boa_06 25 2001LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
JUNE 25, 2001
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being three (3) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The Minutes of the May 21, 2001 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
Norm Floyd, Vice Chairman
Fred Gray
Gary Langlais
William Ruck, Chairman
Scott Richburg
City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2001
2:00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEM
A. Z -7012-A 9800 Geyer Springs Road
II. NEW ITEMS
1.
Z-7063
#8 Longfellow Lane
2.
Z -6550-A
3922 South Lookout
3.
Z -6675-A
5208 Kavanaugh Blvd.
4.
Z -6891-A
5100 Country Club
5.
Z -6921-A
8710 Fourche Dam Pike
6.
Z-7045
5521 Stonewall
7.
Z-7047
7102 Asher Avenue
8.
Z-7049
2204 Sawgrass Dr.
9.
Z-7050
4523 West 12th Street
10.
Z-7051
2400 South Taylor Street
11.
Z-7052
#7 Parliament Place
12.
Z-7053
5021 Hawthorne Street
13.
Z-7054
4100 Kenyon
14.
Z-7055
1509 Mart Drive
15.
Z-7056
344 Crystal Court
II. NEW ITEMS (Cont.)
16. Z-7057 2106 N. Beechwood
17. Z-7058 11406 West Markham Street
18. Z-7059 12015 Hinson Road
E
7-
0 0
0N
._
LO
Did
—
a32tla3
11f1Y91H1
ti
Jy
vd
�oy
r
w gp�p NVrva39
?o
Nltlry �
AVMUV088
HOatl NOINO
1S3H0 014380
�
N ONIN IN �
—
=
Cp I'7 � 'W' R
\BONjON
o —
o M0a000m Did
Fi 133d1s
(�f 3NId HJ�yy
z
atlO NO1lIWy 11005 z
� i O m s SJNiyaS
s
Q0 s �g
hJ v !!
� Na d altl3 y $ -
G
A11Sa3AINO A11$a3AINO
SONIad
83A30
rQ 3H90H I�
J
�'
Idd155 IW w
1001HO
MOaatlA NHOr 381OA83S39a
3AN13H
i
SIOaVS _
Oa 3l Otl $ 0a0d31NOtlHS a — >
N
tlHavd A OOa
s
NV 08
y¢
o Sliryll All? w m 30018 AWIA
— HJbpJ3J�fS o v
W
OR \t
0
,g
°bo 'g�� o �
s
O e�
�
r�n
VJ
~� 00 OR�Stp\.
P
f PR�Y\Py W
Q o2
Q
�7(J��/ 1
�a'
NVAIIIOS
Y
latlMIS
ysdd�
4-
0
S11Wf1 Allo��2y
co
�dor�J 31YON631
O
m
W
r
Jtine 25, 2001
Item No.: A
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z -7012-A
Led By The Spirit of God Church
9800 Geyer Springs Road
Long Legal
O-3
Variances are requested from the
buffer requirements of Section
36-522, the on-site parking
provisions of Section 36-502 and
the pavement requirements of
Section 36-508.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Vacant, undeveloped
New Church, to be built in two
phases.
With Building Permit:
1. Geyer Springs Road is classified on the Master Street
Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way
45 feet from centerline will be required.
2. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
6. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
June 25, 2001
Item No.: A (Cont.)
B. Landscape Review:
The plan submitted does not allow for the minimum 6.7 foot
wide land use buffers required along portions of the
southern and northern perimeters, utility easements cannot
count as part of the land use buffer area.
A 6 -foot high opaque screen is required along the north,
south and western perimeters of the site. This screen may
be a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or
dense evergreen plantings.
A total of eight percent of the interior of the vehicular
use area must be landscaped with interior islands of at
least 150 square feet in area and 7 i-2 feet in width.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas is required.
C. Staff Analysis:
Led By The Spirit of God Church proposes to build a new
church facility, in two phases, on the vacant, 0-3 zoned
property located at 9800 Geyer Springs Road. Phase I
consists of a single, multi-purpose building and a 51 space
parking lot. This Phase I building will contain the main
worship area which will accommodate 250 persons. A 250
person worship center requires 62 on-site parking spaces.
The Phase I building will have a side yard setback of 20
feet from the north property line, exceeding the Ordinance
requirement of 10 feet. 15 feet of that 20 foot setback is
a utility easement, leaving only 5 feet to serve as buffer.
Utility easements cannot count as part of the required
minimum Land Use Buffer area. The minimum requirement is
6.7 feet. A portion of the buffer along the south perimeter
also falls below the ordinance minimum of 6.7 feet. The
church is requesting a 2 -year deferral of the requirement to
pave the parking lot. Lastly, the Phase II building is
proposed to contain a sanctuary with a seating capacity of
475; requiring 118 on-site parking spaces. At build -out,
the church is proposing a total of 104 parking spaces.
Staff is supportive of the buffer and parking variances.
The proposed buildings exceed all required zoning setbacks.
The property is narrow in relation to its depth. Moving the
Phase I building to the south to gain the additional 1.7
feet of required buffer could impact the ability to provide
N
June 25, 2001
Item No.: A (Cont.)
properly dimensioned parking and driveways. The minor, 1.7
foot variance is for only the 100 foot depth of the
building; a small portion of the overall 480± foot depth of
the site. The driveway along the south perimeter of the
site is being positioned to be properly placed when future
parking is added. The property narrows from 188 feet in
width at the rear to 181 feet in width at the front. It is
this reduction in width that creates the slight reduction
along a portion of the south driveway. Again, the reduced
buffer area is for only a small portion of the south
perimeter. Otherwise, as is the case along the north
perimeter the buffer exceeds the Ordinance requirement.
The Phase I parking variance is minor. Fifty-one spaces are
being provided; 62 are required. There will be plenty of
room on the site to provide additional parking if it is
needed throughout Phase I. The Phase II parking variance is
also minor. One hundred four spaces are proposed; 118 are
required. The church will be providing 88% of the required
parking on site.
The property adjacent to the north is occupied by a funeral
home. The property to the south is undeveloped. Allowing
the reduced buffers and minor reduction in on-site parking
should have no effect on the adjacent properties.
Staff is not as supportive of the requested 2 -year deferral
of the paving requirement. Staff believes a more
appropriate length of time would be 12 months. The site is
located in a built-up part of the City and fronts onto a
major traffic artery. Although the parking eventually will
be located behind the sanctuary in Phase II, through Phase I
the parking is more visible from the street. Beginning with
a 12 month deferral would allow the applicant to more fully
analyze the church's financial situation based on its
occupancy of the new site. If additional time is needed,
the church may reapply to the Board. The church does
propose to install a paved apron and to pave the first 50
feet of driveway to prevent gravel being pulled onto the
street.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested buffer and on-
site parking variances subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
3
2001
Item No.: A (Cont.)
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any
variance or waiver of those comments 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 as may be granted by
the City Beautiful Commission.
3. Compliance with the City's Buffer Ordinance, other than
for those areas where a variance is granted.
Staff supports only a 12 month deferral of the paving
requirement for the parking lot. It is staff's
interpretation that required screening should be put in
place with the Phase I building construction, regardless of
the length of the paving deferral.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 2001)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred
because the applicant failed to complete the notices.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
June 25, 2001 meeting. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the conditions and time outlined in the "staff
recommendation" above. Staff informed the Board that the
applicant had agreed with staff's recommendation.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
4
PASTOR
Alphonso & Monique Montgomery
LEDBY THE SPIRIT OF .CLOD CHURCH
April 27, 2001
P.O. Box 193254 - Little Rock, Arkansas 72219 - (501) 569-9147
Mr. Dana Carney, Planner
Department of Planning & Development
City of Little Rock
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
RE: Led by the Spirit Church of God
9800 Geyer Springs Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
Dear Mr. Carney:
Attached please find six copies of the property survey and six copies of the site plan for
the above referenced Zoning Variance request. Led by the Spirit Church of God is planning
to begin construction on a new church facility by late summer. We are
currently working with our Terry Burruss, Architects to develop plans for construction
purposes. Please note that the site plan shows a Phase I Multi-purpose Church Facility
and a Phase II Sanctuary
Led by the Spirit Church of God is requesting a deferral of two years to pave the parking
area. We are providing a concrete entry apron and approximately 50' of paved entry drive.
If we are able to proceed with our future building program sooner, we would, of course
proceed with these site improvements. We are requesting a set -back variance of 1.7
feet on the North side of the Phase I Multi-purpose Facility. Please note that while the
buffer is less than required (for approximately 180 feet) on the south side, that the average
buffer exceeds the 6.7 foot requirement. We are also requesting consideration on a parking
waiver for both Phase I and Phase II of the project. Phase I would require 63 parking
spaces (we are showing 51) and Phase II would require 119 parking spaces (we can provide
104 total).
"The Church where Jesus makes Families whole."
If there are any questions or additional information is needed, please call. We appreciate
your consideration on this request.
1
F--
Juae 25, 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 issues.
