boa_12 23 2002LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
DECEMBER 23, 2002
2:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being five (5) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The Minutes of the November 25, 2002 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman
Fred Gray, Vice Chairman
Terry Burruss
Andrew Francis
Scott Richburg
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
DECEMBER 23, 2002
2:00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
Z -2379-A
A.
Z -4518-A
8711 Shelly Drive
B.
Z -6774-A
5513 S. Grandview Road
C.
Z -5943-A
5713 Kavanaugh Blvd.
D.
Z-7318
521 President Clinton Avenue
E.
Z-7320
7 Southmont Circle
NEW ITEMS:
1.
Z -2379-A
4321 Country Club Blvd.
2.
Z-7329
#9 Raleigh Lane
3.
Z-7330
3209 Katherine Street
4.
Z-7338
7312 Debbie Drive
5.
Z-7339
9124 West 46th Street
6.
Z-7341
1212 Scott Street
7.
Z-7342
5119 Sherwood Road
8.
Z-7343
5224 "0" Street
9.
Z-7344
#1 Chalamont Way
zi
NHOr
simn Alo
01
SIM Alia
N
O
O
N
C'7
N
FOYM
Q)
E
CD
:3
u
4—
O
December 23, 2002
ITEM NO.: A
File No.: Z -4518-A
Owner: Harry and Joyce Butler
Address: 8711 Shelly Drive
Description: East side of Shelly Drive, approximately
150 feet north of Baseline Road
Zoned: 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:
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.
Mini -warehouse development
Mini -warehouse development
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:
December 23, 2002
Item No.: A (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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 23, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff noted that
the applicant had amended the application. The applicant's amendment
included a fence height of six (6) feet with security wire on top, for an overall
height not to exceed eight (8) feet. Staff noted support of the amended
application, subject to the following conditions:
December 23, 2002
Item No.: A (Cont.)
1. The chain-link fence is to not exceed a height of six (6) feet, with security
wire not exceeding an overall height of eight (8) feet.
2. The security wire shall not extend outside the vertical plane of the
enclosed property.
3. A fence permit must be obtained.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item (as amended) was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3
SulkweSINHU(S"fage
PA ftx IM461 + Me Rock, AR 722-19
PbWe (501) 4112-7U4 * Fax JSM.) 47G-4401
October .2.3, 20,02
TO: L,.jtffe Rock Board ofAdjustment
REFERENCE: AppficationFor A Zoning Vadance ;
1-l��'i-
LEGAL
DESCRI"ON: 8711 Sheikw Oiive, L_R : Souftand des =4:T of TR Lot 8 EXC 8,1.307
Dear Board Members:
Ourgqpprtth �s. been the hold -UP locaffort fQr Illegal acWtty because of Ks ease.of accm. We are
�tnfing improve the neighborhood by denying-accessibilfty to this area
We amthus, forth:asking this, Board to cartsWer aflowing a Variance in tha Code= from a-6fdotfence
'tc)
arr8.foutfence mit.Ore on. top. We feet. this will give. tr. the opportunity to prevrent efte. tothis
neighborhood by. denying these hoWkmis on. area to . stage their adhAties from
4 a tpW.,!e of blocks away the new Post Office was allowed an. 8 fod! fence with wire, jfthe,Federal
Government felt thfs was required to proted their prop" in the same neighborhood,. then. e. do. too.
We respectfully ask for your consideration in this matter -
Joyce Butler, omers
December 23, 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
December 23, 2002
Item No.: B (Cont.)
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.
2
December 23, 2002
Item No.: B (Cont.)
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
December 23, 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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 23, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be
deferred to the March 31, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 31,
2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
M
B
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:
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
,.,Qp{�7
IL
'mac �� a 4i��$� ��� �� ��'_-_`' �`a � n �"�>�a"s ' &� r� s 64 � -.''' Y • , . '�"r�.. t�� g' Yc�;
a,E w.�;roa..� •rte ec�40-•.'` w 'P't3 so-
�.` J 9 . ' °���"3.� � � � �i yt3 • y _..... B- . moo:' s:
mi
u
, . ':�,�`•°r'.. rim.:.=-.'"t`c'.'.- ..- ... , .�. �.��;; _ •1
l y ,z
'AM
dN
n-Krl 5:4
..... ....
IN
g,;a
s3 ."a
V-
�
v QL
fig.
-00-
4, Ilk
-.; ' = = ` y , �� = �``�����-= ::'w'",.'.�'� F �;•'.€ .. mai' �
~•� Tti b.•� i..
M, - # <' _ be� � 5 • a } {.. y.,.'vv
"•� �.. Svc '�t • • 74Z':
..y `ca:.� ,.sea -. •�- � B:F' .r`c .yam ' •
. A
o�
RF,C Iii
OCT 21L20072-
BY:
1 2002
BY:, _
BILL & PEYTON WOODYARD
5515 SOUTH GRANDVIEW RD.
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72207
W(501) 664-8044 H(501) 664-2753
We the undersigned understand and are dn.favor of the VV oodyard's plan to build a
porch and carport at 5513 S. Grandview Rd.
This new addition is a 10 foot covered front porch tl at 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 an additional 13 feet to the street, per
the following diagram.
We understand th t'appr�ova of`this variance will not establish a precedent for future
neighborhoo tructures.
1-71F7
.
3
5
7
8
_c15 ro
• `. N 1 5to�' t�rr�l� fi v "
1221 � 7 N -
�''81cJy. ! 1r7d
F-sTRE ET -->. _
NAME ADDRESS DATE
Loa
�� ��► d �4�� G�� r&�Lt/2. la �� �a6�
NAME ADDRESS
DATE
/U,
-,?7. aZ
--Zr4//
r
I • � ! J R�
� . �Q 1Y � R S.i •YV Q ��� �°�.
