boa_04 30 2001LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
APRIL 30, 2001
2:00 P.M.
I. 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 March 26, 2001 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman
Norm Floyd, Vice Chairman
Fred Gray
Gary Langlais
Scott Richburg
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
I. DEFERRED ITEMS
A. Z-6986
B. Z-6993
II. NEW ITEMS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
AGENDA
APRIL 30, 2001
2:00 P.M.
Z -5610-A
Z -6921-A
Z-7002
Z-7003
Z-7005
Z-7006
Administrative Appeal
1800 North Grant Street
2222 Singleton Cove
5223 Hawthorne Road
7615 Fluid Drive
2007 Cherry Bend Dr.
12,911 Westglen Dr.
45 Edgehill Road
5021 Stonewall Road
3421 Walker Street
S11WIl ).119
0
0
N
N
3NId 0
- 834V83
11nV81N1
�y
moedve
ub l v s
o z w 4._J
d A3NOON
NV 0e
SliWll Allo 39018 AWIA
_ I4) 'yJNpJ3�brS o
mgt
Pr
me
In
•
April 3v, 2001
Item No.: A
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
Staff Report:
A. Landscape Review:
Superior Federal Bank
1800 N. Grant Street
Lot 5, North 46.5 feet of Lot 6 and
Lot 8, Block 9, Mountain Park
Addition
O-3
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-281,
the parking provisions of Section
36-507 and the buffer requirements
of Section 36-522.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Full Service Bank
Bank drive-thru teller service only
The site plan submitted does not provide for the 9 foot wide
street buffers along North University Avenue and Cantrell
Road required by the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, it
does not provide for the 9 -foot wide landscape strips along
North University and along the northern and a portion of the
southern perimeters of the site required by the Landscape
Ordinance. Since this site is located within the designated
"mature area" a 25% reduction is allowed. However, the plan
submitted is below this minimum width requirement of 6.7
rww.... rw rv�wwww a..aa a.. n.V 4A Arai yb..�.Vn 4.111) iL1i 111
variance by the City Beautiful Commission.
B. Public Works Issues:
1. Proposed building is located in MSP right-of-way
required for Cantrell Road.
April 3.. , 2001
Item No.: A (Cont.)
2. A 20' radial dedication is required at the corner of
Cantrell and Grant.
3. Cantrell Road is classified on the MSP as a principal
arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55' from
centerline is required.
4. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master
Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned
development.
S. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
6. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
C. Staff Analysis:
A Superior Federal Bank Facility is located on the 0-3 zoned
property at 1800 North Grant Street. The bank has also
acquired an 0-3 zoned lot located across the alley, west of
the bank property. The bank proposes to raze the existing
bank building and replace it with a drive-through teller
only facility. The remainder of the bank's functions are to
be located in an existing C-3 zoned building across Grant
Street to the east. The recently acquired lot across the
alley to the west is to be developed as parking for
employees. All customer traffic to the new teller facility
will be vehicle traffic only; there will be no public
parking or "walk-up" customer traffic.
The new teller facility will consist of a small (12' X 501)
building with a large canopy that extends over 5 traffic
lanes. Four lanes will be teller lanes with the fifth being
an ATM lane. Each lane will have stacking space for 5
vehicles. The structure, building and canopy, will meet or
exceed the required setbacks on the north (side), east
(front) and west (rear). The bank is required to dedicate
25 feet of additional right-of-way for Cantrell Road. The
proposed new teller building extends 5.7 feet into the new
right-of-way. The code requires a 10 -foot side yard
setback, to be measured from the new right-of-way line.
Since the 11 new parking spaces proposed for development on
the newly acquired lot are separated from the teller and
bank facilities by an alley and Grant Street, they are
considered off-site parking and a variance is required.
April 3.. , 2001
Item No.: A (Cont.)
The street buffer along the North University Avenue
perimeter of the new parking lot falls slightly below the 9
feet required by the Ordinance. Since the teller facility
building actually extends across the property line on the
Cantrell Road perimeter (once the right-of-way is dedicated)
the buffer on that perimeter also falls below the 9 feet
required by the Ordinance.
Staff does support the variance to allow the off-site
parking to be located on the newly acquired lot. This lot
is well within walking distance to both the teller facility
and the new bank location. The buffer variance on the
University Avenue perimeter is minor and, with a small
modification, may not be necessary at all.
The issues related to the proposed location of the teller
building itself are more complicated. As proposed, nearly
half of the building will be located in the public right-of-
way. A franchise would be required to allow the building to
be constructed in the right-of-way. It is questionable
whether it is good public policy to allow this to occur.
Initial responses from other City departments are not
favorable. Staff could support a 0 setback on the south
(Cantrell Road) perimeter, once the required right-of-way is
dedicated. This can be accomplished by eliminating one of
the drive-through teller lanes and moving the building to
the north. This would still leave 3 teller lanes, an ATM
lane and a pass lane. Each of the teller and ATM lanes are
capable of stacking 5 vehicles each. Even that level of
activity on what will be a 70' X 140' lot seems on the verge
of excessive.
If the building were moved to provide a 0' side yard setback
on the Cantrell Road perimeter, staff could also support a
reduction in the buffer on that side. Until such time as
the road is ever widened, the additional 25 feet of right-
of-way would be landscaped yard.
