels that this mixed use development will be an excellent addition to the River Market District and an asset to the Downtown area. Staff feels that the proposed building height will not be out -of -character with the general area or have any adverse impacts. It will have the same height as the new Acxiom Building, located a few blocks to the south, which is nearing completion. The River Market Design Review Committee reviewed and approved the requested height variance at its November 4, 2002 meeting. The final vote was 4 ayes and 1 nay. The building facades, signage, awnings and any projections into the public right-of-way will require review and approval by the DRC at a later date. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested height variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The River Market Design Review Committee reviewing and approving all other applicable aspects of the building's design. 2. Compliance with the landscape requirement as noted in paragraph B. of this report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 2002) The applicant was present. Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the December 23, 2002 agenda due to the fact that two (2) of the four (4) Board members present had to abstain from voting on the issue due 2 (1 November 25, 2002 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) to conflicts of interest, thereby resulting in no more than two (2) possible positive votes. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 23, 2002 agenda by a vote of 2 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 2 abstention (Langlais and Francis). 3 MOSES TUCKER REAL ESTATE October 24, 2002 Board of Adjustment C/o Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 PROJECT SUMMARY Moses Tucker Real Estate, Inc. (MT) plans to form a limited liability company (LLC) for the purpose of developing a mixed-use building on the southwest corner of Clinton Avenue and Sherman Street in downtown Little Rock's dynamic River Market District. The project will be known as the FIRST SECURITY CENTER, consisting of approximately 168,000 square feet of space on 14 floors and costing approximately $23 million. Parking for the project will be available in the City of Little Rock's new River Market parking deck which will be developed adjacent to the center on 2nd Street. The project has commitments from the following users: ❑ First Security Bancorp - will locate a major subsidiary, CREWS & ASSOCIATES, on floors 8, 9 and 10, occupying approximately 35,000 square feet of space. Additionally, First Security will locate a branch facility on the building's 1St floor. ❑ McKibbon Properties - a Gainesville, GA based hotel company, McKibbon owns and operates 36 hotel / motel properties throughout the southeast and is one of the nation's largest franchisees of Marriott limited service hotels. McKibbon has committed to own and operate a 110 - 120 room hotel on floors 1 through 6 of the building. The property will be "flagged" and affiliated with a national chain, such as Marriott or Hilton. ❑ Moses Tucker Real Estate - the developer will construct 22 to 24 luxury residential condominiums on floors 11 through 14, including 4 large, penthouse homes on the building's top floor. 1 Commercial Brokerage • Management • Leasing • Development • Consulting 200 S. Commerce, Suite 300 O Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 • Phone 501-376-6555 • Fax 501-376-6699 www.mosestucker.com The LLC will create a Hortizontal Property Regime (HPR) to enable First Security, McKibbon and each residential condominium owner to acquire and hold "fee simple" ownership to their space. MT will develop the building on behalf of the LLC and, upon completion, sell all HPR units to the owners. MT will continue to manage the property and the property owners association. FIRST SECURITY CENTER will be a truly unique development for Little Rock. For the community the project adds a new hotel, additional restaurant and specialty retail space in the River Market District and 22 to 24 plus new upscale, downtown residences. Homeowners in the building will be able to enjoy not only the wide array of offerings in the River Market, but also a host of amenities within the FIRST SECURITY CENTER. Those amenities include: • Unparalleled River and Skyline Views ■ An Exercise Center ■ Room Service (from Marriott) ■ Daily Maid Service (from Marriott) ■ Indoor Swimming Pool (from Marriott) ■ Doorman and On -Premise Security ■ Enclosed, Secure Parking The development will be the latest in the burgeoning River Market District where over 1/2 billion dollars have been invested since 1996. In addition to the FIRST SECURITY CENTER, numerous, exciting projects in or adjacent to the River Market are now underway: ■ Clinton Presidential Library $150 million ■ Heifer International Headquarters and Global Village 70 million ■ River Rail Trolley System 18 million ■ 600 Space River Market Parking Garage 6 million ■ Acxiom Building 35 million ■ Rock Street Lofts 3 million ■ Capital Commerce Center 14 million ■ Center Theater Renovation 5 million ■ Rainwater Condominiums 3 million Total Development (under way) $304 million FIRST SECURITY CENTER will be a new landmark for and anchor in downtown Little Rock. 2 JUSTIFICATION 1. Density. In order for the River Market to grow, it needs to evolve. Its future success lies with increased density - 24/7 residents, new offices and other uses. That density - which means people - can't be achieved with the current mix of underutilized buildings and surface parking lots on Clinton Avenue. 