UUL � q/
Gv �✓ %�, 21/wyl AL-�2�Pu. ems,
uaz,,
NOV 1 ?002
BY -
Cake%✓ u�'`m.c�= ;%u�.✓��s--
December 23, 2002
ITEM NO.: C
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
n
Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z -5943-A
Fields -Williams Family Partnership
5713 Kavanaugh Blvd.
South side of Kavanaugh Blvd., between
Pierce and Fillmore Streets
C-3
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.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Restaurant (dinner and Sunday lunch)
Restaurant (lunch and dinner)
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.
December 23, 2002
Item No.: C (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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 23, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the notices to property owners within 200 feet of
the site were not completed as required. The Board determined that the item
needed to be deferred to the January 27, 2003 agenda to allow the applicant
time to complete the required notifications. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 27,
2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
L/J
PA
Members of the Board of Adjustments SU LE'
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
Dear Members,
September 23, 2002
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,
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 13, 1995
-5
Item No A 13 4 C Yk
File No_'
2-5943.
Owner •
Fields Family Ltd. Partnership
Address:5713 Kavanaugh.Bivd.
. 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 noPortion.of the property,
available for use a's parking.
Present Use of property: Vacant commercial building
Proposed Use of Prooerty: Restaurant FJ
f
Staff Remort•
A. EngLneering Issues:
..The pavement adjacent,to the curb is cracked and sagging,.
repair is recommended.
B.: Staff Analvsis:.
The applicant . .
.. .. proposes .to locate a..restaurant .in_this._....__.._..........._....
existing;'2,200 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 s.tatus 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-fac- ities,.
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--c-oncern -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.
2
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.
K
February 13, 1995 t
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 N
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 2:0.0 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 tri 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
N
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 lette.rz
had been sent to both Mr. Wells and Mr. Tunnell advising them o:f
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 onlyfor
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
3
• � / �� • SII '
October 16 2002
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 1?aIQ;_
a L
MARY HEALEY'S
FINE JEWELRY
October 18, 2002
Members of Board bf,A-
Department of Planning & Development
723 West Markham" -
Little Rock, AR 12202
Dear Members:
74,� C
P4
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.
I
CERTIFIED <ZP GEMOLOOIST
AMERICAN GEM SOCIETY
5600 Kavanaugh - Old Heights Theater Building * Little Rock, Arkansas 72207
(501) (501) ()61 -*9368 Fax-
October 28, 2002
Members of Board of Adjustments
Dept'of running 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
RECEIVED
OCT 8 120102
December 23, 2002
ITEM NO.: D
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
ITA
14
Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
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.
December 23, 2002
Item No.: D (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
December 23, 2002
Item No.: D (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).
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 23, 2002)
Jimmy Moses and Rhett Tucker were present, representing the application.
There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval, subject to the conditions as noted in paragraph D.
of the agenda report.
Vice -Chairman Gray asked about the parking and timing of the development.
Jimmy Moses noted that the proposed mixed use building would be constructed
first. Rhett Tucker noted that the building would not be constructed if the parking
deck is not constructed. Mr. Moses noted that he has worked with the City on
the parking deck, and that the City had authorized an architect to proceed with
the design of the parking deck. He also noted that the hotel, office and
residential components of the proposed building would lease part of the parking
deck.
Vice -Chairman Gray expressed concern relating to the size and height of the
proposed building at this location with relation to the size of the River Market
District. Mr. Moses noted that it was difficult to visualize what the River Market
District would become when it was created. He explained several aspects of the
River Market District. He noted that Downtown Little Rock needed more
residential development and that the River Market District needed more density
and activity. He stated that the proposed building site is on the edge of the
district boundary, and that the structure to be removed is not a historic structure.
Vice -Chairman Gray asked if this project would put pressure on the River Market
District to expand. Mr. Moses explained that expansion of the River Market
District to the south and west was a good idea. He further discussed the River
Market District. Mr. Tucker noted that the proposed structure was only 75 feet
wide and would not be that massive a structure.
There was further discussion relating to the size and height of the proposed
building and the River Market District.
3
December 23, 2002
Item No.: D (Cont.)
There was a motion to approve the height variance, as recommended by staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 abstention (Francis).
4
i�
- -73 i 6y
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 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 • Phone 501-376-6555 • Fax 501-376-6699
www.mosestucker.com
�2-
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
( P ,,, 4)
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,
6Jill
yv-"�'�
my oses
JM\lk
4
Ttle�— 'D
River 2- `73 i'
Market
Design Greg Hart, Chairman
g; Tim Heiple, Member
Review Jim Schimmer, Member
Melissa Tanner, Member
Committee 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,
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
December 23, 2002
ITEM NO.: E
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
December 23, 2002
Item No.: E (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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 23, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be
deferred to the January 27, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 27,
2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
October 25, 2002
Mr. Monte Moore
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Mr. Moore,
I am writing to request a residential zoning variance relating to CourtesyNotice 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 sky to function. My yard, 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,
YA
Dr. Richard A. Dennis
7 SOUTHMONT CIRCLE
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72209
501-568-6711
501-960-8024
December 23, 2002
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: .: Z -2379-A
Owner: Jon and Julie Newsum
Address: 4321 Country Club Blvd.
Description: The West Y2 of Lots 8 and 9, Block 3,
Country Club Heights Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from Section
36-254 to allow building additions with
reduced front and rear yard setbacks.
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 4321 Country Club Blvd. is occupied by a one-
story frame single family residence with a basement garage. There is a
two -car driveway from Beechwood Street which serves as access to the
property. The property owner proposes to construct a 7'-8" by 37'-4"
porch addition to the front (north side) of the single family structure, and a
13 foot by 24 foot dining room addition and 8 foot by 13 foot deck addition
on the rear of the structure. The dining room addition will be constructed
where a deck currently exists. The additions on the rear of the structure
will maintain the same rear yard setback as the existing house.