A separate issue that is mentioned here for informational
purposes only concerns landscaping. There are areas where
the ordinance. Variances from those standards can only be
approved by the City Beautiful Commission.
3
April 3-, 2001
Item No.: A (Cont.)
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the off-
site parking to be located on the lot located west of the
alley and of the buffer variance to allow a reduction on the
University Avenue perimeter of that parking lot subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any
variance or waiver of the requirements as may be granted
by the Board of Directors or the Director of Public
Works.
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance including
any variance or waiver of those requirements as may be
granted by the City Beautiful Commission.
Staff does not recommend approval of the requested variance
to allow the proposed teller building to be located across
the property line and to extend into the right-of-way for
Cantrell Road.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 2001)
William Putnam and Charlie Peden were present representing the
item. There were several objectors present. Staff informed the
Board that a revised site plan had been submitted in which the
proposed teller building had been moved out of the master street
plan right-of-way. A 0' side yard setback was now requested on
the Cantrell Road perimeter. Staff recommended approval of the
requested off-site parking, buffer and setback variances subject
to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation" above.
William Putnam stated that he had no comments but would prefer to
answer questions and respond to comments raised by those present
in opposition.
building being either in or immediately adjacent to the right-of-
way. Mr. Putnam responded that the requirement to dedicate 25
feet of property for right-of-way created the need for the
reduced setback. Mr. Floyd stated that he would prefer to see
the building centered on the site with the drive-through lanes on
either side. Mr. Putnam responded that the bank and its
4
r
April 3. 2001
Item No.: A (Cont.)
architect had determined that the proposed design was the most
efficient for serving its customers.
Mr. Ruck asked if there would be a problem with not having a
pass-through lane. Mr. Putnam responded that the ATM lane would
serve as a pass-through lane.
Mr. Putnam stated that the driving force behind the proposal was
the City's request that the bank do something about customers
stacking behind the one existing teller window and blocking
traffic in Grant Street.
In response to a question from Norm Floyd, City Traffic Engineer
Bill Henry described the typical construction of a principal
arterial street.
Moise Seligman, owner of the property at 6020 Cantrell Road,
spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated the bank's new
development would create traffic problems that would negatively
impact the tenant of his building.
Billie Seligman chose not to speak.
Jan Woods, daughter of Jeanette Corder who is part-owner of the
adjacent commercial development at 5901-5921 "R" Street, spoke in
opposition. She stated the bank had leased space in a building
owned by Ms. Corder and her partner Frances Fields in a building
across Grant Street without telling them of its plans for the
property at 1800 N. Grant. Ms. Woods stated the bank's proposal
would eliminate access to the loading docks and dumpsters located
at the rear of the buildings at 5901-5921 "R" Street. She asked
if there was not a prescriptive easement that would allow
continued use of Superior's property to access the dumpsters and
loading docks. She also voiced fears that increased bank traffic
could lead to a pedestrian accident if a bank customer exiting
the teller facility turned north on the alley, between the
commercial buildings at 5901-5921 "R" Street.
Jeanette Corder chose not to speak, deferring to her attorney
Geoffrey Treece.
Mr. Treece addressed the Board and stated he felt there was an
issue about whether there was a prescriptive easement to allow
continued access to the dumpsters and loading docks. Mr. Treece
stated that he understood that was a separate issue, perhaps to
be decided by the courts. He stated that he felt the proposed
level of development was too intense for the small site and
5
April 2001
Item No.: A (Cont.
generated traffic problems. Mr. Treece stated that he felt
Superior should address the issue of continued access to the
rear of the buildings at 5901-5921 "R" Street to avoid possible
litigation.
Phil Olinghouse, owner of The Toggery at 5919 "R" Street, spoke
in opposition. He also voiced concerns about continued access to
the loading dock on the rear of his building. He stated that
delivery trucks would have no choice but to park in the alley to
unload, blocking Superior's drive-through lanes. Mr. Olinghouse
stated that it was difficult to access either Cantrell Road or
University Avenue from the bank site. He stated he felt
Superior's proposal to go from one drive-through window to 5 was
excessive.
Norm Floyd asked if the site plan could be reversed so that
traffic would access the bank site from the west and exit to the
east. Bill Henry responded that such a proposal would funnel all
of the traffic onto Grant Street, where the current proposal gave
two points of exit, the alley and University Avenue.
Frances Fields chose not to speak, deferring to her daughter
Libby Williams. Ms. Williams voiced concerns about bank traffic
turning north on the alley. She also stated that delivery trucks
would block the alley and the bank's teller lanes. Ms. Williams
stated that the bank's representatives had refused to meet with
Ms. Fields and her tenants.
Jerry Makowski, tenant of the building at 6020 Cantrell Road,
spoke in opposition. He stated he had limited access to his
property that would be impacted if Superior's plans were
approved. He also brought up the issue of traffic safety and
presented photographs showing traffic in the area.
Mike Pierce, owner of Papa John's Pizza in the abutting "R"
Street building, spoke of his concerns regarding continued access
to the dumpster and the increase in traffic on the bank site. He
also stated that Superior had refused to meet with area
businesses.
members had been to the site.