B. Landscape Review:
Z-7063
Gus Blass, III/Ellen Yeary,
Applicant
#8 Longfellow Lane
Lot 2 and East 15 feet of Lot 3,
Beverly Place
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section
36-254 to permit a porte cochere
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 #8 Longfellow Lane is
occupied by a two-story, single family residence. The
driveway is located on the west side of the residence. A
canvas awning is located over the driveway, providing
covered access to the side entry to the house. The
applicant proposes to replace the awning with a new porte
cochere. The porte cochere will be supported with round
permacast columns and will have a hip roof of concrete tiles
to match the house. The porte cochere addition will result
in a side yard setback of 4 feet. The code requires a side
yard setback of 8 feet for this lot.
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The new
porte cochere will replace an existing canvas structure,
resulting in an improvement to the house with no increased
impact on adjacent properties. The variance is requested
for only the 14 foot depth of the porte cochere, a very
small percentage of the overall 213 foot depth of this lot.
The house itself exceeds all required setbacks. The house
on the lot adjacent to the west has a setback of 12± feet
from the common property line, providing adequate separation
between structures.
Staff believes it would be appropriate to limit the overhang
on the west side of the porte cochere so that it extends no
more than 12 inches into the requested 4 foot side yard
setback. Guttering should be installed to limit 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 porte cochere
is to be limited to no more than 12 inches intrusion
into the 4 foot side yard setback.
2. Guttering or some other approved device is to be
installed on the west side of the porte cochere to
limit water run-off onto the adjacent property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 25, 2001)
Ellen Yeary was present, representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that all
notification signatures had been obtained later than the 10 days
specified by the Board's Bylaws; 6 were 4 days late and 1 was 5
days late. Ms. Yeary stated her only excuse was a
miscommunication between herself and her client about who was to
obtain the signatures. She stated her client misunderstood that
she was to obtain the signatures. After a comment or two by the
Board, a motion was made to waive the Bylaws and to accept the
notices. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
2
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
Staff presented the variance request and a recommendation of
approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in
the "staff recommendation" above. The applicant offered no
additional comments. A motion was made to approve the
application subject to compliance with the conditions recommended
by staff. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes
and 2 absent.
3
May 17, 2001
Dana Carney
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Residence of Gus and Becky Blass, #8 Longfellow Lane
Dear Dana,
We are requesting a sideyard setback variance to construct a new porte cochere for
covered parking next to an existing kitchen entry at #8 Longfellow Lane.
The owners currently have a canvas awning structure which is much too small and doesn't
provide adequate cover in inclement weather. The new carport type structure will be
attached to the house, supported with round permacast columns and will have a hip roof of
concrete tile to match the existing house.
In order to completely clear the existing drive, the new columns will be located 20"-6" away
from the house. This will result in a reduced sideyard dimension of 4"-0".
We appreciate your serious consideration of this application for a zoning variance.
Sincerely,
ff//M<
Ellen Yeary,
Jude 25, 2001
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 issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z -6550-A
Leighton and Steven Weeks
3922 South Lookout
Lot 15, Block 2, Replat of
Doyle Place
�.
A variance is requested from the
fence height provisions of Section
36-516 to permit construction of an
8 foot tall fence.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at 3922 S. Lookout is
occupied by a one-story, brick and frame single family
residence. The lot slopes down from the street on the front
to the alley at the rear. The applicants propose to replace
a 6 foot tall fence along the rear property line with an 8
foot tall privacy fence. The code limits the height of
fences in residential zones to 6 feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Due to the
severe slope of the lot, the unsightly alley to the rear of
the house is visible over a 6 foot tall fence. An 8 foot
tall fence would help to provide a better visual barrier.
The south side of this alley is lined with dense shrubbery
and tall fences, some up to 8 feet in height. The
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 2 (Cont.
applicant's requested fence would not be out of character
with other such structures in the area. The 20 foot alley
right-of-way separates this lot from the property to the
rear, reducing the impact of the slight fence height
increase.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height
variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
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 by a vote
of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
2
To: The City of Little Rock
From: Doug and Leighton Weeks
Re: Varience request for fence
Date: May 25, 2041
We are requesting to put an S foot fence along the back of our property. We
would like to go eight feet to block the view of the alley behind us which is
rather unsightly. We are building a deck which is elevated., due to the slope
of our back yard, so the higher fence win allow for more privacy. Jur
next-door neighbors have an eight foot fence and an elevated deck which
gave us the idea that this height would be better because our back yards are
sloped.
Thank you for considering this request.
Leighton and Doug Weeks
June 25, 2001
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 issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z -6675-A
Dena Yancey Trujillo
Revocable Trust
5208 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Lots 9 and 10, Block 25,
Newton's Addition
c-3
Variances are requested from the
parking provisions of Section
36-502, the development criteria
of Section 36-301 and the sign
provisions of Section 36-555.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Two-story commercial building
Two-story commercial building, with
addition of outdoor "cafe"
On May 24, 1999, the Board of Adjustment granted several
variances permitting the existing building at 5208 Kavanaugh
Blvd. to be expanded by the construction of a second floor.
The building square footage was increased from 3,725 square
feet to 8,121 square feet. The variance allowed the second
floor to maintain the west side yard setback of 4.11 feet
and to reduce the rear yard setback to 11 feet. Rear and
side yard setbacks of 15 feet and 25 feet respectively were
required for this site. A parking variance was approved,
allowing the site to have only 16 parking spaces. The code
required 27 spaces, based on general commercial occupancy
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
requirement of one space per 300 square feet of gross floor
area.
At the time of the original approval, there were two primary
issues of concern that were raised by staff and addressed by
the Board. The properties adjacent to the north of the site
are occupied by single-family homes. Staff was concerned
that the effect of the reduced rear yard setback be
mitigated by reducing or eliminating any uses on the back
side of the commercial building that might impact the
residential properties. Consequently, the project was
approved subject to there being no doors or windows in the
rear of the second floor other than for a fire escape door
and a small window in the owner's office. Staff's concern
related to the parking variance was the possibility of a
restaurant occupying the site. The parking variance was
based on uses that require a parking ratio of 1/300 square
feet. Restaurants require triple that parking requirement;
1/100 square feet. Consequently, the Board imposed the
condition that there not be a restaurant in the building
without further application to and approval by the Board.
The applicant has begun operation of Cafe des Artistes, a
"wine cafe" and special event center on the property. The
business primarily involves use of a landscaped
patio/terrace located on the back side of the building. It
is described as a drop-in place to read a book, magazine or
newspaper, drink a cup of coffee, glass of tea, soft drink
or beer, taste wine and have a snack to eat. Most foods
will be catered in from other merchants such as bakeries,
delicatessens and outside caterers although some food will
be prepared on site. The patio/terrace will also be used
for special events such as wedding receptions and art
showings. A separate art gallery on the second floor of the
building will also be utilized for these special events as
needed. The applicant is requesting variances to allow use
of the outdoor patio/terrace area
and a portion of the second floor of the building for the
wine -cafe and special event center.
The applicant has also requested a sign variance but no
specifics were provided. As such, that issue cannot be
discussed by staff.
Staff does have concerns about the proposed wine-
cafe/special event center. Although the Board's previous
action specifically prohibited a "restaurant" within the
2
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
building, it is clear that the intent was to allow only
those uses that have a parking requirement of one space per
300 square feet. The wine -cafe falls within the code
definitions of "eating place without drive-in service" or
"bar, lounge and tavern." The definitions of each are:
Eating place without drive-in service
means an establishment where food is
available to the general public primarily
for consumption within a structure on the
premises or which by design of physical
facilities or by type of service and
packaging permits or encourages the
purchase of prepared, ready -to -eat foods
intended for consumption off the premises,
and where the consumption of food in motor
vehicles on the premises is neither
permitted nor encouraged.
Bar, lounge or tavern means an
establishment, the primary activity of
which is the sale and consumption on the
premises of beer, wine or other alcoholic
beverages, and where any food service is
secondary to the sale of beer, wine or
other alcoholic beverages. This use may
include a facility for dancing.
The parking requirement for "restaurants (and similar
establishments serving food and beverages)" is one space for
each 100 square feet of gross floor area.
There is limited on -street parking available in the
immediate area without involving the nearby residential
streets. A complaint has been made by a neighborhood
resident that persons attending the site are parking on
Harrison and Newton Streets and a nearby residential alley.
The applicant has stated that two nearby banks have given
permission for use of their parking lots after hours. No
proof of any written/long-term agreement has been provided.
Aside from the issue of parking, the use of the outdoor
patio/terrace area is of considerable concern to staff.