The proposed porch addition will be located approximately 19.5 feet from
the front (north) property line. The proposed deck addition will be located
approximately 10 feet from the rear (south) property line and will be
December 23, 2002
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
covered. Sections 36-254(d)(1) and (3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance
require minimum front and rear yard setbacks of 25 feet for R-2 zoned
property. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these
ordinance standards.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. There are several
structures to the east and west which have side yard relationships to
Country Club Blvd. and are located closer to the street than the proposed
porch addition. The porch addition should have no adverse impact on this
general area. Additionally, the proposed dining room and deck addition to
the rear of the structure will maintain the same rear yard setback as
currently exists on the site. This addition will also not be out of character
with other properties in this general area and should have no adverse
impact on the adjacent properties. Staff feels that the proposed variance
requests are reasonable as long as the porch and deck additions remain
unenclosed.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances, subject
to the following conditions.-
1.
onditions:
1. The porch addition must remain unenclosed on the north, east and
west sides.
2. The deck addition must remain unenclosed on the south and west
sides.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 23, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
JON K. NEWSUM ^ °2371-A
JULIE S. NEWSUM
4321 COUNTRY CLUB BLVD.
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72207
TO: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
We are requesting permission to build a front porch, dining room and deck on our house at 4321
Country Club Blvd, Little Rock 72207. The porch is part of a house renovation project to
preserve the historical nature of the Pulaski Heights Neighborhood. The renovation has been
designed by Tommy Jameson of Jameson Architects PA to resemble Craftsman Style Houses on
neighboring Beechwood Road that are currently on the Historical Register. Our block has
sidewalks used by many families and numerous houses currently have front porches. Two houses
nearby are closer to the street that is zoned. (see enclosed picture)
We ask to add a covered front porch 7'-8" x 37'-4", two steps, each 12". The current porch is 4'
x 10', two steps, each 12". On the back of the house a proposed dining room (24' x 13') will be
built where the current deck is located and a small covered deck will be added (8' x 13').
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
2— 'Z.
on K. Newsum
g" -Jl
Julie S. Newsum
December 23, 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-7329
Dennis Properties
#9 Raleigh Lane
Lot 28, Southern Hills Subdivision
R-2
A variance is requested from the building
line provisions of Section 31-12.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single family residential
Single family residential
The property at #9 Raleigh Lane is occupied by a recently constructed
one-story frame single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from
Raleigh Lane which serves as access. The original survey for this
property which was done in May 2000 and used for the construction of the
single family residence, showed a 50 foot front platted building line. The
single family structure was constructed with a 50 foot front yard setback.
After construction, the property owners obtained an as -built survey (from a
different surveyor) during the financing process, which showed a
corrected 60 foot front building line. This resulted in the structure being
constructed approximately 10 feet over the platted building line. 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 a
variance to allow the encroachment.
December 23, 2002
Item No.: 2 (Cont.
Staff supports the requested variance. Staff does not feel that the
property owners are at fault, as the surveyor obviously made a mistake in
the initial survey. Staff believes that had the property owners known of
the 60 foot building line, the structure would have been built accordingly,
as there is ample rear yard area which would have allowed the structure
to be pushed back an additional 10 feet. Staff feels that the requested
variance 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 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 variance 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: (DECEMBER 23, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
K
Dennis Properties
2791 Hilldale Road
Alexander, AR 72002
501-847-7400
November 6, 2002
City of Little Rock, Arkansas
Board of Adjustment
723 W. Markham St.
To Whom it may concern,
We, Angela R. Dennis and Damon W. Dennis of Dennis
Properties are requesting a Varience on #9 Raleigh Ln.,Alexander
Arkansas 72002. Prior to beginning of construction, we revived
a survey. This survey was used for everything, it shows a
50 foot set back line. Upon construction completion we went for
our permenant financing and recieved a new survey showing a
60 foot set back line. The house was already built on the 50
foot set back line.
Please assist us with this variance so that we
will not have any problems arrise with this again, such as
sales, financing and insurance. Thank you for your time.
Please let us know if we may be of any assistance.
Since ley
'5zy'�& '4e�-
DENNIS PROPERTIES
Damon and Angela Dennis
V
J Li
J Z
O
Z N
N
0. In O
Lo z
S < li
I_
o a w
� r
r
LL !•- O
o z o
0 O
N U w
2
d O
z
U O ry-
V) -- W
Lil N 0.
n _ o
> tr
J � 0.
a o �,
0 m
W = Z
J U) F-
O
LO
W Iz
d
zl o
wl o
J r
Q W
J
�- 2
2
J �
O x
U m
W
i a
I
n
ro u
u p
will 1\1y1 /�1 o/
�.: •.+
t\` gill •11 �/����1.�f •�'lyf�/
u u u
o
i O Li
W Ln \
(4 t�
4 u0. 0
'>v/ �•l�.'.1yp��'{`rr���,gjgj,,}�}%%.�'.{{{rTT,'' ,G� ��
O N Li,
o a sr
-a 0
L
r cl
-
L ro
u u u
i O Li
W Ln \
5 0
O N Li,
o a sr
-a 0
x u
T'
.�.._
u
u o
c
T _¢ C
O
Z
F- M
` L) n
u u
U
V n �"
C
O O
�
Z -j I
d a 0) W 0
LY=oz r.
C9 = N L/) c0
_
-
X
Q 7 <
i O Li
W Ln \
i z
O N Li,
C/1 z Lr) O
O
op
F-- U M d '-
Z
F- M
o U z z I.
C>
�- a n vN-
F- W
Z -j I
d a 0) W 0
LY=oz r.