William Ruck stated he wanted to hear staff's response to the
issues that had been raised thus far.
C
{
April 3-, 2001
Item No.: A (Cont.
David Hamilton, of Public Works, stated any approved variances
should include the condition that Superior upgrade the alley to
provide better access to Cantrell Road. He acknowledged that any
regrading of the alley could further impact access to the
property at 6020 Cantrell. Bill Henry confirmed Mr. Putnam's
statement that the City had asked Superior Bank to come up with a
plan that provided more and better stacking space at the drive -up
tellers in order to address the problem of customers blocking
Grant Street and Cantrell Road. Mr. Henry stated that he did not
feel that there would be a large increase in customer traffic to
the site just because there were more drive-through teller
windows.
In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Henry stated that
it was his opinion that Superior's plan would work the way it is
proposed.
Norm Floyd commented that there was a problem accessing Cantrell
Road and that he felt this plan created too much traffic on the
site.
William Ruck asked if the Cantrell/University intersection area
was an accident-prone situation. Mr. Henry responded that it was
one of the top 5 accident locations in the state. He stated he
felt Superior's plan would make the situation better.
In response to a question from William Ruck, Mr. Henry stated
that the proposed additional stacking space was a definite
improvement.
At William Ruck's request, Dana Carney of the Planning Staff
outlined the specific variance requests.
Jerry Makowski addressed the Board and questioned Mr. Henry's
assessment of the traffic situation. Mr. Henry reiterated his
opinion that he felt Superior's plan would improve traffic in the
area. Mr. Henry stated that more teller lanes did not
necessarily mean more customer traffic. He stated the City's
primary concern was getting the customer traffic off of the
street. Mr. Henry stated that the City had not received
- '- -i ---- _ __ _____--— _-1 —__7 -- ___— — -- —_ r .�. .�... �.... ..aa.......
about traffic stacking up entering the site. Mr. Henry stated
the site may not have the most advantageous access but it has the
best that it has to work with.
Jan Woods reiterated her concern that more teller lanes would
result in more traffic on the site.
7
April :5-, 2001
Item No.: A (Cont.
Rodney Getchell, owner of Hestand's at 5915 "R" Street, spoke of
his concern about having continued access to the loading dock and
dumpster.
William Putnam addressed the Board and stated that all that was
being done was in response to the City's direction to address the
problem of customers blocking Grant Street. He stated Superior
had tried to locate another site in the area but could not, so
the decision was made to divide the bank's operations, leaving
only the drive-through facility on this site. Mr. Putnam stated
that Superior had worked with staff to devise a plan that worked
best. He stated the multiple lanes would spread out the
customers and reduce the possibility of traffic backing into the
street.
Mr. Putnam stated that a title search had revealed nothing that
allowed access across the bank property to reach the loading dock
and dumpster on the abutting property. He stated the Chairman of
the Board of Superior had expressed concern that allowing
continued access across the bank property was a liability. Mr.
Putnam stated that the proposal was not going to triple or
quadruple business but was going to address traffic concerns
related to the existing customers.
Norm Floyd asked why the Bank had not met with the neighbors.
The response was that the plan was in flux and the decision was
made at the corporate level not to meet. Mr. Floyd commented
that a meeting might help.
Geoffrey Treece asked if the bank was required to have all of the
parking spaces shown west of the alley. Dana Carney responded
that they were not but that the bank was providing extra spaces
since parking was at such a premium in the Heights.
Mr. Treece asked that the item be deferred to allow the neighbors
to meet with Superior. Mr. Putnam responded that he could not
accept a deferral because the project was behind schedule. He
stated the bank was not requesting any variances that were
unreasonable and had done everything requested by the City. He
Phil Olinghouse stated the issue was stirring up the neighborhood
and asked that the Board deny the request.
Mr. Putnam stated the bank was not stating that it wouldn't work
with the neighbors.
8
April 3., 2001
Item No.: A (Cont.)
Jerry Makowski reiterated his opposition.
Dana Carney reiterated the various issues for the Board. He
noted that the buildings at 5901-5921 "R" Street were built with
a reduced rear yard setback of 0 feet as a result of Board of
Adjustment approval in 1962. He noted that the 1962 plan for
those buildings showed service entrances and dock access to be
taken from the alley, not from the abutting property. Mr. Carney
noted that the City's traffic engineer had voiced definite
support for Superior's proposed plan. He outlined the particular
variance requests and noted that the bank could erect a fence and
landscaping along its northern perimeter, blocking off the
loading docks and dumpsters, with or without the Board's
approval.
Norm Floyd thanked Mr. Carney for pointing out what could be
done. He stated he still felt that Superior was proposing to
overbuild the lot and that he had to oppose the issue.
A motion was made to approve all requested variances subject to
compliance with the conditions recommended by staff and the
additional condition proposed by Public Works that the alley be
improved to the City's specifications. The vote was 2 ayes,
2 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Richburg). Since the item
failed to receive 3 votes either in favor or against the issue,
the item was deferred to the April 30, 2001 meeting.
William Ruck voiced his opinion that increased traffic was his
primary concern. He stated he felt there would be an increase in
traffic if the Board approved the variances and that the bank
should either find another site or reduce the size of the
proposed facility.