Allowing activities such as those proposed by the applicant
to take place in the reduced rear yard area will no doubt
negatively impact the adjacent residential properties. It
is clear that the original variance was granted predicated
K3
J,.,e 25, 2001
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
upon there being no development or use in the rear of the
building that might affect the adjacent residences. The C-3
zoning district development criteria require all uses to
take place within the enclosed building.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the variances, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
Robert Robinson, Jr. and Dena Yancey were present representing
the item. There were several persons present, both in support
and in opposition. Two letters of objection had been received
and forwarded to the Board. Staff presented the item and stated
that, as a result of continued negotiation with the applicant, a
compromise had been very nearly reached. Staff referred to a
letter dated June 21, 2001, from Mr. Robinson, in which he
outlined specific agreements regarding the operation of the wine
cafe and special event business. Staff stated that there were
only 2 points of disagreement; the use of the outside music and
the maximum number of people permitted on the terrace (wine
cafe). Staff recommended no outside music. Mr. Robinson
suggested no outside music audible beyond the premises. Staff
recommended a maximum of 75 persons on the terrace. Mr. Robinson
suggested a maximum of 150 person.
Mr. Robinson addressed the Board and made reference to points in
his letter. He emphasized that there would be no full service
kitchen. He stated Ms. Yancey had been using the terrace for
over a year and no complaints had been made. Mr. Robinson
reiterated Ms. Yancey's desire to have soft music on the terrace.
He stated Ms. Yancey was sensitive to the fact that the terrace
was adjacent to residential properties. He stated Ms. Yancey had
used good judgment in the past. Mr. Robinson asked the Board to
allow the use of soft, outside music. He stated the music would
cease if it results in complaints. Mr. Robinson stated his
request to have a maximum of 150 persons. He stated the Fire
Marshall's office had determined the area would accommodate more
than that, based on the number of exits. Mr. Robinson presented
photographs of the area. Mr. Robinson presented agreements from
two area banks allowing use of their parking lots, after bank
business hours.
Fred Gray asked how many seats were set-up for the wine cafe.
Mr. Robinson responded that as many as 70 seats could be set up.
4
-ne 25, 2001
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
Norm Floyd began to read point -by -point from Mr. Robinson's
letter, for the benefit of those present in objection. Dana
Carney, of the Planning Staff, gave those persons a copy of the
letter.
In response to a question from Fred Gray, Mr. Robinson stated
there was no grease trap because there is no cooking; there is no
stove or oven.
Fred Gray asked how many parking spaces were available at the two
banks. Mr. Robinson responded that approximately 22 spaces were
available.
During the ensuing discussion, it was determined that the patio
terrace area was approximately 1,000 square feet in area which
would require 10 parking spaces.
Beverly Wittenberg, of 5207 Stonewall, spoke in opposition. She
stated Ms. Yancey's terrace business had disrupted her use and
enjoyment of her own property. Ms. Wittenberg cited examples of
occasions when loud music and crowd noise from the terrace
negatively impacted her. Ms. Wittenberg stated the proposed use
seemed to be cloaked as a "ladies' tea room" when in fact it was
much more. Ms. Wittenberg stated the terrace was being marketed
as a place for dinners, not just a wine cafe. She asked how use
of the area could ever be monitored by the City, if it was
approved. Ms. Wittenberg stated there had been music on the
terrace area late at night. Fred Gray asked Ms. Wittenberg if
there was any level of activity on the terrace that she could
support. Ms. Wittenberg responded that it would have to be much
smaller than that proposed by Ms. Yancey.
Michael and Jennifer Selig, of 5219 Stonewall, spoke in
opposition. Ms. Selig voiced concerns about crowd noise,
particularly late at night. She stated she was about to have a
baby and the baby's room was located on the back side of her
house, closest to the terrace area. Ms. Selig made note of
several occasions when noise from the terrace disrupted her. She
asked if allowing use of the terrace would not impact her
property value. Ms. Selig stated that any use of the terrace
area should be limited to Monday -Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Cindy Harrell, of 5215 Stonewall, spoke in opposition. Ms.
Harrell stated that Ms. Yancey's contractor tore down a hedge row
that lined the rear of her property, thus eliminating some sound
barrier. Ms. Harrell stated she received only an apology for the
5
O—ie 25, 2001
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
removal of the hedges, which were on her property. She stated
the dense hedgerow was replaced with sparse plantings of trees.
Ms. Harrell made reference to conditions imposed when the
original variances were granted. She stated the "fire escape"
stars at the rear of the building were being used on a regular
basis by persons going back and forth between the terrace and the
gallery on the second floor of the building. She stated all
other area business that have similar outdoor areas have those
areas on the front of the business; facing the street, not
adjacent to nearby residences. Ms. Harrell stated crowd noise
and music were audible beyond the fence and lighting from the
terrace "bleeds through" the fence into her yard.
Norm Floyd asked Mr. Robinson about the grill on the terrace.
Mr. Robinson responded that the grill could be used by terrace
users but it is not used on a daily basis.
Mr. Floyd commented that the issue seemed not to be necessarily
"what" but "how much."
Mr. Robinson stated that there would not be big crowds on the
terrace every day; that they would typically be on weekends after
7:00 p.m. or during the day when the cafe would be closed. He
reiterated that it was Ms. Yancey's desire to be a good neighbor.
He stated Ms. Yancey had worked with the neighbors and was
unaware that what she had done was a violation. He apologized if
there had been loud music in the past. Mr. Robinson "assured"
the Board that Ms. Yancey would operate her business so that it
would not distress the neighbors.
Norm Floyd asked if the Board could approve the use for a
specific length of time, with further Board review at that point.
Staff responded that the Board could do so.
Michael Selig stated that allowing any outdoor use would
negatively impact his family.
Anne Cockrill -Laser, of 5422 Hawthorne, stated she helped
Ms. Yancey at the cafe and had never heard a complaint from the
neighbors.
Connie Carberry, of 1810 N. McKinley, stated she also helped
Ms. Yancey. She stated there had been an occasion around
Memorial Day when the people who rented the terrace invited more
people than Ms. Yancey had expected, resulting in more crowd
noise. She stated the grill was used by employees and she had
never seen it used for the business.
2
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
Norm Floyd commented that it was easy to see why there was some
question about whether the use was a restaurant.
After the ensuing discussion about the possibility of calling the
question, a motion was made to approve the variances subject to
the agreements outlined in Mr. Robinson's June 21, 2001 letter
and the following additional conditions:
1. There is to be no outside music.
2. There is to be a maximum limit of 75 patrons at any event on
the terrace.
3. The approval is for a period of 1 year, after which the issue
is to be reviewed by the Board.
Beverly Wittenberg again raised objections. Mr. Floyd stated
that the issue would be back before the Board for reconsideration
in one year; if it has been a problem, it will not continue.
The vote was 1 aye, 2 noes and 2 absent. Since the item failed
to receive 3 votes either for or against it, it was deferred to
the July 30, 2001 meeting.
7
ROBERT L. ROBINSON, JR.
Roi3iNSON, STALEY, MAIRSHALL & DUKE
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
400 WEST CAPITOL, SUITE 2891
LITTLE DOCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3416
May 25, 2001
Little Rock Board of Adjustment
c/o Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: 5208 Kavanaugh Boulevard, Little Rock, Arkansas
Dear Members of the Little Rock Board of Adjustment:
TELEPHONE
(SOI) 374-3818
FACSIMILE
(S 01) 376-2800
E-MAIL
mailslot@rsmd.com
Dena Yancey, Trustee, the applicant, seeks variances regarding parking limitations,
outdoor business operation limitations, and signage limitations to operate C66 des Artistes as
a `wine cafe" on the beautifully landscaped patio/terrace located at the back (north side) of the
building located on the premises. The attached site plan and survey reflect the location of the
proposed "wine cafe", which is not a typical restaurant commercial use. It is more of a drop-in
place to read a book, magazine, or newspaper, drink a cup of coffee, glass of tea, soft drink, or
beer, taste wine, and have a snack to eat. There is no food cooking kitchen located in the
building as most foods will be catered in from other merchants such as bakeries, delicatessens,
and outside caterers. Some cold cuts, hors d'oeuvres, and sandwiches will be prepared on
premises and served. Likewise, this beautiful terrace will be used for special events such as
wedding receptions, art showings, etc. There is a separate art gallery located on the second
floor of the building that will also be utilized for these special events as needed.
The property has a private parking lot (one of the largest parking lots in the Heights)
consisting of 16 parking spaces. There are also 2 parking spaces in the public domain adjacent
to the property to the west. Also, Firstar Bank and Bank of Little Rock have both graciously
consented for the applicant to use their parking lots after hours and on weekends.
The property has 100 feet of frontage on Kavanaugh and is 140 feet deep. The two-
story building has approximately 7,652 feet of floor area. For C-3 business or retail, the
required off-street parking is a 1 to 300 ratio, or 26 parking spaces. Since the existing property
will support 16 vehicles, the applicant is requesting a variance for the other 10 spaces. Please
note that the portion of the premises devoted to the proposed "wine cafe" use is limited to the
area of the outdoor patio/terrace.