C9 = N L/) c0
F -
ll
s
0 O
-- O ,I-
W O
_L o II
d N
U < Z O
O O d
W t*z
•• W J
>r F- d m
O d (1 O
C)
�
a
a 200. 00'
321 l
DRIVE^ - - _ I
i W
.i CL ;Y
mICN
F-
0
m
un
O '
5_ UTILITYARAINAGE EASEVENT
00 'OOZ
I
cr
t
C '
2
December 23, 2002
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7330
James E. Weaver
3209 Katherine Street
Part of Lots 9 and 10, Block 24, John
Barrow Addition
R-2
Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an
accessory carport structure with reduced
separation and front setback.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single family residential
Single family residential
The R-2 zoned property at 3209 Katherine Street is occupied by a one-
story brick and frame single family residence. There is a single car
driveway from Katherine Street which serves as access. A 12 foot by 20
foot metal carport structure covers a portion of the driveway.
The metal carport structure existed on the site when the current owner
purchased the property in April 1997. The structure is located
approximately 14 feet back from the front property line and flush against
the front wall of the single family house. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the
City's Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory structures in R-2 zoning
be located at least 60 feet from a front property line. Section 36-
156(a)(2)b. requires that accessory structures be separated from principal
December 23, 2002
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
structures by a minimum of six (6) feet. 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 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.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances for reduced front
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, James E. Weaver
and his son, Reginald Weaver, only.
2. If the property is sold or the Weavers vacate 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: (DECEMBER 23, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the notices to property owners within 200 feet of
the site were not completed as required. The Board determined that the item
needed to be deferred to the January 27, 2003 agenda to allow the applicant
time to complete the required notifications. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 27,
2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
43 L X2=2
�ri-i HF�Sn/�_
r -
c
F
December 23, 2002
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z-7338
Owner: Cedric Raulston
Address: 7312 Debbie Drive
Description: Lot 202, Brookwood Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a
deck addition with a reduced rear yard
setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single family residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single family residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 7312 Debbie Drive is occupied by a one-story
brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from
Debbie Drive which serves as access. A 12 foot by 28 foot room addition
was recently constructed on the rear of the structure. There is other
remodeling work currently being done on the structure.
The property owner proposes to construct a 16 foot by 28 foot deck
addition on the rear of the structure where the building addition was
recently constructed. The property slopes downward from the north wall
of the structure to the north property line, and there is a door on the north
wall of the structure. The property owner is proposing the deck addition to
provide safe access to the rear of the house and maximize the usable rear
December 23, 2002
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
yard area. The owner has noted that there is a small, level yard area on
the west side of the building, which is used as a play area for his children.
The proposed deck addition will be unenclosed and uncovered, with a
setback of 12 feet from the rear (north) property line. Section 36-
254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 25 foot rear
yard setback for principal structures located in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the
property owner is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard.
Staff is supportive of the variance request. With the rear portion of this lot
unusable due to the existing slope, staff feels that it would be reasonable
to construct a deck in this area, leaving the level yard space on the west
side of the house as a play area for the property owner's children. The
proposed deck being unenclosed and uncovered will minimize any impact
on the adjacent properties. Staff feels that the proposed deck will have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the rear yard setback variance, subject to
the proposed deck remaining unenclosed and uncovered.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 23, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the notices to property owners within 200 feet of
the site were not completed as required. The Board determined that the item
needed to be deferred to the January 27, 2003 agenda to allow the applicant
time to complete the required notifications. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 27,
2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
November 21, 2002
Mr. & Mrs. Cedric Raulston
7312 Debbie Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
To Whom It May Concern:
f l,- --tf
Z--7339
We are writing this letter in the hope of getting permission to build a deck in our
backyard. We are a family with four children, ages 10 months to 14 years old, and
are in need of more lawn space for family activities. We do no allow our children
to play in the front lawn due to safety concerns. The house floor plan is designed
where the rear door sits on a hill that has a 7 -foot drop on 24 feet. We have an
area on the west side of the house that is used as a playground and a landscape
area around the A/C unit and electric power panel.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We sincerely hope that you
will grant permission for us to build a deck at the rear of our house.
Sincerely,
The Raulston Family
December 23, 2002
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z-7339
Clara M. Ball and Steve A. Malcom
9124 West 46th Street
Lots 13-15, Block 8, Euclid Place Addition
R-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an
accessory carport structure with a reduced
side yard setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Single family residential
Single family residential
The R-3 zoned property at 9124 West 46th Street is occupied by a one-
story frame single family residence. There is a gravel drive from West
46th Street which serves as access. There is a 12 foot by 20 foot metal
carport structure which is located near the south property line,
approximately 16 feet from the southeast corner of the single family
residence. There is a concrete sidewalk from the carport structure to the
front door of the house.
The applicant notes that the carport structure was placed on the site five
(5) years ago for use by his mother. He also notes that the carport was
located at a point which provided easy access to the front door, as his
mother (the primary resident) is disabled with health problems.
December 23, 2002
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
The carport structure is located 5.5 feet from the south property line.
Although the house faces south, staff considers the south property line a
side property line based on the fact that the lots are oriented east -west.
Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
street side yard setback of 15 feet for accessory buildings. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a variance to allow the carport structure with a
reduced street side yard setback.
Staff supports the requested variance. 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. Additionally, the carport
structure serves an elderly property owner with health problems. Although
staff supports the variance request, given the fact that the carport
structure is not on a permanent foundation, staff feels that the variance
should be approved for this property owner's use only.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance for reduced side
yard setback associated with the accessory carport structure, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The variances be approved for the property owner, Clara M. Ball, only.
2. If the property is sold, or Ms. Ball 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 all sides.
Staff will inspect the property every five (5) years to verify the ownership
and occupancy of the property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 23, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
4
.'S7
November 14, 2002
MR. MONTE MOORE
ZONING AND ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATOR
723 WEST MARKHAM STREET
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1334
Dear Sir :
I am asking for a zoning variance for the metal carport at my mothers home that was erected five years ago. My
retired mother is disabled with osteoporosis, heart problems, and has trouble walking. This carport was placed
there because it was the closest place to the front door of the house with a flat sidewalk out to it to enable her to
get from her home into the car. If I have it moved for the sixty-five foot setback it will put it in her back yard,
which is terribly unlevel, and there is'a six-foot drop to the back door making it useless.