2. Compatibility. The First Security Center will be designed with great sensitivity to the neighborhood. Large bay windows will be present throughout the brick fagade. The base of the building will include either large limestone block or granite. The residential floors will have balconies with ornamental iron hand- rails. The building will serve as an eastern anchor to the River Market District. The tower is only 75 feet wide and abuts the interstate access ramp, so it serves as a buffer between the interstate and the rest of the neighborhood. 3. Limited Sites. The River Market District is a very finite area and, in many ways, is still quite fragile. The District has experienced a high turnover among restaurants and retailers. Several of the undeveloped sites are now either overpriced or simply unavailable. If the district doesn't grow and evolve, it will surely stagnate. 4. Mixed- Projects. Mixed-use projects add to the vitality and excitement of the area and compensate for the lack of developable sites mentioned above. The concept has proved to be very successful in the immediate area, including: Block 2 - retail, restaurant, entertainment, residential, office Museum Center - restaurant, retail, museum, office Tuf-Nut Lofts - residential, office Capital Commerce Center - retail, restaurant, residential, office Rock Street Lofts (nearing completion) - retail, residential S. No Incentives. The developers have not requested any financial incentives from the city or state. This is exactly the type of private investment envisioned when the District was planned after the Future - Little Rock process was completed in the early 1990's. $23 million projects like this are a result of public investments such as the River Market, Riverfront Park and the Public Library. 6. Increased Taxes. The city, county, state and public schools will all benefit significantly from this major private investment. Participants will especially generate sales taxes and property 3 taxes. The hotel will contribute to the coffers of the Advertising and Promotion Commission. Both the hotel and First Security Bank will be large employers and good corporate citizens, further stimulating the economy and bettering the community. I hope you will approve our request and allow this project to go forward. It will add momentum to the downtown renaissance and help position Little Rock for further growth and development. Sincerely, Ji my oses JM\lk 4 t River Market Design Review Committee Greg Hart, Chairman Tim Heiple, Member Jim Schimmer, Member Melissa Tanner, Member Patty Wingfield, Member Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 • 501-371-4790 • fax 501-399-3435 November 8, 2002 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: First Security Center Chairman and Members, -2- -7 3 iY The River Market DRC has reviewed the First Security Center at the November 4, 2002 meeting. The DRC has approved the submittal of the height variance. The final vote was 4 ayes, 1 noes and 0 absent. The vote on November 4, 2002 approved only the height variance. The facades of the building will still need to be approved by the DRC as well as any signs, awnings, and any item that would project into the right-of-way. Thank you, Brian Minyard River Market DRC Staff November 25, 2002 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7319 Owner: John Pike Homes, Inc. Address: 1914 Wellington Woods Drive Description: Lot 40, Block 11, The Villages of Wellington Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a new single family residence with a reduced front yard setback and which crosses a platted building line. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single family residential Single family residential The R-2 zoned property at 1914 Wellington Woods Drive is occupied by a newly constructed one-story brick single family residence. There is a driveway from Wellington Woods Cove which serves an access to the property. The applicant notes in the attached letter that a subcontractor made a mistake in the initial layout of the residence, which caused the structure to extend approximately 2.5 feet into the required front yard setback, and over a platted building line. The structure is located 22.7 feet from the front property line (northeast corner of the structure). Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned property. Section 31-12(c) of November 25, 2002 Item No.: 8 (Cont. the Subdivision Ordinance requires that any encroachment over a platted building line be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the existing placement of the residence. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the variances are very minor in nature, and recognizes the fact that an honest mistake was made in the initial layout of the house. It is apparent that the house was slightly rotated which caused it not to be parallel with the front property line, and encroach over the front platted building line at one corner. The slight encroachment of the corner of the structure should have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line for the proposed house. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised of Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 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 KEITHMOSER o*A OF COUNSEL: JOHN T. HOLLEMAN, IV ■ A • SHARROCK DERMOTT ❑ A o O ARKANSAS BOARD RECOGNIZED SPECIALIST IN TAX LAW ♦ CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT N MASTER OF LAWS IN ENVIRONNIENTALLAW O MASTER OF LAWS IN TAXATION ♦ ALSO LICENSED IN TEXAS • ALSO LICENSED IN TENNESSEE * ALSO LICENSED INMISSOURI VIA HAND DELIVERY Moser & Associates P.A. A T T O R N E Y S A T A Professional Association October 25, 2002 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Re: 1914 Wellington Woods Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72211-2074 Dear Mr. Moore: L A W MAILING ADDRESS P.O. Box 22920 Little Rock, Arkansas 72221 STREET ADDRESS 111 Center Street, Suite 1250 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TELEPHONE (501) 376-8250 FACSAvIILE (501)376-8471 INTERNET http://www.moserandassociates.net -- 73/ 2- ff- . We are legal counsel for John Pike Homes, Inc. Our client is the owner of the real property located at 1914 Wellington Woods Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas. Our client is also the general contractor for the residence that has been recently built on this real property. Enclosed are the following documents in connection with an application for a residential zoning variance: Item No. Description 1. Application for Zoning Variance. 2. Affidavit. 3. Three (3) copies of a survey showing the improvements that are now located on the real property. 4. A check from our law firm made payable to the City of Little Rock in the amount of $85.00 for a filing fee. The real property has a twenty-five (25) foot platted building setback line on the front of the lot. The general contractor hired a subcontractor with numerous years of experience to layout the lines for the residence. Inadvertently, a mistake was made by the subcontractor in the initial layout ofthe residence, which has resulted in a bay window encroaching on the twenty-five (25) foot platted building setback line. It encroaches a maximum of 2.5 feet. Little Rock, AR Memphis, TN Dallas, TX Moser & Associates, P.A. Attorneys At Law Mr. Monte Moore October 25, 2002 Page 2 The subcontractor who laid out this residence has laid out numerous other residences for the general contractor and other general contractors. The subcontractor has not made a mistake in the layouts that he has previously done for the general contractor. However, it appears that the subcontractor's instruments were slightly off which resulted in the residence not being exactly parallel to the twenty-five (25) foot platted building setback lines. This is the first time that this has ever happened to the general contractor. The general contractor will not be using this subcontractor for future layouts. The mistake was not discovered until the final survey was completed in connection with selling this residence. This residence is a brick residence. The cost of correcting this mistake, now that the residence is completed, is substantial. We respectfully request that a residential zoning variance be granted for this residence to encroach 2.5 feet into the twenty-five (25) foot platted building setback line. Thank you for your attention concerning this matter. SER BKM:slb:BKM3954 Enclosures cc: Mr. John D. Pike, Jr. John Pike Homes, Inc. ser November 25, 2002 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7320 Owner: Dr. Richard A. Dennis Address: 7 Southmont Circle Description: Lot 15, Richmond Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow a satellite dish with a reduced front yard setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single family residential Proposed Use of Property: Single family residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Public Works does not support the mounting of private equipment in the public right-of-way or on public utility poles. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 7 Southmont Circle is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from Southmont Circle which serves as access. The property owner recently attached an eighteen -inch satellite dish to the utility pole in the right-of- way, near the southwest corner of the property. The City's Zoning Ordinance classifies a satellite dish as an accessory structure, with minimum required setbacks. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 60 feet for accessory structures. The satellite dish is located on a utility pole approximately 10 feet into the right-of-way of Southmont Circle. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from November 25, 2002 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) this ordinance standard. The applicant notes in the attached letter that there is no alternate location for the satellite dish, given the large trees within other portions of the property which would obstruct the dish's receiving ability. Staff does not support the variance request. As noted in paragraph A. of this report, Public Works does not support the placement of private equipment in the public right-of-way on public utility poles. This type of use of the public right-of-way is not a policy that staff wishes to establish in any form. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the setback variance as associated with the satellite dish. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the December 23, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 23, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 October 25, 2002 Mr. Monte Moore 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Moore, -Z- %3-7-e I am writing to request a residential zoning variance relating to Courtesy Notice 5662 that I was issued on 9/4/02 due to a code violation on myproperty. I have an eighteen -inch satellite dish attached to the light pole in front of my home. The notice indicated "accessory structures could not be located closer than 60' to the front property line". I have lived on Southmont Circle longer than any other resident and I would not want to do anything to detract from our properties. I make this appeal because: 1. There is not an alternative location for placement of the satellite dish. The satellite dish must have a clear view of the south-east skyto function. Myyard, as well as my neighbor's, contains many large trees which obstruct this view everywhere except from the light pole. Please see the included photos. 2. The dish is well above the line of sight and does not detract from the property's appearance. 3. It is also well below the street lamp. The dish is properly grounded and does not present a safety issue. Thank you for taking the time to consider this appeal. I understand that there are rules that must be followed to protect the rights of my neighbors, but I am also thankful that reasonable exceptions can be made. Sincerely, �s Dr. Richard A. Dennis 7 SOUTHMONT CIRCLE LITTLE ROCK, AR 72209 501-568-6711 501-960-8024 November 25, 2002 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Z-7321 Owner: Wallace and Sue Rowland Address: 2 Beverly Place Description: Lots 6 and 7, Block 2, Newton's Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the fence provisions of Section 36-516. 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 NOTE The applicant submitted a letter to staff on November 12, 2002 requesting that this application be withdrawn, without prejudice. The property owner has decided not to proceed with the project at this time. Staff supports the withdrawal as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be withdrawn, without prejudice. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn, without prejudice by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. Yeary Lindsey Architects November 8, 2002 Monty Moore Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 �—z r 73 .)- Re: Residence of Wally and Sue Rowland, #2 Beverly Place, Little Rock, AR Dear Monty, We are requesting to withdraw without predjudice our variance application pertaining to the residence of Wally and Sue Rowland at #2 Beverly Place, Little Rock, Arkansas. We will submit another application when the Rowlands are ready to do additional work. As always, thank you and your staff for your serious consideration of our requests. Sincerely, &41 1' Ellen Yeary A MN D NOV 12 2002 BY: V- 319 President Clinton Ave., Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-5940 FX: 501-707-0118 November 25, 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 issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7322 Manuel L. Jones 2715 S. Broadway East side of S. Broadway, south of W. Roosevelt Road R-3 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. .11 Single Family Residential Single Family Residential with Home Office The property at 2715 S. Broadway is zoned R-3 and contains a one-story brick and frame single residence. There is a two-story frame garage - apartment structure within the rear yard, near the east property line. There is a one -car driveway from S. Broadway which serves an access to the property. The property owner, Manuel L. Jones, recently inquired of staff the possibility of moving his business office from the principal structure to the accessory structure. Staff informed Mr. Jones that a new home occupation permit could not be administratively approval, based on the November 25, 2002 Item No.: 11 (Cont.) fact that an 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. Jones asks that he be granted a home occupation permit to allow his office use to be located within the existing accessory structure. He notes in the attached letter: 2 l November 25, 2002 Item No.: 11 (Cont.) "I am a consultant that has three clients who are not located in the City of Little Rock. I will not receive any clients or need to see any clients at my home office." 