EXHIBIT "A"
Little Rock Board of Adjustment
May 25, 2001
Page Two
Cafe des Artistes is one of those special places in the neighborhood. It is a very low key,
subtle, and beautifully landscaped terrace such as one finds in Paris, New Orleans, and
Washington, D.C. The applicant respectfully requests the granting of any necessary variances
to operate her business. Those required variances pertain to parking, operating of the "wine
cafe" outside of the building on the terrace, and possibly signage.
Respectfully
Robert L. R
Attorney for
RLR:bt
End.
P:\RLR\1505.M of &41tr
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 4
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 -6891-A
Mr. and Mrs. John P. Matthews, Jr.
5100 Country Club
Lot 14, Block 12, Newton's Addition
R-2
Variances are requested from the
setback and separation provisions
of Section 36-156.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at 5100 Country Club is
occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single-family
residence. The residence is being remodeled and a detached,
two -car garage is being constructed in the rear yard. On
August 28, 2000, the Board of Adjustment granted variances
to allow the garage to occupy 39% of the required rear yard
and to be located 5 feet from the house. The code requires
6 feet of separation and limits accessory structures to 30%
coverage.
At the time the application was approved, the garage had a
street side yard setback of 19 feet, exceeding the code
minimum of 15 feet. The garage, as now being constructed,
has a street side yard setback of 12.4 feet. A chimney has
been constructed on the north side of the house, reducing
the separation between structures to 217". Staff discovered
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
the errors and directed the applicant to refile with the
Board.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The slight
reduction in street side yard setback, from 15 feet to 12.4
feet is not visually perceptible and will have no impact on
other properties or on traffic in the street. Van Buren
Street has an oversized right-of-way of 80 feet. The garage
is located 41-42 feet from the curb of the street. The
reduced separation is for only the width of the chimney.
Both the chimney and the garage are of brick construction.
There continues to be access around all perimeters of both
structures.
At the time the original variance was approved, the Board
attached a condition limiting the size of any eave/overhang
on the south side of the garage to no more than 6 inches.
Staff believes that condition continues to be appropriate.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested street side yard
setback and separation variances subject to the
eave/overhang on the south side of the garage being limited
to no more than 6 inches.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to the eave/overhang on the south side of the garage being
limited to no more than 6 inches.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
E
5100 Country Club Boulevard
Little Rock, Arkiansas 72207
May 16, 2001
Department of Neighborhoods & Planning
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
To Whom It May Concern:
We are requesting a variance in the required separation between an accessory brick garage and
an adjacent brick house to allow for a 29" x 5' chimney projection on a 22' long wall. The brick
garage is detached to comply with code provisions and the required building separation is
complied with in the other 17 feet of separation space. Construction of a garage closer to the
back North property line would have been a code violation.
The attached site plan shows the garage moved forward from the original location. The garage is
located 41.7' from Van Buren Street and one foot behind the main house. The garage was
relocated when the builder pointed out that by making a minor adjustment to the driveway pitch
it would be possible to increase back yard space. Moving the garage forward also enabled us to
stay within the required back yard code allowance.
Because the garage wall begins one foot behind the house and because of the location of
neighboring garages we did not believe that we would be in violation of setback provisions. An
adjacent garage bordering Van Buren Street is located 34' from the street and a garage across the
street is 29' from Van Buren Street. Through a series of miscommunications between our
builder, our architect and us, the setback provision was not checked. Construction was started on
the garage before we learned that we were in violation of an 80' setback provision.
We are asking for a waiver of the 80' setback provision so that we can continue construction of
the garage. There has been no neighborhood opposition to this construction.
Thank you for your consideration.
truly,
Jones
P. Matthews
June 25, 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:
Z -6921-A
System Capital Real Property
Corporation
8710 Fourche Dam Pike
Lot 2B of the replat of Lot 2,
River Subdivision
C-3
A variance is requested from the
wall sign provisions as defined in
Section 36-530.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Restaurant
Restaurant
No issues related to this sign variance.
B. Landscape Review:
A new McDonald's Restaurant has recently been constructed on
the C-3 zoned property at 8710 Fourche Dam Pike. Mansard
Signs were mounted on structure. The signs consist of
individual letters attached by supports to the mansards.
The signs are located 18 V" from the face of the mansard at
the bottom and 3110 1-,4" from the face of the mansard at the
top. The code definition of wall signs, which includes
mansard signs, states the signs must not extend more than
18" from the wall/mansard of the building. The applicant
states the signs must be located as they are to allow access
to illuminated roof beams on the mansard. Moving the signs
back closer to the face of the mansard would create a
Kie 25, 2001
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
hardship in changing the light bulbs within the illuminated
roof beams.
Staff is uncomfortable supporting the requested variance.
While the illuminated roof beams may very well be part of
McDonald's trademark, it has not been past City policy to
permit such signs to "stick-up" above and away from mansard
roofs. In other instances, the sign owner has been required
to create a "box" behind the lettering so that the sign is
mounted flush or against a wall/mansard surface. While
acknowledging that taking such action in this particular
case would be a hardship, staff is concerned that allowing
the signs could lead to similar requests.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff cannot recommend approval of the requested variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
Andy Francis, Lloyd Stokes and Roland Yates were present
representing the application. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial.
Andy Francis addressed the Board. He described the issue and
presented photographs of the signs.
Roland Yates, construction manager for McDonald's, stated the
sign and building design were standard for McDonald's. He stated
the signs cannot be pulled back toward the mansard due to the
illuminated light beams, Mr. Yates stated all permits were
obtained, there were no issues raised when the plans were
reviewed, there are similar signs at all other McDonald's in
Little Rock and no other City requires such a variance.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that sign permits
are reviewed separate from building construction drawings and the
sign drawings did not show the signs to stick -out from the
mansard. Mr. Carney stated he had no response regarding the
other McDonald's in Little Rock but he would be glad to look into
the other sites. Mr. Carney reminded the Board that each City
had its own regulations and ordinances and it did not matter if
"no other City required such a variance."
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
Mr. Francis stated the signs were not garish and out of the
ordinary. He stated the signs would not harm any other
properties or businesses in the area.
In response to a question from Fred Gray, Mr. Carney explained
the regulations related to wall/mansard signs.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the
variance to allow the two mansard signs, as constructed. The
motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
3
HARDIN & GRACE
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
-! ATTORNEYS AT LAW
410 WEST THIRD, SUITE 200
ANDREW V. FRANCIS LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
I?-MAIL:AHRANCIS IIARDMORACE.COM TELEPHONE (501) 378-7900
Phone extension: 13 FACSIMILE (501) 376-6337
May 24, 2001
Mr. Dana Carney
City of Little Rock
City Hall
500 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: McDonald's Restaurant - 8710 Fourche Dam Pike - Request for Sign Variance
Dear Dana:
Enclosed please find an Application for Zoning Variance (Signs) regarding the above referenced
property, a diagram of the wall signs at issue showing the distance from the mansard roof at the top
and bottom of the wall sign, three (3) copies of a recent plat of the property, and a filing fee of
$25.00.
Strict enforcement of the extension limitation for a wall sign would be a hardship to my client
because it would not recognize its commercial communication requirements. As most people are
aware, McDonald's has a very distinctive, uniform appearance for all of its restaurants across the
country. This distinct look is part of the McDonald's trademark and must be used in all stores. Part
of this trademark includes illuminated roof beams on the mansard roof of the restaurant. I have
enclosed two (2) photographs which show these beams.
If my client is required to move their sign any closer to the mansard roof, it client would be unable
to access the illuminated roof beams to change the light bulbs. Currently, they can simply change
the light bulbs by opening a panel on the beam. If the sign was placed any closer to the mansard
roof, it would require a sign company to move the sign in order to change the bulbs. This would turn
a simple routine maintenance into an operation of great expense.
If the staff has the opportunity to view the property, I think they will see that my client has built a
quality development which benefits this City and the residents of this area by making a substantial
investment in the property, and providing a source of employment. I think it is also noteworthy that
the enclosed drawing of the sign shows that most of the requested variance will be at the top of the
Page 2
Mr. Dana Carney
May 24, 2001
sign. This is due to the slope of the mansard roof. The bottom of the sign is almost within statutory
compliance at 18 3/4".
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to my client to
allow the wall sign to extend more than 18" from mansard roof, as indicated by the enclosed sign
drawing. I would appreciate it if you would please schedule this item for a hearing at the Board of
Adjustment's meeting on June 25, 2001.
Thank you very much and please call me with any questions.
Cordially,
HARDIN & GRACE, P.A.
Andrew V. Francis
AVF/rkj
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Lloyd Stokes (w/o enclosures)
June 25, 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 issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7045
Judy White/Tom Waller, Applicant
5521 Stonewall
Lot 7 and part of Lot 6, Block 22,
Newton's Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from the
fence height provisions of Section
36-516.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at 5521 Stonewall is occupied
by a one-story, frame, single family residence and a
detached garage. Portions of the yard are enclosed by an
existing, 6 foot tall, wood fence. The applicant proposes
to replace the deteriorating fence with a new fence that
will range in height from 7 to 8 feet, due to a slight
change in grade. The code limits the height of fences in
residential zones to 6 feet. Additionally, the fence
extends along the property line adjacent to N. Taylor
Street. Fences erected within setbacks adjacent to streets
are to be limited to no more than 4 feet in height.