Gary Langlais stated that he felt it would be advantageous for
all parties to meet prior to the item returning to the Board.
Fred Gray stated there were some issues that could not be handled
by the Board of Adjustment. He also encouraged a meeting to be
arranged between the parties.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 30, 2001)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested
E
April .5 2001
Item No.: A (Cont.
withdrawal of the item. Staff informed the Board that the site
plan had been revised so that there were no longer any variances.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
10
PUTNAM REALTY INC.
SUITE 1820 UNION NATIONAL BANK BUILDING A. LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 :, PHONE AC 501376-3616
February 15, 2001
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
SPECIALISTS
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL& INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS J'. 7 REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS
j rs- DIVESTMENTS b ACQUISITIONS
Cs APPRAISALS
��1
Public Works
DITAGIN�;.E.E i
Special Programs
City of Little Rock
NEWROCK
701 W. Markham, Room 211
PARKING
DECK
Little Rock, Ar 72201
TRAVELERS
INSURANCE
BUILDING
,1
The Superior Federal Bank building was constructed
oNARD
SON
approximately 40 years ago, .and has remained open as a
RESTAURANT
banking facility until this time.
VILLAGE
SHOPPING
However, the City advised us (Superior Federal Bank)
CENTER
that the modern way of banking via drive-thru, has created a
V.
change and a traffic congested situation.
STORYBOOK
VILLAGE
;,
The Bank was advised of the problem and took it upon
GLENWOOD
themselves to correct the situation by moving all inside
HEIGHTS
banking across Grant Street in a new office (leased).
HOWARD
JOHNSON
The present building will be demolished and tellers
MOTEL
windows installed with servicing tubes, creating a magazine
SCHOOLWOOD
area for 20 cars. No parking on site, will be allowed
A
ALLENDALE
See the attached designs by the architects.
ti
JAMESTOWN
APARTMENTS
Employee parking will take place on a recently acquired
site for parking.
WINDAMERE
APARTMENTS
PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE
BUILDING
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
SPECIALISTS
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL& INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS J'. 7 REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS
j rs- DIVESTMENTS b ACQUISITIONS
Cs APPRAISALS
��1
Page 2
A great deal of study was done before the subject plan
was decided on. Turning movements, ingress, egress were
analyzed. The present design was arrived at thru a great
deal of discussion with the architects.
When the present building is razed, it changes the
footprint and therefore allows the City to ask for an
additional 10 feet of setback from the center line of
Cantrell Road. The City already had 45 feet. The present
building set on this line - the addition requirement makes a
55 foot setback.
The above increase caused the Bank to have to ask for a
Franchise on the additional 10'feet required by the City for
right-of-way,in order to solve the problem as set forth in
the letter to the Branch Manager, attached hereto.
W.B. Putnam, Applicant
WBP/jh
April 5,, 2001
Item No.: B
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-6993
City of Little Rock
2222 Singleton Cove
Lot 8, Parkview Hill
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254.
This lot has a 45 -foot platted
front building line, causing the
house to be located closer to the
rear property line.
Vacant lot
Single Family
The City of Little Rock, through its Affordable Homes
Program, is proposing to construct a new, single-family
residence on the R-2 zoned lot located at 2222 Singleton
Cove. The proposed house will meet all required setbacks
but a deck on the back of the house is proposed to extend 12
feet into the required 25 -foot rear yard setback.
Staff supports the requested variance. This "pie -shaped"
building line. This increased front setback, much more than
the 25 -foot front setback typically required in R-2, has the
effect of pushing the house more toward the rear of the lot.
The requested encroachment is for only the 12 -foot width of
the deck. The encroachment represents a minor percentage of
the overall width of the rear yard. A drainage ditch along
April 3.. , 2001
Item No.: B (Cont.
the rear property line separates this lot from the property
adjacent to the rear. The reduced setback for this 12' X
12' deck should have no impact on adjacent properties. The
deck is not proposed to be covered or enclosed.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance subject to the deck remaining uncovered and
unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 2001)
Rick Jones was present representing the application. There were
no objectors present. A board member had commented that he did
not observe the required sign advertising the public hearing on
the property. Mr. Jones informed staff that he could not address
that issue since the application had been handled by someone else
in his office. He suggested that the item be deferred and the
issue of the sign addressed. Staff informed the Board of the
applicant's request for deferral.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the April 30, 2001 meeting. The vote was 5 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 30, 2001)
Rick Jones was present representing the application. There were
no objectors present. Staff offered a recommendation of approval
subject to the deck remaining uncovered and unenclosed. Staff
informed the Board that the required sign had been placed on the
property.
Mr. Jones offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
2
April 3_, 2001
Item No.: 1
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z -5610-A
Raymond Roland Remmel and
Margarita Garcia Remmel
5223 Hawthorne Road
Lots 5 and 6, Block 11,
Newton's Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
to permit construction of a garage
addition with a reduced rear yard
setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property at 5223 Hawthorne Road is occupied by
a one-story frame, single-family residence and a detached,
two -car garage. The garage is accessed from the house by a
covered walkway. The applicant proposes to remove the
existing garage structure and build in its place an addition
to—the hoes -e. The addition wi con ain an enc ose glass
breezeway, a 3 -car garage and laundry on the ground floor
and a guest room built into the roof above. The addition is
proposed to maintain the existing 14 -foot setback from the
south (rear) property line. Since the proposed addition is
an expansion of the principal structure, a 25 -foot rear yard
setback is required by the Code.