Sincerely,
Steve A. Malcom
STEVE A. MALCOM
9124 WEST 46T" STREET
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72204
December 23, 2002
File No.: Z-7341
Owner: McKinnis LLC
Address: 1212 Scott Street
Description: Lots 7-10 and part of Lots 11 and 12, Block
13, Original City of Little Rock
Zoned: UU
Variance Requested: Variance are requested from the
development criteria of Section 36-342.1. to
allow the construction of a new office
building.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Vacant
Offices and TV production studio
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements.
Curb and gutter, or another approved border will be required to protect
landscaped areas from vehicular traffic.
A water source within seventy-five (75) feet of all landscaped areas will be
required.
The Urban Use District requires three (3) inch caliper perimeter trees thirty
(30) on center along 1-30 and Scott and East 13th Streets.
December 23, 2002
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
C. Staff Analysis:
The UU zoned property at 1212 Scott Street is currently undeveloped.
The north one-half of the property is grass -covered, with the south half
containing an older paved parking lot. The property is relatively free of
slope. The applicant, JM Associates, Inc., proposes to construct a new
15,000 square foot, two-story building on the site. The building will be
occupied by offices and a TV production studio. The front of the building
will be located on the east (front) property line as required by the UU
zoning district standards. A new parking lot will be located on the south
side of the building, between the building and East 13th Street. There will
be additional parking at the rear of the building, off the existing alley.
There will be one (1) access drive from Scott Street, with the alley serving
as additional access.
The applicant is requesting two (2) variances from the City's Zoning
Ordinance for the proposed development. The first variance is from
Section 36-342.1(c)(8), which states that the ground -level (street fronting)
floor of nonresidential structures shall have a minimum surface area of
sixty (60) percent transparent or window display. The applicant is
proposing that the first floor fagade have a 38 percent coverage of window
openings. The applicant notes that the proposed percentage of window
area is based on the fact that the building will be used for office space and
TV production studio and not retail sales.
The second variance is from Section 36-342.1(c)(10)b., which states that
surface parking is to be located behind or adjacent to a structure, never
between the building and abutting street. As noted previously, a new
parking lot will be constructed between the proposed building and the
West 13th Street right-of-way to the south. The applicant notes that there
is street right-of-way on three (3) sides of the property (north, south and
east) and that the depth of the property is too narrow to provide adequate
parking behind the proposed building.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the
variances as requested are reasonable, and that the applicant is
proposing a quality development for the property. As noted previously,
the 38 percent window coverage for the front, first floor fagade is
proposed due to the fact that the use of the building will be office and TV
studio and not retail sales. Additionally, the shallow lot depth combined
with the fact that there is street frontage on three (3) sides of the property,
makes it virtually impossible to construct a building and provide all of the
desired parking behind the structure. Staff feels that the proposed
2
December 23, 2002
Item No.: 6 (Cont.
development will be an asset to the area and have no adverse impact on
the adjacent properties.
The Little Rock Historic District Commission reviewed and approved the
proposed development on December 5, 2002. Attached is a letter from
the Commission dated December 10, 2002 noting the conditions of their
approval.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances subject to the
following conditions:
Compliance with the conditions as noted in the Little Rock Historic
District Commission letter dated December 10, 2002,
2. A franchise must be obtained as per the UU development standards
for the awnings on the front (east side) of the proposed building which
extend into the right-of-way.
3. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in
paragraph B. of the staff report.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 23, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3
Request
— 73
for
Zoning Variances
JM Associates, Inc.
1212 Scott Street
Little Rock, AR
)M Associates is planning to build a 15,000 sf, two-story office building and T. V. production studio at 1211 Scott St.
In order to build the project and provide adequate secure parking, they are asking for the following zoning
variances.
Percentage of Window Area at ground Floor:
(See building elevations attached)
The U.U. Zoning requires 60% window display. The building will be entirely office use and the character of the
building and its compatibility to the nearby buildings in the MacArthur Park Historic District would be better served
with openings of the scale shown on these plans. The percentage of window openings is approximately 38%.
Parking Lot Location:
The U.U. Zoning requires that surface parking is to be located behind or adjacent to a structure not between the
building and an abutting street. This property has an abutting R.O.W. on three sides and is too shallow in the other
dimension to allow adequate parking and have a building of necessary depth to facilitate the owner's needs. The
owner is asking for a waiver to park as shown on the site plan. He is providing more than required landscaping and
an ornamental iron fence around this parking area to improve its street appearance.
The MacArthur Park Historic District's City Representative, Ann Guthrie, has reviewed these plans and has stated
that she is in support of the project and the issues for which we are requesting variances.
T ank youfor your consideration.
mes R. Williams, , President
Williams & Dean Associated Architects, Inc.
Agent for JM Associates, Inc.
SENT BY: HOUSINS, & NEIGHRORHC7P PROGRAMS; 501 899 3461;
INN% OtY Of Little ROCj�
HISTORIC DIS -:DICT C'QIMMIS&ON
MEMORANDUM
D5C-11-02 5:43PM;
TO- kl�'re , Zoning, & Enforcement Administrato I r
�9
FROK V. Anne Guthrie, Historic: Presentation Administrator tor
DATE 10 D: Gerrli er 2002
SUBJECT: 1212 Scott:
This mernorandUrri serveI9
9 y cam before notice that the above -referenced property
I � t I the
Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRTiDQ at their 5 December public hearing.