Staff is generally, though not completely, in support of the
requested variance. Allowing the replacement of the
deteriorating fence with a similar structure seems
, —ie 25, 2001
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
reasonable. The applicant proposes a 6 foot tall privacy
fence with the additional height being provided by a lattice
extension. The lattice does reduce the overall visual
impact since it does allow the passage of light and air.
However, allowing such a structure to reach a height of up
to 8 feet does not seem compatible with the neighborhood.
Staff would prefer to see the overall height of the fence
not exceed 7 feet, with anything over 6 feet being lattice.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that variances be approved that would allow
an overall fence height of 7 feet with anything above 6 feet
being lattice.
Staff also recommends that the fence be constructed in "good
neighbor" fashion, that is with the finished side facing
outward.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and stated that the applicant had agreed
to construct the fence as recommended by staff.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
2
To Little Rock Planning Commission:
The residence of 5521 Stonewall Road would like to request a
variance in the height of a fence. We live in a residential area, but are within
200 feet of several businesses. The condition of the present fence is termite
damaged, we are going to have to replace the fence, but would like to make
some changes in the design and height of the fence. The height of the present
fence is approximately six feet tall. With our new design the new fence will
exceed this height by between one and two feet. We are requesting a height
variance for this reason.
We are redesigning the fence to add beauty, privacy, and a structural
barrier to keep unwanted out and wanted in. We are going to design the
fence to compliment our deck and house as well as the neighborhood, add
privacy to the house by elevating the height of the fence, and structural
integrity -to the already termite infested, Labrador demolished barrier (which
will soon be treated and insured against termite attack). Please consider our
request at your next meeting. It would be greatly appreciated.
Owner Tom Waller
J41ie 25, 2001
Item No.: 7
File No
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned•
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-7047
Abdias Montoya and
Rosalinda Montoya
7102 Asher Avenue
Long Legal
C-3
A variance is requested from the
on-site parking provisions of
Section 36-502.
There is not enough space on the
site to accommodate the required
number of parking spaces.
Vacant commercial building
Restaurant
With Building Permit:
1. Asher Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as
a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 45
feet from centerline will be required.
2. 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.
3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
4. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
5. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 7 (Cont.
B. Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned property located at 7102 Asher Avenue is
occupied by a 1,200 square foot, block and frame building.
For many years the building was occupied by an upholstery
shop. The applicants have recently purchased the property
and desire to open a restaurant in the building. There is
insufficient parking on the site to accommodate a restaurant
use. As an upholstery shop, the building was required to
have 4 parking spaces. As a restaurant, the parking
requirement triples to 12 spaces. The applicants are
requesting a parking variance to accommodate the change in
use.
Staff has serious concerns about the requested variance.
The site is very small and has only a small area of
substandard parking located in front of the building. The
building is located 75± feet from the centerline of Asher
Avenue. Once the required right-of-way is dedicated, the
building will be located 30± feet from the front property
line. This is an insufficient depth to accommodate any
parking at right angle. Such a parking design requires a
total of 40 feet; 20 foot parking stall depth and 20 feet of
maneuvering area behind the stalls. Two or three angled
spaces might be fitted on the site but it is questionable
whether those would meet code. No parking is available on
the side of the building. The building is located 20± from
the east property line and 5 to 6 feet from the west; again
insufficient to allow for parking.
The operator of the beauty shop located on the adjacent
property at 7104 Asher Avenue has agreed to allow the
applicants to use some of her parking. There appears to be
more than sufficient parking on that site to accommodate the
code requirement for both sites. Unfortunately, the owner
of that property has stated that she is against such an
agreement and, as such, will not permit parking on her
property by the applicant.
There does not appear to be an alternative nearby to meet
the proposed restaurant's parking requirement.
Consequently, staff cannot support the requested variance.
Once the right-of-way is dedicated, it appears there will be
enough room on the site to provide only the 3 to 4 spaces
required for the building's continued use as office or
general commercial.
2
0—ie 25, 2001
Item No.: 7 (Cont.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested parking variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
Eunice and Rosalinda Montoya were present representing the
application. There were no objectors present. Staff informed
the Board that the Montoya's had amended the application to allow
a "take-out" restaurant only, with no customer tables in the
building or eating on the site. Staff stated such a use was
closer to a general retail use with a parking requirement of
1/300 square feet. Staff recommended approval of the amended
application as being akin to a continuation of the site's general
commercial occupancy.
At the Board's request, Eunice Montoya stated for the record that
the application was being amended to allow a take-out restaurant
only.
A motion was made to approve the parking variance for a take-out
restaurant only, with no eating on the site. The motion was
approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
3
May 16, 2001
7102 Asher Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72204
(501) 225-3088
To Whom It May Concern:
I, Abdias Montoya, am borrowing ten parking spaces from my neighboring business,
owned by Sheila Miller. These spaces, combined with the parking from my location,
would add up to the parking spaces required to obtain a building permit in order for my
restaurant to open. Ms. Shelia Miller has agreed to allow our future customers to use
these parking spaces at any time during business hours. There will be a sign at my
location indicating that customers are welcome to use those parking spaces.
El Viejo San Luis may also have the extra -unpaved parking, by paving and stripping.
There should be more than ten parking spaces. Simply Raw will not be responsible for
any accidents that may occur between Simply Raw clients and El Viejo San Luis.
This contract may be terminated in the case that it becomes an in convince.
Sincerely,
P'1.'AA-V.A fl. "
Abdias Montoy '
Patrick J. Morgan
Doris M. Morgan
9505 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, Ar. 72227
(501) 221-7377
May 23, 2001
Board of Adjustment
c/o Mr. Dana Carney
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Ar. 72201
Re: Permission of reduced on site parking at 7102 Asher Avenue, Little Rock
Dear Mr. Carney,
We are the owners of the property at 7104 Asher Avenue. Our property is presently
rented to Simply Raw Beauty Salon. They are very good tenants.
As we understand it, the Manager of the Beauty Salon gave Eunice Montoya permission,
to share the parking lot of the Beauty Salon for parking for her proposed Mexican
Restaurant. We are against this, because we are afraid, that it would put a cloud on our
title to the property. We, as the owners of the property at 7104 Asher Avenue, are
against the use of our parking lot by the proposed Mexican Restaurant.
Should our present tenants leave, then we shall not permit parking on our property
by the Mexican Restaurant and we shall strictly enforce this.
Also, Simply Raw is a very busy Beauty Salon and we are wondering, if there
is enough parking for both businesses.
Sincerely,
M 2001
I
(Patrick J. Morgan) �BY:
J�.ne 25, 2001
Item No.: 8
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-7049
Sam M. Vogel, III
2204 Sawgrass Drive
Lot 23, Pebble Beach Estates,
Phase III
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
to permit a carport canopy with a
reduced side yard setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
A new, two-story, brick and frame, single family residence
has recently been constructed on the R-2 zoned lot located
at 2204 Sawgrass Drive. The applicant has installed a 10.5'
X 26.5' awning on the side of the house to create an
additional covered parking space. The awning has a 0.1 foot
side yard setback. The code requires a side yard setback of
8 feet for this lot. The applicant states the cover was
needed to provide a covered area over a level parking spot.
The property does slope up from the street. The driveway
has a substantial incline.
Staff does not support the requested variance. The canopy
structure is designed in a "shed -roof" fashion, sloping down
to the neighboring property. Rain run-off flows from the
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 8 (Cont.)
structure onto the neighboring property, which is also
currently owned by the applicant. Staff has been consistent
in not supporting such a reduced side yard setback. If it
is the applicant's desire to have a covered, level parking
area to accommodate an elderly relative, the house has an
existing, enclosed garage. The parking pad adjacent to the
house would be available as additional level parking space,
without the canopy.
As was previously mentioned, the adjacent property is
currently owned by the applicant. A new house is being
built on that lot. The new house has a setback of 11 feet
from the common property line.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested side yard setback
variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial.
Tripp Vogel stated he had built 25 houses in the neighborhood.
He stated there would be no more water run-off with the canopy
than would have been there prior to its installation. Mr. Vogel
stated he had guttering on the house which reduced run-off onto
the canopy. Mr. Vogel presented a letter from William and Laurie
Peterson, purchasers of the adjacent property at 2206 Sawgrass
Dr. In their letter, the Petersons voiced clearly that they had
no concern about the awning (canopy).
Gary Langlais made reference to Mr. Tripp's stated need to
provide covered/level parking to accommodate an elderly relative.
Mr. Langlais stated he had observed a bass boat parked under the
canopy. Mr. Tripp responded that the canopy was deep enough to
cover the boat and still allow for a vehicle to be parked under
it.