April 3( , 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The addition
will maintain the same setback as the existing accessory
structure with only a slightly larger footprint within the
rear yard setback area. The property consists of two lots.
The encroachment thus occupies a smaller percentage of the
rear yard, leaving adequate, open rear yard area behind the
remainder of the house. The property adjacent to the south
is at a higher elevation and is separated from the subject
property by a retaining wall. This difference in elevation
helps to mitigate the visual impact of the reduced setback
when viewed from the property to the south. There appears
to be approximately 25 feet between the property line
and the structure on this adjacent property, providing
adequate separation between structures. This proposed
garage/laundry/guestroom addition does not appear to be
out of character for the neighborhood.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 30, 2001)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had submitted a
letter on April 13, 2001 requesting that the item be withdrawn.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
2
Yeary Lindsey Architects
March 22, 2001
Mr. Dana Carney
Dept. of Neighborhoods and Planning
723 W. Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Zoning Variance Application
For Remmel Residence
5223 Hawthorne Road
Dear Dana,
We are requesting a zoning variance at 5223 Hawthorne Road to allow a rear yard setback
of 14'-0".
Our proposed plan is for a new story and a half structure. The plan includes a three car
garage and laundry at the ground level and guest room built into the roof above. This
addition will be attached to the house with an enclosed glass breezeway.
We are requesting that this new structure replace the existing garage which is currently 14'-
0" from the rear yard property line. This 14' setback will continue to maintain more than
adequate separation between the garage and the existing garage on the lot to the south. We
feel that the new garage addition will not negatively impact any of the nearby lots.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sinc re
Ellen Yeary
319 E. Markham, Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-5940 FX: 501-707-0118
April 3., , 2001
Item No.: 2
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Descrit>tion:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues
Z -6921-A
Koon Properties, Inc.
7615 Fluid Drive
Lot 2C, Replat of Little Rock
River Subdivision
C-3
A variance is requested from the
sign area provisions of Section
36-555 to permit a ground -mounted
sign exceeding 160 square feet in
area.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Motel
Motel
No issues related to this sign variance.
B. Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned property located at 7615 Fluid Drive is
occupied by a Travelodge Motel. The property has frontage
on Fluid Drive, Fourche Dam Pike and I-440. A McDonald's
restaurant is located adjacent to the north. A shared
ground -mounted sign is located on the common property line
between McDonald's and Travelodge. This shared sign was
McDonald's sign mounted over an 8' X 32' Travelodge sign.
The sign exceeds the maximum of 36' in height and 160 square
feet in area allowed for signs in the commercial district.
The additional height and area was approved to allow
visibility from I-440 and in response to the previous
property owner's agreement not to request additional ground-
r
April 3. , 2001
Item No.: 2 (Cont.
mounted signs on the Travelodge property. The hotel site is
permitted 3 ground mounted signs since it has three street
frontages.
Travelodge is now requesting a ground -mounted sign on the
I-440 perimeter of the site. The sign is proposed to be 65
feet in height, or approximately 41 feet over the 24 -foot
height of the I-440 overpass over Fourche Dam Pike. The
applicant proposes to remove the Travelodge component of the
existing shared sign and to relocate it to the new location.
The 256 square foot, 8' X 32' Travelodge sign exceeds the
maximum 160 square feet permitted in commercial districts.
Section 36-557(b) states the height of ground -mounted signs
on properties adjacent to freeways may be measured from the
elevation of the centerline of the freeway. In this case,
the 36 -foot allowable height may be measured from the 24 -
foot higher elevation of the freeway. The applicant is
requesting an additional 5 feet in height.
Staff is supportive of the concept of relocating the
Travelodge component from the shared sign to its own
location adjacent to the freeway. This would reduce the
visual effect of the large shared sign area. There are
other, larger and taller signs in the area around this
interchange. Since the Travelodge component of the existing
shared sign is below the McDonald's sign, it is hidden from
approaching traffic on I-440 by the tree line. Allowing it
to be placed on its own pole at the taller height will make
it more easily seen from the interstate. Staff believes it
is appropriate to limit the height of the sign to a maximum
of 36 feet above the elevation of the adjacent interstate,
as outlined by Section 36-557(b).
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign area
variance to allow Travelodge to erect an 8' X 32' ground -
mounted sign on the I-440 perimeter of the site subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
shared ground -mounted sign located between Travelodge
and McDonald's.
2. There are to be no additional ground -mounted signs on
the Travelodge property.
2
April 3, 2001
Item No.: 2 (Cont.
Staff does not support the variance to allow a sign height
of 65 feet, 41 feet higher than the elevation of the
adjacent interstate.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 30, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had agreed to limit
the height of the sign to 60 feet, 36 feet above the elevation of
the adjacent interstate. Staff also informed the Board that the
sign measured 8 feet by 25 feet in area, not 8 feet by 32 feet.
Staff offered a recommendation of approval of the sign area
variance subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1. The Travelodge sign component is to be removed from the shared
ground -mounted sign located between Travelodge and McDonald's.