The applicant requested approval of the LRHDC, as required by ordinance, to construct a
new Offlice/studio buildiri in the, MacArthur Park Historic District, The applicant
presented the new eonstthztiozi and detailed exterior architectural elements, After
discussion, the LRHDC 4ted unanimously to approve conditionally the construction as
presented in the required 1drawings and elevations. The project is an excellent example of
the infill development in it s historic district. YPU will find enclosed the Staff Report and
Recommendations as wtit,` as the; COA application.
ll` there are questions por(ftlent to the conditions of approval by the LRIIDC, by all means
call me at 5420) or ernafl j�nG.
PACE 2
SENT BY: HOUSING & NP-ICHSCRHOOP PROCRAU53 501 399 3481;
gx LITTLE ROCK
pt
r
1114 r
J
D I S T OKC R C-1 T
APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF A-PPROPRIATENESS
DEC -ii 02 15:43PM; PAG: -7 2!11
Application Date:
1. Date of Public ffoj,
day of —DMC- 2002 at _51 eo P.M,
2. Address of Properi":
iS
I Legal Description It'Property:
Cltr-r
4, Property
()Wlaerk*i4e, Addre.% Fhatkc�, Fax).
i.7 ---
5, owner'sAgenf.
6. Project
P19" may be added):
-w
7. )Estimated Cast Of InAbrovements:
8. Category Of Work -
TV (staff US,)
9. Notification Require�'
U�Iejats: 'ol
NQ
eet} N
10, Signature of O"r Mer p, Ag
,
Little Rock Historic Dost
t Commission
Deterred Actium (t® be cOmPleted by staft):
APP-rovedCond-1 PProved v�ith
X� Ations
Staff SiguatLum
NOTE: Sbo+aid tnz � be cyan oral deal
C'QMMWiOn staff and take p approved COA, WhOanr ibAt notify
t oro PrOP,ti'Itt actions. Appm,,l'by �o Carom salon compliarce with nth does 0 not oNcuse: applicant or property
'�7 ap*able Codes' ordinances or PO"c" Of the ctt�,, =--s stated by the or
stAff. ROSPOrsibility for ideutifY64 such cG&I;, Qrdzances or policies
mats x itls the aPPLcatlL Omer Or went.
Little Pock Historic Di5trict0
et, #120'VVc'C MmiSsion + ]DeParttuetIt Of HOUsior, and Neigtborhood programs500 W. Markham StreetIZOk + Litile Ronk, AR 72201
+ Phone' 50t-244-5420 + Fax: 501-399-3461
4
SENT BY: HOUSING & NEICHSORHOOP PROORA:9S; 501 399 3461;
t
Cagy of Little Rcjr*
HISTORIC DISTRICT CC aWSSiCN
STAFF POR i
PREPARED 13Y: V. f' wiee Guthrie
APPLICANT: Janie
ADDRESS: 1212
COA RE QI.Ii;ST: New.
DEC -11.02 5:44PM; / PACE 415
l
AND RECO1YIMFW DATIONS
Williams, agent
U Street
;truction of an office and studio
D.ATF 3 December 2002
'PROJECT BAC KGROUNP, DESCRIPTION AND ANA1L!'M: The subject property is
located south of 1-630, on th west side of Scott, between 120 and 13"' streets. The sabject
prgject is located on vacant property, balf a block, behind what was Jungkind's Photo Center.
The site consists of about 340500 square feet; the survey depicts the site from the northwest
comer of 13"' and Scott sire ; to the Arkansas Highway Department right-of-way and along the
eastern side of the alley. Th "16rojeot request involves the new construction of a two -storied office
building (15,4."+4 sgft). Assa :fated parking of 43 spaces is on the northwest corner of the site and
is accessed from a new curb Ai�ut on Scott and from the north/.south alley entries or. the west -
The exterior f4ade of the i
fag.a.de) elevation there are
centered and pedimented d
windows are wooden clad.
windows on the second flo
have brick headers,
The exterior wall finish is
elements are the precast c
The capped parapet is alon
two corners (north and sou
appearance of an entry but
storied windows but the fir
emulating open ings on the
in that thorc arc eight pilasi
well. This elevation faces 1
highway Department right
iingular building; is symmetrically designed. On the east (front
pilastered bays with four flanking bays on each side of the
le bay, Each bay consists of two windows or, each floor; the
s first floor windows are larger and have canvas awnings; the
re smaller and not as ornamental, The second -storied windows
with accent brick window headers. Ornamental architectural
e window sills and concrete accents on the pilasters,
free elevations (north, east and south). On the east elevation, the
are chamfered with a double door entrance; the north has the
kot operable. The south elevation (facing 13t Street) has second
loor has recessed brick detail, which may be interpreted as
.!ding due to its massing. The north elevation is similar to the east
;d bays widx four windows a bay; canvas awnings are utilized -as
Street and part of this block is taken up with the Arkansas
way,
The architect stated that an. � fort was made to incorporate particular architectural elements of
surl:ouudir_b aom..�ncrcial prq�ierdes, As the historic district is predominantly residential, the
design guidelines do not address specifically commercial property in new construction.
SENT BY: HOUSING .4 NEIGH30RHOOP PROGRAMS; 501 399 3461; DEC -11-02 5:44PM; PAGE 5?5
This project site is along the t stem. -most edge of the MacArth'df Park Historic District, it has
been vacant for several ycarti.ldj acent to the project site, there are: offices and commercial
properties to the west; 12th Suet and I-630 to the north; an office building across Scott Street; to
the east; a half block of vacar property to the south; and an oflTice on the southeast comer of 13t
and. Scott streets. The QQA's�ffices are in the 1300 block of Scott (east side) and the Villa
,x,i� is on the corner of 14`� a zd Scott.