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. The Board is asked to determine if the proposed home occupation, to be operated out of an accessory building, is an appropriate home occupation. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 2002) Manuel L. Jones was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff explained the requested appeal to the Board, noting that the Board had to determine if the home occupation (operating from an accessory building) was appropriate. Manuel L. Jones addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained the reasons for requesting to locate his home occupation in the accessory building. He also gave a brief explanation of the type of business that he is involved in. He noted that there would be no customer/client traffic at his proposed home office location. Chairman Ruck asked if the home occupation would be for office use only. Mr. Jones noted that it would only be an office use and explained further. There was a motion to approve the requested appeal, as filed, and allow the home occupation to be operated from an accessory building. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The appeal was granted. 3 Manuel L. Jones 2715 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 PH: 501-372-2235; FAX: 501-376-0091 October 25, 2002 Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 SUBJECT: Application for. Action on Administrative Appeals or Interpretative Requests I Manuel L. Jones owner of property at 27I5 Broadway Street am requesting that the Board of Adjustment to allow me to move my office space to the vacant rear garage apartment. (See attached photos) The current zoning of the property is R3. I am currently authorized to use the basement of my primary residence as my home office. The garage apartment is currently vacant. I am a consultant that has three clients who are not located in the city of Little Rock. I will not receive any clients or need to see any clients at my home office. The square footage of my primary residence is approximately 1553 feet. The garage apartment is approximately 500 square feet. I have complied with the Home Occupation Accessory Use Conditions and will continue to obey and follow the conditions set forth by the Board of Adjustments. If you have any questions please feel free to call. Sincerely yours, Manuel L. Jones Property Owner attachments November 25, 2002 ITEM NO.: 12 File No.: Z-7323 Owner: Eddie Miller Address: 4609 Princeton Drive Description: Lot 110, Pine Forest Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a carport structure with a reduced front yard setback and building separation, and which crosses a platted building line. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comment. 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 4609 Princeton Drive is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from Princeton Drive which serves as access to the property. A 9 -foot by 18 -foot metal carport structure covers a portion of the driveway. The metal carport structure was placed on the property in 1995 by the current property owner. The structure is located approximately 10 feet back from the front property line and one (1) foot from the house. The carport also crosses a 25 -foot front platted building line. November 25, 2002 Item No.: 12 (Cont.) Section 36-156(a)(2)c. requires that accessory structures in R-3 zoning be located at least 60 feet from the front property line. Section 36-156(a)(2)b. requires that accessory structures be separated from principal structures by a minimum of six (6) feet. Additionally, Section 31- 12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. 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 driveway. Although staff supports the variance requests, given the fact that the carport structure is not on a permanent foundation, staff feels that the variances should be approved for this property owner's use only. Additionally, since the carport structure is temporary in nature, staff will suggest that a one -lot replat to adjust the platted building line not be required. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances for reduced front yard setback, building separation and building line encroachment associated with the accessory carport structure, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances be approved for the property owner, Eddie Miller, only. 2. If the property is sold, or Mr. Miller 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, east and west sides. 4. Staff recommends that a one -lot replat not be done at this time. Staff will inspect the property every five (5) years to verify the ownership and occupancy of the property. 2 November 25, 2002 Item No.: 12 (Cont. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 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 ,L ----'-'---------- ---- - --- --'--'----�--'— --__-__-- -��_c�-�.+-_-/-.'�~�_~`^ /^... ....... M-1 W z 2 W Q r G e W F - O z Q ❑ LU < C Q J_ W U LL J LU � LL ry U Q5 J U Q' 0' M-1 W z 2 W Q (r /' November 25, 2002 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. Date: Oec 2 ZDO 2 Az/46z", Chairman