2. There are to be no additional ground -mounted signs on the
Travelodge property.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
W
ANDREW V. FRANCIS
E-MAIL:AFRANCIS t! FIARDMGRACE.COM
Phone extension: 13
March 21, 2001
Mr. Jim Lawson
City of Little Rock
Office of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Via Hand Delivery
HARDIN & GRACE
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
410 WEST THIRD, SUITE 200
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
TELEPHONE(501)378-7900
FACSIMILE (501) 376-6337
RE: Koon Properties, LLC — Sign Variance for Travelodge motel, I-440 and Fourche Dam Pike
Dear Jim:
This letter is to request a variance from Little Rock's sign ordinance for the above -referenced
property. Enclosed please find a plat map of the above -referenced property showing the proposed
location of the new sign, a drawing of the existing sign, and two photos showing the view (or lack
thereof) of the existing sign from I-440.
When you view the property you will see that it is a high-quality, attractive development. My client
invested around one million dollars in this business, which used to be a boarded -up eye sore!
However, the location of the current sign is not serving my client's commercial communication
requirements. As the enclosed photos clearly show, the sign is all but invisible from the interstate
in both directions until you are past the exit to Fourche Dam Pike. The motel's potential customers
just drive right past it because they do not have a chance to see the sign in time to exit the interstate.
To solve this problem, I propose that the City grant a variance to allow one additional on -premises,
freestanding sign for the Travelodge. The new sign will be the same style, lighting, materials, and
sign area as the existing sign. Ideally, the new sign would have a height of 65 feet, or approximately
41 feet over the 24 foot height of the Fourche Dam Pike overpass. This would allow potential
customers to see the motel's sign from the interstate before they pass the Fourche Dam Pike exit.
My client's engineer is preparing drawings for the sign right now, and I will provide you with copies
of the same as soon as I have them. •\�p
The current lack of visible signage is hurting my client's business, so time is of the essence. If staff
the filing deadline for the next meeting is this Friday, March 23. I would greatly appreciate it if you
could give me a response to this request as soon as possible.
01t
Page 2
Mr. Jim Lawson
March 21, 2001
Thank you for your time and please call me with any questions.
Cordially,
HARDIN & GRACE, P.A.
Andrew V. Francis
/avf
Enclosures
cc: Koon Properties, LLC
April 3v, 2001
Item No.: 3
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
Staff Report:
A
B.
Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
Staff Analysis:
Z-7002
Karen Mack
2007 Cherry Bend Drive
Lot 3, Block 6, Cherry Creek
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
to permit installation of a patio
cover with a reduced rear yard
setback.
The shallow depth of the lot limits
the buildable area.
Single family
Single family
The R-2 zoned property located at 2007 Cherry Bend Drive is
occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single-family
residence. The applicant proposes to erect a patio cover
over the concrete patio at the rear of the house. The cover
will result in a rear yard setback of 13.2± feet. The code
requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet for this lot.
azarz�3-supgoTz_LVe oz-me—requeszecL--variance. Tne 1�
averages only 97 feet in depth, less than the minimum lot
depth of 100 feet required for R-2 zoned property and less
than the typical West Little Rock residential lot. This has
resulted in less available rear yard area than the typical
lot. The cover will be erected over an existing concrete
patio and will be unenclosed on the sides. The variance is
April 3u, 2001
Item No.: 3 (Cont.
for only the width of the patio cover. The remainder of the
required rear yard area of this lot remains open and
uncovered. The house on the lot adjacent to the rear
appears to have a setback exceeding 25 feet, providing
adequate separation between structures.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance to allow a 20' X 10' patio cover subject to the
patio cover remaining open and unenclosed on all sides other
than at the point it adjoins the house.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 30,
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to the patio cover remaining open and unenclosed on all sides
other than at the point it adjoins the house.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0
April 3,-, 2001
Item No.: 4
File No.: Z-7003
Owner: Kevin and Ellana Kelly
Address: 12911 Westglen Drive
Description: Lot 44, West Hampton Subdivision
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the
building line provisions of Section
31-12 to permit construction of a
swimming pool and deck to be built
across a platted building line.
Justification: The lot has two street frontages
and has a 25 -foot building line on
both frontages. Virtually the
entire rear yard area is within one
of the building lines.
Present Use of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 12,911 West Glen Drive is
occupied by a new, two-story, brick and frame, single-family
residence. The lot slopes up from Gamble Road to West Glen
Drive. The lot has frontage on both West Glen Drive and
both street frontages. The applicant proposes to install a
16' X 32' swimming pool in the rear yard. A 4' concrete
deck will wrap around the pool. The pool and deck will
extend across the platted 25 -foot building line on the
Gamble Road perimeter. The pool conforms to zoning setback
and area coverage requirements.