There are eleven ceitcria in LU6 district's design guidelines for consideration. On page 39, the
guidelines state that 1.14ew co, struetien of primary structures, should maintain, not disrupt, the
axisti.tlg pattern of stroundi historic buildings along the street by being similar in....."
t) shape; 2) scale; 3) r; of shape and pitch; a) orieritat'ion to the street;
5) location and propQl-ton of entrances, windows, porches and divisional bays;
5) foundation height; ) floor to ceiling height; S) porch height and depth;
4) material and matcrzol color; to) texture; and tt) placement on the lot.
Additionally, stew consiructii�n "of primary structures, while blending in with adjacent buildings.
should not b: too imitative gihistonc styles so that new buildings can be distinguished
(differentiated) from historiy„''buildings.” Of the elev:n criteria, the proposed project meets all Paid
is an excellent example of n�! r construction in an bistoric district and as infill commercial
development,
This project development isjjcheduled before the city's Zonince Board of Adjustmer<t on 23
December, The owner is se4king two variances of the development provisions of section 36-
342,1.The first variance re4wst concerns the percep_tage of glass on the first floor of the front
facade; development regula ons specify that 60% of the front fa4ade be glass, and the, applicant
is recuesting less percentag The second variance is to allow parking betvveen the proposed
building and the corner stre4 right-of-way; the applicant is requesting that the 26 parking spaces
be allowed. The associated p.&kIng lot on the northwest wryer of 13'h and Scott streets is
landscaped and has a perimeter iron fence and lighting. Staff of this comma ssion oral the zoning
board have discussed the st$ject property and agree to incorporate unv conditions that this
commission may deem appi,
, priate.
NEIGHBORHOOD IIMPCT AND REAC'CION; At the time of distribution, there were no
objections to this project rc nest either in waiting or by phone,
5 4FF RE,C09MEi DA1,--T, 10N: It is staff recommendation that the project request be
approved with the following canclitions:
fence details f erd s section, etc.) be suhm itwd.lo staff prior to Const-uction
applicant Inust Ski rnit one set of final plans (to include site plan, elevations) to staff;
project Must obt4.n required variances for development regulations;
♦ project must mmeZ� all city codes and zoning regulations; and
t should the psoje4 scope change in any fashion in terms of material, massing, scale,
profile and size, strixf will be notified and appropriate actions taken.
December 23, 2002
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.: Z-7342
Owner: Mr. and Mrs. Alan Warrick
Address: 5119 Sherwood Road
Description: Lot 82, Prospect Terrace Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from Section
36-156 to allow an accessory building with
a reduced separation.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: New single family residence under
construction
Proposed Use of Property: Single family residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5119 Sherwood Road contains a two-story
single family residence which is under construction. Vehicular access will
be by way of an existing alley on the south property line. In addition to the
new residence, the applicants propose to construct a 22 foot by 22 foot
detached garage at the southwest corner of the property.
The proposed house and accessory garage meet or exceed all ordinance
required minimum building setbacks with the exception of the separation
between the two (2) structures. The applicants propose a 3.5 foot
separation between the house and garage. Section 36-156(a)(2)b. of the
City's Zoning Ordinance requires that single family residences be
separated from accessory buildings by at least six (6) feet. Therefore, the
applicants are requesting a variance from this ordinance standard.
December 23, 2002
Item No.: 7 (Cont.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the variance
request is reasonable, given the fact that the lot has a 30 foot front platted
building line and a four (4) foot easement along the rear property line. If
the lot had a 25 foot front platted building line as is typically allowed in R-2
zoning and/or the four (4) foot easement did not exist along the rear
property line, then the house could be shifted up or the accessory building
could be shifted back to the property line which would provide ample
space for the required separation. Staff feels that the proposed
development for this lot will not be out of character with other properties in
this area, and have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. Staff
feels that it would be reasonable to require that the Little Rock Fire
Department sign off on the proposed building separation to assure that no
fire codes are violated.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to the Little
Rock Fire Department approving the proposed building separation.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 23, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be
deferred to the January 27, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 27,
2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
Alan & Ann Warrick
5500 Edgewood Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
December 3, 2002
Mr. Monte Moore
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Residence of Alan and Ann Warrick
5119 Sherwood Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
Dear Mr. Moore,
- -73�`;�-
We are requesting a rear yard setback variance for our residence located at
5119 Sherwood Road.
We are constructing a new home and desire a detached garage with rear
alleyway access. The proposed plans reflect our need to encroach north of
the rear building line as noted for detached outbuildings.
We believe our proposed plans are consistent with many other homes in
Prospect Terrace and ask for your consideration of our variance request.
Sincerely,
A w 4� wa,
Alan & Ann
'Warrick
V�
December 23, 2002
ITEM NO.: 8
File No.: Z-7343
Owner: Susan Strauss
Address: 5224 "O" Street
Description: Lot 7 and part of Lot 8, Block 4,
McGehee's Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence
provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a
wood fence 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 5224 "O" Street is occupied by a one-story rock
and frame single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from
Newton Street which serves as access. The applicant proposes to
construct a six (6) foot high wood fence with rock pillars which will enclose
a portion of the side yard, between the single family home and Newton
Street. The fence will extend from the west wall of the house to the west
property line and back to the northwest corner of the house. The fence
will run for approximately 35 feet along the west (Newton Street) property
line.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum
fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between a required building
December 23, 2002
Item No.: 8 (Cont.)
setback line and a street right-of-way. The required side (west) building
setback for this R-3 zoned property is five (5) feet. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a height variance for that portion of the proposed
six (6) foot fence located between the five (5) foot setback line and the
Newton Street right-of-way.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. This single family structure
and the house immediately east are the only two (2) residences in this
area which front on "O" Street. There are no residences which front on
Newton Street south of Cantrell Road. There are a number of fences in
this area which are taller than four (4) feet in height, enclose rear and/or
side yards, and are constructed on the right-of-way lines of "O" Street and
Newton Street. Therefore, the six (6) foot tall fence as proposed will not
be out of character with other fences in the area. Additionally, staff feels
that the proposed fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent
properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance,
subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction.