Mr. Langlais commented that there appeared to be ample, level
space in the house's garage.
In response to a question from Fred Gray, Mr. Vogel stated he had
more vehicles and boats than he had space in the garage.
2
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 8 (Cont.)
A motion was made to approve the setback variance, as filed. The
motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
3
Tripp Vogel Company
2100 Sawgrass Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
May 16, 2041
Mr. Dana Carney
Department of Planning and Development for City of Little Rock
723 West Markham,
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Application for a Residential Zoning Variance
Property Address of 2204 Sawgrass Drive, Little Rock, AR
Dear Mr. Carney:
In accordance with the City of Little Rock's Application for a Residential Zoning Variance I am
submitting this letter addressing the reasons for my request.
I would like to state to the City of Little Rock that my personal residence is located at this address
and the subject property lot is severely sloped. If you should attempt to drive up the driveway
there is very limited area to park a vehicle and should you attempt to park you will still be on a
fairly serious incline. In the event of a rain or wet conditions your vehicle wM spin its tires in the
effort to reach the top. Additionally, I care for Mrs. Sam M. Vogel Sr. 'Robbie Vogel", my
grandmother. She has recently gone blind and cannot negotiate the incline without fear of falling.
For these reasons I had an awning installed upon the side of the home to provide a covered area
over a level parking spot. I believe in earnest that this awning is extremely attractive (Materials
include a meshed covered fabric which matches the siding color exactly and it is mounted very
inconspicuously from the side of the home through the brick).
I would like_to seek the City of Little Rock's permission to keep this awning in place. It is very
important to the safety and quality of life for my family.
Sincerely, V.,
— iL d
d
Tripp Vogel
pt:ty�-
Jule 25, 2001
Item No.: 9
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-7050
Mercy Seat Missionary Baptist
Church
4523 West 12th Street
Lots 13-16, Block 6, H. F. Buhler's
Ninth Addition
C-3
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-301
and the on-site parking provisions
of Section 36-502.
The proposal is outlined in an
attached letter.
Church
New Church
With Building Permit:
1. West 12 Street is classified on the Master Street Plan
as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 35
feet from centerline will be required.
2. Adams Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as
a collector street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
3. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required
at the corner of West 12th and Adams Streets.
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.
5. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
6. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 9 (Cont.)
7. Driveways shall conform to Section 31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
B. Landscape Review:
Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet with
ordinance requirements with the exception of interior
landscaping.
The Landscape Ordinance calls for eight percent (729 square
feet) of the interior of the vehicular use area be
landscaped with interior islands of at least 150 square feet
each.
Since this site is located within the designated "mature
area" a 25% reduction with this requirement is allowed.
With this reduction, the interior requirement is 546 square
feet.
C. Staff Analysis:
Mercy Seat Baptist Church is located on the C-3 zoned
property at 4523 West 12th Street. The church property
consists of 4 contiguous, 140 foot X 50 foot lots. The
church building is located on the western 2 lots. The
eastern 2 lots contain a gravel parking lot. Mercy Seat
proposes to construct a new church building on the site.
The new 10,000 square foot facility will occupy most of the
eastern 2 lots and a portion of a 3rd lot. The existing
building will be removed and a new, 25 space parking lot
will be built on the western 2 lots. There are 3 variances
associated with the proposed development. The new church
will have a total sanctuary seating capacity of 280 persons;
237 congregation seats and 43 choir seats. A 280 seat
sanctuary requires 70 on-site parking spaces; 25 are
proposed. The new building will have a rear yard setback of
5 feet. A rear yard setback of 15 feet is required for this
development since an exterior side yard setback exceeding 25
feet is provided. A drive-through canopy extends over a
driveway at the front of the church. The canopy has a front
yard setback of 9.5 feet. The code requires a front yard
setback of 25 feet. Once the required right-of-way is
dedicated for West 12th Street, the canopy will have a
setback of 4.5 feet.
Staff has concerns about the proposal and feels that the
applicant is overbuilding this small site. Of the variances
P114
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 9 (Cont.)
requested, only the proposed rear yard setback of 5 feet can
be supported by staff. A 20 foot, undeveloped alley right-
of-way separates the church site from the residential
properties to the south. The new building will be built
over an area currently used as vehicle parking. The impact
of the building should be no greater, and may be less, than
that of the parking lot. The church building will be
located adjacent to the rear yards of the abutting
residential properties; not adjacent to the dwellings
themselves.
The issues of the parking and front yard setback are of
greater significance in staff's mind. Once the required
interior landscaping is provided and the right-of-way
dedicated for West 12th Street, 4 of the proposed 25 on-site
parking spaces will be lost; leaving only 21 spaces for a
280 seat sanctuary. Parking is not permitted on West 12th
Street, indicating that the bulk of the church parking will
take place on the nearby residential streets. The applicant
has mentioned the availability of parking on an adjacent
commercial lot. No written, long-term agreement has been
provided to staff. Without such an agreement to assure a
greater percentage of the church parking is accommodated,
staff cannot support the variance.
Once the required right-of-way dedication takes place for
West 12th Street, the canopy will have a front yard setback
of 4.5 feet. The canopy will be cantilevered out from
support posts with a front yard setback of 14± feet. The
face of the building itself will be at a 23 foot front yard
setback. Staff feels the proposed reduced front yard
setback of 4.5± feet for the canopy is unreasonable adjacent
to this minor arterial street. With the proposed drop-off
driveway along the front of the church, there is no way to
make up the difference in lost landscaping at the front of
the site. A 7 foot landscape strip is proposed; just above
the minimum. With right-of-way dedication, that landscape
strip is reduced to 2 feet. The driveway and canopy need to
be removed from the plan to provide a reasonable setback and
to accommodate minimal landscape and buffer requirements.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
3
�..ne 25, 2001
Item No.: 9 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
Ron Woods was present representing the application. There were
no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the
application had been amended by removing the driveway and canopy
from the front of the building; allowing for full landscaping and
buffers along 12th Street and leaving only the building itself
with a slight variance to allow a 23 foot front yard setback.
Ron Woods confirmed the elimination of the driveway and canopy.
Mr. Woods stated he had letters from 3 area businesses allowing
the church to use their parking lots on Sundays. He stated the
agreements would accommodate approximately 23 more vehicles.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, questioned whether the
letters had been provided by property owners or tenants.
Mr. Woods responded that he thought they were tenants. Mr.
Carney stated that the agreement needed to come from the property
owner.
During the ensuing discussion, it was determined that it would be
appropriate to approve the amended application with the condition
that parking agreements be provided by the adjacent property
owners within 2 weeks or the item must be returned to the Board.
A motion was made to approve the amended application subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any variance
or waiver as may be granted by the Board of Directors or the
Director of Public Works.
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
including any variance or waiver as may be granted by the City
Beautiful Commission.
3. Written authorization must be provided by adjacent property
owners to accommodate up to 23 vehicles. The authorization
must be provided within 2 weeks or the item must return to the
Board.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
4
WOODS'***+ 1 CARADINE
ARCHITECTS
May 15, 2001
Dana Carney
Zoning Department
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
RE: MERCY SEAT BAPTIST CHURCH
Dear Mr. Carney:
We are submitting the above referenced project for a conditional use permit. The project is a 10,000 sq.ft.
church facility which seats 237 people in the sanctuary and 43 people in the choir for a total of 280 seats.
The building will also contain three (3) individual classrooms, a fellowship hall which can be divided into
three (3) classrooms, a kitchen, a nursery, choir room, public toilets and administrative spaces (see floor plan
on site plan).
The building is situated on a corner lot, with building setbacks as follows: The main building is setback 28'
from the north property line with two (2) brick columns which support a canopy setback approximately 19'
from the north property line. The building has a 5' setback off the alley to the south, a fifteen foot setback
from the east property line, and an eighty-three (83) foot setback from the west property line. We are
providing 25 on-site parking spaces, two (2) of which are handicapped accessible. By code 70 spaces are
required, we are requesting a variance from the remaining 45 spaces.
The adjoining property to the east is a commercial strip shopping center which is closed on Sunday which
will provide plenty of parking for church services. We are providing a 16' wide landscape strip on the west
property which is more than is required. We request that the surplus count towards the interior landscaping
so we don't have to sacrifice any parking spaces.
The church is approximately 32'-0" high from the finish floor to the peak of the roof. The steeple is 30'-0"
high above the peak of the roof.
If there are any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
WOODS ❖ CARADINE ARCHITECTS
Ron Bene' Woods
2200 SOUTH MAIN STREET :•LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206-1530❖OFFICE: (501)374-4060❖FAX: (501)372-2261
Ji...ie 25, 2001
Item No.: 10
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-7051
Chad Mitchell
2400 S. Taylor Street
Lot 1, Block 52, Cherry and
Cox Addition
R-3
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-255,
the area and separation provisions
of Section 36-156 and the fence
height provisions of Section
36-516.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-3 zoned property located at 2400 S. Taylor Street is
occupied by a small, one-story, frame, single-family
residence. The applicant has made several recent
improvements to the property including a new storage
building, a new 6 foot tall fence, a covered deck addition
to the side of the house and a new carport structure.