April 3., 2001
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Virtually
the entire rear yard is impacted by the building line. The
building line was put in place to assure that the homes on
these lots maintained a proper setback from Gamble Road. A
6 -foot tall privacy fence extends along the Gamble Road
perimeter. This in -ground pool will be mostly hidden by the
fence. The pool is set back 151± from the rear property
line and 251± from the curb of Gamble Road. Allowing the
pool and deck to encroach across the rear building line
should have no effect on adjacent properties or on traffic
in the street.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the
applicant will have to do a one lot replat reflecting the
change in the building line. The applicant should review
the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's Office to
determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line
variance for the pool and deck subject to a one -lot replat
reflecting the change in the building line as approved by
the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 30, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line
for the swimming pool. Staff informed the Board that the
applicant had notified 8 persons and that 6 of those individuals
had been notified either 1 or 2 days later than the 10 days
required by the Board's Bylaws. Staff noted that the sign had
been posted on the property.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made to waive the Board's
bylaws-7and-'t(3accep-t--th-e�3.ces . The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
K
l
April 3u, 2001
Item No.: 5
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7005
Joe and Janinne Girior
45 Edgehill Road
Plot 45 and part of Plot 47,
Edgehill
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
to permit construction of a carport
addition with a reduced side yard
setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single family
Single family
The R-2 zoned property located at 45 Edgehill Road is
occupied by a two-story, brick and frame, single-family
residence. The house is in the process of being
substantially remodeled, including the addition of a porte-
cochere on the east side. All appropriate permits were
Ts-sued–fa-r—the project, ase on the house maintaining the
required 8 foot side yard setback on the east side. After
work had begun, the applicant realized the porte-cochere
needed to be wider to accommodate two vehicles. He is now
requesting a 4 -foot side yard setback.
April 3., 2001
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
The request does not seem unreasonable to staff. The
property is 206.3 feet in depth and the variance is
requested for only the depth of the proposed porte-cochere.
The remainder of the house exceeds all required setbacks.
The applicant has stated that the porte-cochere will have a
hip roof; pitching to the front, rear and side. It will be
open on the front and rear. The house on the lot adjacent
to the east appears to have a set back of 6'± from the
common property line. This provides a separation of 101±
between structures. A brick wall is located on the property
line separating the two sites. Staff believes it is
appropriate to limit the size of the eave/overhang and to
require guttering to control water run-off.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback
variance subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. The eave/overhang on the east side of the addition is to
be limited to no more than 12 inches.
2. Guttering is to be installed on the east side of the
addition to prevent water runoff onto the adjacent
property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 30, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and offered a recommendation of approval
subject to compliance with the conditions noted in the "Staff
Recommendation" above.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
2
,Jack Hartsell Construction Co.
319 Gill Street MILLWORK DIVISION Bus: 501-376-2871
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Fax: 501-375-6653
DEPT OF PLANNING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
723 WEST MARKHAM
LITTLE ROCK, AR
RE: 45 EDGEHILL RD
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
WE ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR A 4' SIDE YARD SET BACK.
THIS HOME WAS BUILT IN THE 1950'S. DUE TO THE CONFIGURATION
OF THE HOME, THE ONLY WAY TO DO IMPROVEMENTS IS TO GO
OUT THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOME. WE ARE ADDING A GARAGE
TO THIS SIDE OF THE HOUSE (WE HAVE A PERMIT (#20004742) TO DO
THIS ADDITION. AFTER WORK HAD ALREADY BEGUN, WE REALIZED
WE NEEDED AN ADDITIONAL 4' TO HAVE ADEQUATE GARAGE AREA.
TACK HARTSELL, BUILDER
JOE GIRIOR, OWNER
April 3�, 2001
Item No.: 6
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
KOM110
Howard and Rachael McCain
5021 Stonewall Road
Lot 6, Block 27, Newton's Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
to permit construction of an
addition with a reduced side yard
setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single family
Single family
The R-2 zoned property at 5021 Stonewall Road is occupied by
a one-story, brick and frame, single-family residence. The
applicant proposes to construct an addition onto the rear of
the house, maintaining the 4 -foot side yard setback that a
portion of the existing house now has. The code requires a
5 -foot side yard setback for this lot.
�taz= Deiieves the request is not unreasonable. The 1 -foot
variance is relatively minor and should have no greater
impact on the adjacent property than the existing house
does. Indeed, a portion of the existing house actually
extends 1.65 feet over the property line onto the adjacent
property. The house on the adjacent lot has a setback of
10'± from the common property line. The addition proposed
April 3�_, 2001
Item No.: 6 (Cont.
by the applicant is located to the rear of the adjacent
house. There is adequate separation between structures.
The applicant has recently removed an accessory building
that was located in the vicinity of the proposed addition.
That accessory building had a side yard setback of 1± foot.
The applicant has stated that granting the variance will
allow the interior of the addition to be better balanced
with the existing house and is, as such, more
architecturally desirable. Staff believes it is reasonable
to limit the size of the eave/overhang on the west side of
the addition and to require guttering so as to prevent water
run-off onto the adjacent property.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback
variance subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. The eave/overhang on the west side of the addition is to
be limited to no more than 12 inches.
2. Guttering is to be installed on the west side of the
addition to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent
property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 30, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had explained that
the proposed addition will have a gable -end facing the west
property line and no guttering would be required. Staff
presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to
the eave/overhang on the west side of the addition being limited
to no more than 12 inches.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
2
MAR 23 '01 P4=34PM LOAN DEPT
I
March 23, 2001
Board of Adjustment
City of Little Rock
723 W Markham
Little Rock, AR
Dear Board Members:
P.1
I am planning a 25 foot addition to the back of my house at 5021 Stonewall Rd and I am
requesting a variance on the west side. Instead of the 5 foot building setback, I would
like you to approve a 4 foot setback. This would line up with part of the original
structure of the house.