2. The rock fence columns must not exceed a height of seven (7) feet.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 23, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
a`iaJ fJNI'��1� �
7S L/ 3
I live on the corner of `O' St. and Newton. On the North side of Cantrell, Newton is two
blocks long, runs parallel to Harrison St., and ends at `O' St. Although it has a street sign,
it is often considered an alley. It is difficult for two cars to pass on this street, often one
will have to back up or turn onto `P' St. in order to get by. There is not one house that
faces Newton on these two blocks. It is the backyard to houses on Harrison and the side
yard to houses on the corners of `O', `P', and Cantrell. The majority of these backyards
and side yards have fences, some are four feet, some six feet and there are ones that are to
the street and set back a few feet from the street. In addition, `O' St. from Kavenough to
beyond Harrison only has my house and my next door neighbor facing `O' St. All of the
other side of the street, where my house faces, is the backyard / fences of houses on
Edgewood.
I would like to have a six foot fence that is on my property line on the Newton side of the
house. This fence would have rock pillars that match my house (similar to the fence at the
new Kroger on Cantrell).
On the other two sides of my house, I share a fence with one neighbor, behind me, that is
six feet and wood. My neighbor beside me has the same fence, six feet wood. The fence I
want will complete fencing around my house (but not in front) with the addition of the
rock pillars.
On the copy that I have provided, it does not show that there is a large oak tree on the
Northeast side that is about even with the house. The space available for the fenced area
is reduced due to this large oak tree and it's roots. The fence that I want will start behind
this tree, at least 1/3 of the space back from the front of the house and the door. My
property line is five feet from the street (there are no curbs on Newton).
I am trying to make a fence that looks nice with my house, is in the same period of my
house (75 years old) and which will look nice in the neighborhood. I want very much to
have this fence begin at my property line in order to make the investment such a fence
would be worthwhile. Also, I think it would look odd to have to go about half of the way
into the yard before starting the fence... it would look like I made a fence splitting my
side yard in half. Previous owners had a chain ink fence that was off the street on the `O'
side but to the property line on Newton as several other fences are on Newton.
I informed neighbors on Edgewood, Harrison, `O', and `P' Streets and no one had any
hesitation in signing this variance.
lip
December 23, 2002
ITEM NO.: 9
File No.: Z-7344
Owner: Richard Harp Homes, Inc.
Address: #1 Chalamont Way
Description: Lot 41, Block 73, Chenal Valley 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 the entry stairs of a new house with a
reduced front setback and which cross 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 #1 Chalamont Way is occupied by a two-story
brick and rock single family residence which is under construction and
nearing completion. A two -car driveway from Chalamont Way will serve
as access. After construction of the residence, the property owner
realized that the steps leading to the front door of the structure cross the
25 foot front platted building line by approximately 10 feet. The resulting
front yard setback is 15 feet.
Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
front yard setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12 of the Subdivision Ordinance
requires that encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed and
December 23, 2002
Item No.: 9 (Cont.)
approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting variances to allow for the construction of the front steps.
Staff supports the requested variances. The encroachment of the front
steps over the 25 foot platted building line is very minor in nature. The
front wall of the residential structure meets the required 25 foot front yard
setback. Staff feels that approval of these variances will have no negative
impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The Chenal Valley
Architectural Control Committee has reviewed and approved the site plan
for this property (including the entry steps).
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 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 entry steps are to remain unenclosed and uncovered.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 23, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
1►:
6100 West 12th Street, Suite 3
Little Rock, AR 72204
Little Rock Board of Adjustment
Dana Carney
Zoning Administrator
723 West Markham
Dear Little Rock Board of Adjustment,
T-4-,, i
- 72
I am building a pre -sold home for Ms, Lisa. ]ones at One Clamant�Vay � Che. -W. I
was recently notified by Brit Palmer that my fron-t entry beick stair me ?s ly ftig 'l E1=
int building setback. I = mpt fully request -mg that the setback be excused in this
situation due to the following issue:
The extreme grade of the lot required several more steps to exit the harm afbw a36" deep
porch than were on the drawn approval-stuwpo . plat. The current stw-4-mo, 11m be u
designed to satisfy the Chenal Architectural Control Committee's request to flare -out, to
=p= �,.A'_� zodt foT Ap and tread dunensions, and safely exit a "tri -level" home. (The
future home -owner requested that the safety -railing be omitted, mud. a, copy of the rail*
exception is included for your consideration;)
I failod to mlizc that mecting the Chenal Architectural Control Committee's requirement
too_ ereate the wed staircase on this grade would fail into the building setback.
Please consider my request for relief of the setback requireme t to the staircase. 1 assure
the committee I will be much more diligent in th, placement of future cottio
Respectfully,
Richard Harp
President
Richard Harp Homes, Inc.
L
0
Q
cW
G
z
Q
m
Q
z
LU
CO
m
Q
LU
Q
z
0
w w 0
2 0
r -)w
0 z I— o co Q
a<LLJ
UnLU >-
rK
Z (-)
j u �Q
m
W z E >- = Y
-LLm
Fcl� D�
LU
C�
0
Z
W
o
O
Q
Q
-CQ
CO
�
LU
C)f
LL
0
-,
_J
W
m
U
z
>-m
2
Y
2LLmCD
lj�-
3
of
L
0
Q
cW
G
z
Q
m
Q
z
LU
CO
m
Q
LU
Q
z
0
w w 0
2 0
r -)w
0 z I— o co Q
a<LLJ
UnLU >-
rK
Z (-)
j u �Q
m
W z E >- = Y
-LLm
Fcl� D�
December 23, 2002
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
2:25 p.m.
Date: G4 Z7 2003
1e
1�4�r4coli'
,-
Chairman