Permits were never obtained. The job was stopped by Code
Enforcement and the applicant was advised that each of the
projects require a variance from the Board of Adjustment.
At that point only the carport was incomplete.
J,L...e 25, 2001
Item No.: 10 (Cont.)
The covered deck addition extends 8 feet out from the side
of the house, leaving a 2 foot side yard setback. The code
requires a side yard setback of 5 feet for this lot.
Portions of the 6 foot fence are erected within the setback
adjacent to West 24th Street. Fences erected within the
setback adjacent to streets are limited to 4 feet in height
by the Code. The new storage building was constructed with a
street side yard setback of 7 feet on the 24th Street side.
The Code requires a street side yard setback of 15 feet for
accessory structures. The new carport structure is being
constructed within 1 foot of the West 24th Street side yard
setback. Again, the Code requires 15 feet. Lastly, the
carport structure and storage building are located within
3 feet of each other. The Code requires a separation of
6 feet between structures.
Taken on their own, perhaps no single variance is
unreasonable. It is the accumulation of so many issues that
creates discomfort for staff. The primary issue of concern
is the large carport structure. It represents the issue
with the greatest potential for impact on other properties.
The deck addition, fence and storage building variances are
each relatively minor and should not have a negative effect
on the neighborhood.
If there is a saving grace in this situation, it is that all
of the variance issues are focused toward the West 24th
Street perimeter, not against the adjacent property to the
east. The street itself does provide some separation and
space between the applicant's property and other properties
to the west. West 24th Street dead -ends 1� block west of
this site. 24th Street is very substandard, being not much
more than one lane wide and consisting of chip -seal and open
ditches. The street appears to be little used other than by
the immediate abutting occupants.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff cannot recommend approval of all of the variances.
Staff does support approving the variances for the storage
building, fence and deck addition.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item. The Board determined there were no
E
ne 25, 2001
Item No.: 10 (Cont.
outstanding issues and directed that the item be placed on the
Consent Agenda, with the condition that the carport be
unenclosed. The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote
of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
K
'Chad Mitchell
2400 S. Taylor
Little Rock, AR 72204
May 14, 2001
To:Little Rock Dept. of Planning and Development
Board of Adjustment
For: Request for zoning variance
I would like to open by stating that I have made an unfortunate and
misinformed mistake by adding several structures to my property without city
approval. These structures include a covered deck, storage building, fence, and
a carport that is, or was in. progress before I was informed of my violation by
Code Enforcement. I regret this mistake and will do whatever is necessary to
resolve this issue.
The deck is located at the side entrance on the north side of the house and
replaces a smaller deck that was rotten and failing apart. The new deck
measures 8' (from the house to the property line) by 24' (along the side of the
house). I also covered 12 feet of the deck (from the front of the house towards
the back) with a gabled roof that extends out 9' over the deck. I also added stairs
off of the deck next to the house at the rear that extends west 8' (towards the rear
of the property).
The storage building measures 10' by 12' and is a wood frame type with a
gabled roof. The building sits at the rear of the backyard 7' off the north property
line and 8' off the west property line.
The fence is a 6 foot treated dog-ear type plank that replaces a wire fence
that sits 3' off the.west property line and spans 50"from the south property line to
the north property line. At the south and north property line the new fence meets
the original wire fence. The original wire fence runs along the north property line
16' at which point I built another 6 foot plank type fence running towards the
middle of my property and then east another 24' to the original rock terrace.,
Finally I replaced 8' of wire fence at the front of the house on the northeast side
which connects to the original wire fence at the property line and connects to the
original gate at my porch.
The carport is incomplete and currently exists as posts and beams. What I
propose is a post and beam type structure with a gable roof. The posts, beams,
and trusses are steel and the gable structure would consist of aluminum borders
with standing seam aluminum roof pans. The dimensions would be 30' along the
north property line by 24' towards the south property line. The carport would sit
20 feet off of the west property line.
My house at the corner of 24th and S. Taylor street is roughly 34 feet wide .
on a 50 foot wide lot which after taking account for the setbacks, I can't build
anything on either side of my house without a variance. My only entrance from
the rear of the house happens to be at the north side but it also is 5 feet off of the
ground at that point. The original deck and stairs leading to the side entrance
was hazardous due to the rotten wood making up it's structure so I tore it down
and replaced it with a larger deck to better accommodate the entrance. I built
the storage building because I lost my outbuilding several years ago when a tree
fell and demolished it. However, the loss of the tree and outbuilding created a
place for me to park my vehicles. My lot sits on the side of a hill so the only place
I could park previously was on the street. That was acceptable until my truck was
stolen off of the street a few years ago. Now, I'd like to build a carport to cover
my vehicles and protect them from the elements. Unfortunately, the only place I
have to do that is in the space mentioned earlier which is too close to the property
line. And finally, 1 built the 6' privacy fence around parts of my property for
security reasons and to replace an old fence that was falling down.
What I am trying to do is make my house more convenient to live in and also
help the neighborhood by making improvements to my property. I did not intend
to purposely violate city code ordinances. Like 1 said earlier, I regret not checking
with the city beforehand and if I had been better informed I could have avoided
this predicament altogether.
Sincerely,
Chad Mitchell
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 11
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7052
James Built Homes, Inc.
#7 Parliament Place
Lot 3, Block 5, The Villages
of Wellington
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
to permit a deck addition with a
reduced rear yard setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family, under construction
Single Family
A new, single-family residence is currently being built on
the R-2 zoned lot located at #7 Parliament Place. The lot
slopes down from the street toward the rear property line.
The house has the appearance of one story from the front,
but is taller when viewed from the rear. The builder has
constructed a deck onto the rear of the house, at the main
level, to provide egress from the rear of the house. The
deck has a rear yard setback of 18 feet. The code requires
a rear yard setback of 25 feet for this lot.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The variance
is for only the 16 foot width of the deck, a small
percentage of the overall 151+ foot width of the rear of
this lot. The property backs up to and overlooks a church.
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 11 (Cont.)
The church parking lot is most directly adjacent to this
property. Allowing the reduced setback for the deck should
have no effect on the adjacent property.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance subject to the deck remaining uncovered and
unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to the deck remaining uncovered and unenclosed.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
t
MAY -25-01 11:43 AM JAMES BUILT HOMES 868 1250
May 25, 2001
JAMES BUILT 140MF S
Creating A Precious Gem
EP,O, Box 23806
Litde Rmk, AR 7222.1
(501) 8t+8-1228 or 517-553h
Little Rock Board of Adjustm I
nt
Dear Board Members,
Inc.
James Built Homes, Inc. is requesting a zoning variance for 7 Parliament Place,
The original plans were to build a 3' platform with steps leading to a patio area, but we
— received an offer on the home and it was contingent upon us building a deck instead of a
patio. Because of the size of the lot and the size of the home, any deck that is more than
3' in depth will extend up bey nd the 25' rear building line, therefore we are requesting a
variance to build a deck on th rear of the home.
The property has a fence along the rear property line. Also, because the property
is located at the end of a cul de sac, the impact of the deck extending beyond the rear 25'
set back is minimal. The property located at the rear of 47 Parliament Place is a church
and the elevation difference between 47 Parliament Place and the church also makes the
impact of the deck minimal. The elevation of #7 Parliament Place, is at least 10' higher
than the church's elevation.ecause of the difference in elevations, when looking from
the church's property, the der will not be visible.
Because of the limited impact of this proposed deck on the rear of 7 Parliament
Place, James Built Homes, Inc. is asking that the Little Rock Board of Adjustment
approve the request for a zoning variance for the property. Thank you for your time in
hearing this request.
Sincerely, 1
Randy L. ames
President, James Built Homes, Inc.
P. 01
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 12
File No.: Z-7053
Owner: Janna and Jerry Bishop
Address: 5021 Hawthorne Street
Description: Lot 7, Block 13, Newton's Addition
and East 15 feet of Van Buren
Street closed by Ordinance No.
18,422.
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
R-2
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
and the easement provisions of
Section 36-11.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at 5021 Hawthorne Street is
occupied by a two-story, brick and frame, single-family
residence. The applicants propose to substantially remodel
the home including: expanding the living space of the house
on both the east and west sides; replacing an existing,
detached garage with a garage addition onto the house; and
expanding the front porch to the width of the house with a
second floor above the porch. The proposed remodeling has
generated several variances. In preparation for this
project, the applicants recently went through the process of
having a portion of the Van Buren Street right-of-way
adjacent to their lot abandoned. This 15 feet of abandoned
Jt,ae 25, 2001
Item No.: 12 (Cont.
right-of-way has been added to the applicant's property.
However, when the right-of-way was abandoned, the area of
the former right-of-way was retained for utility and
drainage easement.