The addition will line up with part of the original structure.
The addition will be behind a privacy fence and will not be
visible from the street.
By granting the 4 foot setback, the interior of the addition
will be balanced with the existing structure and will not feel like
new space.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Howard McCain
April 3., 2001
Item No.: 7
Name: Oscie Lockwood and Jeffery Lockwood
Address: 3412 Walker Street
Type of Issue: Administrative appeal of staff's
denial of a request to continue
parking a commercial vehicle on the
R-3 zoned property at 3412 Walker
Street.
Staff Report:
Jeffery Lockwood is the owner/occupant of the R-2 zoned property
located at 3412 Walker Street. Mr. Lockwood owns and operates an
18 -wheel tractor and occasionally parks the vehicle at his home.
He states the vehicle is parked at his home to prevent it from
being vandalized if it were parked elsewhere. A code enforcement
office discovered the vehicle while making a routine inspection
of the neighborhood. There was no complaint filed regarding the
vehicle. Section 36-512 of the Code prohibits the parking of
such commercial vehicles on residentially zoned property.
After receiving a courtesy notice
Mr. Lockwood appealed to Jim Lawso
Development. Section 36-515 of th
director to approve variances from
owner can evidence a circumstance
property. Mr. Lawson chose not to
Mr. Lockwood was advised to appeal
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
from Code Enforcement,
n, Director of Planning and
e Code permits the planning
Section 36-512 if the property
or hardship unique to the
grant the variance and
to the Board of Adjustment.
(APRIL 30, 2001)
Jeffery Lockwood was present to represent his appeal. Staff
presented the issue.
Mr. Lockwood addressed the Board. He stated he had purchased the
truck 5 years ago and had paid $104,000 for it. Mr. Lockwood
voiced concern that t e truck would be vandalized if it were left
unattended. He stated the truck was at his home mostly only on
weekends and was parked on a paved driveway. Mr. Lockwood stated
he was an independent contractor and did not drive for a large
trucking company with a terminal where he could park the truck.
April 3�, 2001
Item No.: 7 (Cont.
In response to questions from Fred Gray, Mr. Lockwood stated the
trailer was kept elsewhere and driving the truck was his only
employment. He reiterated his statement that the truck was at
his home typically only on weekends.
In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Code Enforcement
Officer, Jan Giggar stated that there had been no complaint made
regarding the truck. Mr. Giggar stated he had found the
violation on Monday, February 12, 2001.
In response to a question from Gary Langlais, Mr. Lockwood stated
the truck was never parked on the street, that it was always
parked on the paved driveway.
William Ruck asked if there was not some other place to park the
truck. Mr. Lockwood responded that there were other places such
as truck stops but that the vehicle was likely to be either
stolen or vandalized.
In response to a question from Scott Richburg, Mr. Lockwood
stated that he typically was gone from Sunday through Friday but
it depended on which company he was leased to. Mr. Lockwood
again pleaded not to have to move the truck.
Mr. Lockwood stated that he was considering buying property
outside of the City and would perhaps move at some point in the
near future. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, urged Mr.
Lockwood to check with staff before making such a move since the
City had jurisdiction for some distance outside of the corporate
city limits.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made to allow Mr. Lockwood
to park one tractor (truck) on the paved driveway in his yard,
predominately on weekends, for a period of 2 years. The motion
included the condition that Mr. Lockwood return to the Board
after two years, at which point any further request to continue
parking the truck would be considered a zoning variance and would
require full notification.
Deputy City Attorney Cindy Dawson asked that the record reflect
that ere were no persons present to object.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
2
y'I\ 4146 P, C
March 2, 2001
r&- Jeffery Lockwood
3412 Walker Street
Little Bock, AR 72204
To I 'hom It May Concern;
1, Jeffery Lockwood, personally own the 18 -wheeler parked at 3412 Walker Street. This
vehicle is used for business puiposes. I have been driving a company owned vehicle for 8
years in which some of them were vandalized. For S years, I've personally owned my 18
wheeler, and it is my fear that my vehicle, valuing $100,000, will be subject to vandalism
if it is parked any where other tl�an my yard. The vehicle is in working- condition and is
driver, on a regular basis. Parking the vehicle in my yard is for my own protection, I feel
this will save me from any loss if an attempt is made to vandalize my vehicle. The area is
maintained. The vehicle is not in disrepair, surrounded by trash, or tall grass. The vehicle
is parked in my yard only when I have time off from my job. It is for my safety that the
vehicle be parked in my yard because I leave home during various times of the day.
Please advise mo of the exact complaint and ordinance that the vehicle is in violation of
in order £or me to correct the problem.
Thank you,
Lockwood �
1,774
BY:—
N❑
LL A
LU
w
w
H
O
F -
w
U
L
z
O
❑
a
O
m
9'1
r
�0
U)
oW(�
w
z
�
v�
Q
m
}
>
=
Y
2
U-
-<i
�
April 30, 2001
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
Date:
Chairman