The existing front porch now has a front yard setback of
16.5 feet. The Code requires a front yard setback of 25
feet. The applicants propose to widen the porch,
maintaining the 16.5 foot front yard setback and to
construct stars extending an additional 5.4 feet into the
setback. The addition onto the west side of the house,
including the garage, extends into the newly acquired former
right-of-way. Section 36-11 prohibits construction over or
in an easement. The garage addition extends to a point 4
feet from the new property line on the Van Buren perimeter.
The code requires a side yard setback of 6.5 feet for this
lot.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Allowing
the widening of the front porch while maintaining the
existing front yard setback should have no effect on
adjacent properties. The steps extending out from the porch
will be uncovered. Hawthorne Street has an 80 foot right-
of-way. The porch is actually located 45 feet from the curb
of the street and the stairs will end 40± feet from the
curb. The porch/stair expansion does not appear to be
incompatible with the existing neighborhood.
Allowing the easement variance is reasonable. All utility
companies and Public Works have approved the project. In
actuality, the applicants could very well have had the
right-of-way "exclusively abandoned" which would have
included abandoning the easements within the 15 feet.
The reduced side yard setback for the garage is minor in
nature. The reduced setback from 6.5 feet to 4 feet is for
only the width of the garage. The 28 foot width of the
garage is a relatively small portion of the 140 foot deep
lot and appears to be even smaller because of the broad
Hawthorne Street right-of-way. The garage is located 17
feet from the curb of Van Buren Street. The homes in this
block all have side yard relationships to Van Buren Street;
fronting onto either Hawthorne or Country Club. The typical
lot in Newton's Addition is 50 feet in width; requiring a 5
foot side yard setback. The 4 feet requested by the
applicants for the garage is not much below the typical side
yard setback in the neighborhood.
2
JL.,e 25, 2001
Item No.: 12 (Cont.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and
easement variances, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
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 by a vote
of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
3
May 22, 2001
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72202
Dear Board of Adjusters,
We are writing to request variances from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for our home
located at 5021 Hawthorne, Little Rock, Arkansas 72207, legal description: Lot 7, Block 13 of Newton's
Addition. Per the attached site map, prepared by our architect, we are requesting additional space to
our existing kitchen and the movement and attachment of our garage to our home. We have met with
all five utility companies and all have signed off and agreed to our expansion proposal.
Our goal is to maintain the look and feel of our current structure and to retain as much of our current
structure as we possible can while adding the additional square footage we need. Our current kitchen
needs to be expanded and relocating it to a different location of the house did not make sense and
would require further demolition to the existing structure. We would like to expand our kitchen 11 feet,
which is within our property line due to us applying for and receiving an abandonment of right away for
the west 15 feet of our lot on the Van Buren side. It is however in the easement area of our setback
and we would like approval for expansion. The utility companies had no problem with this request.
We also need to replace our current garage due to the poor condition it is currently in and we have
decided to attach the garage to our house. Ournew garage will be 23 feet by 21 '/2 feet, which is only
slightly larger than our current garage measuring 22'h feet by 21 '/2 feet. We wanted to have access
directly into the house and did not want to damage established trees and landscaping that currently
exist and thrive on our lot. We also wanted to expand the size of our current back yard so that our
daughter could have additional yard space to play. We are requesting that we be granted to build over
the easement area and move our garage building within 2 '/2 feet from the current 6'/2 foot set back
from Van Buren. We would still have approximately 18 feet between our garage and the street and feel
like it will be both safe and cosmetically appealing to the street. Again, the utility companies had no
problem with this request.
Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to call us at 663-7747 should you require
any additional information before the Board of Adjustment meeting on June 25th.
Sincerely,
J and Jeny Bishop
Jia., e 25, 2001
Item No.: 13
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-7054
David Adney
4100 Kenyon
Lots D and E, replat of Lots 18-25,
Block 6, Hillcrest Addition.
R-2
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
and the building line provisions of
Section 31-12.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at 4100 Kenyon Street is
currently occupied by a small, one-story, brick and frame,
single family residence. The applicant's ownership consists
of 2 contiguous lots, Lots °`D" and "E". The two bedroom,
one bath home is located on Lot "D". The applicant proposes
to remodel the home, including converting the existing, one -
car carport into a bedroom and bath. Also included is a two
car garage addition onto the east side of the house. The
garage will extend onto Lot "E", making Lots "D" and "E" a
zoning lot as defined by the Code. The garage addition is
to line-up fairly closely with the front of the existing
house. Due to the angle of the house in relationship to the
property line, the garage addition will result in a front
25, 2001
Item No.: 13 (Cont.)
yard setback of 0 feet. The addition will be built across a
platted 10 foot building line.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Due to the
shape and terrain of the lot, there is limited buildable
area without either a variance or substantial, expansive
site work. The property drops -off fairly sharply from the
street down to the rear of the lot, making it more practical
to place any new construction closer to the front of the
lot. This property has 230± feet of frontage on the street.
The proposed garage addition represents a minor intrusion in
the overall width of the site. The property is located at
the convergence of Kenyon, Holly and Read Streets. The
property fronts onto Kenyon and Read. The garage addition
is located on the Read Street frontage. Read Street is a
narrow, chip -seal street that functions at a level
equivalent to an alley. Although a corner of the garage
addition extends to the property line, the structure is
located several feet off of the pavement of Read Street.
This small, upper Hillcrest neighborhood is unique. The
area is characterized by homes built up and down the
hillsides with wide ranges of setbacks. The proposed garage
addition is not out of character with the neighborhood.
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 of the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line and
setback variances subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building
line as approved by the Board.
2. No portion of
overhangs, is
line into the
the proposed
permitted to
right-of-way.
E
addition, including eaves or
extend across the property
JL.ie 25, 2001
Item No.: 13 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the conditions outlined 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 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
3
May 25, 2001
City of Little Rock Planning & Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
RE: Block 16, Lot E of Hillcrest Addition
Dear Board of Adjustment members:
The purpose of this letter is to explain the proposed improvements to my property. This
is located in the Hillcrest Addition, Block 16, Lot 'D' or 4100 Kenyon and Lot 'E'.
I have owned Lot 'D' for ten years and bought Lot 'E' five years ago.
My two bedroom, one bath home is located on lot 'D', lot 'E' is vacant. The proposed
addition is to utilize the existing carport for a bedroom and bathroom. Also proposed is a two -car
garage that will extend approximately 18' into lot 'E'. Lot 'E' is a triangle shaped lot that is 160.2'
on one side and 140.5' on the other. The proposed location of the double garage will encroach
approximately nine feet into the building line. The reason for the encroachment is due to the
shape of Lot 'E' and the terrain of both lots.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
David Adney
4100 Kenyon
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
(501) 666-5040
J-.,Le 25, 2001
Item No.: 14
File No.: Z-7055
Owner: SCR, LLC
Address: 1509 Mart Drive
Description: Lot 13A of the Mart's Inc.'s Replat
of Tract 13, Riverside Commercial
Park
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A
Public Works Issues:
C-3
A variance is requested from the
wall sign provisions of Section
36-557.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Commercial Building
Commercial Building
No issues related to this sign variance.
B. Staff Analysis:
W. Randall Byars Interiors and Fine Linens has located in
the building on the C-3 zoned property at 1509 Mart Drive.
The building contains two other businesses. The building
fronts onto Mart Drive and is visible from Old Cantrell. A
vacant lot is located between the building and Old Cantrell
so the building does not have direct street frontage on the
Old Cantrell Road side. The only frontage that the
applicant has on the Mart Drive Frontage is the width of the
doorway. The other two businesses have the remainder of the
frontage. The applicant is requesting permission to place a
wall sign on the Old Cantrell Road Frontage of the building.
The code requires wall signs to face the required street
frontage.
J4,le 25, 2001
Item No.: 14 (Cont.)
Staff is supportive of the requested variance although its
value is probably short-lived. The sign will be clearly
visible from Old Cantrell and may help in the short run to
identify the applicant's new location. Once a building is
constructed on the vacant lot, the sign will likely not be
visible. Allowing the sign will not impact other businesses
in the area.
Staff does have concerns that once a building is built on
the vacant lot and this sign no longer has value, it will be
allowed to deteriorate. Consequently, staff would recommend
that approval be granted only until such time as a building
is constructed on the vacant lot located between the
applicant's building and Old Cantrell Road. At that point,
this sign should be removed.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow
a wall sign without direct street frontage subject to
compliance with the following condition:
1. The sign is approved only until a building is
constructed on the vacant lot located between the
applicant's building and Old Cantrell Road. Once a
building is constructed on that lot, this sign must be
removed or an additional variance must be sought.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the condition outlined 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 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
2
(870 931-1761 A ■,�A_® a -_._.I14A A,& -_—I_ P.O. Box 6064
) _ �s I►�i7 w � ry A Ad%_A ._ AR 72403
Fax: (870) 931-7920 ��"�_•. --• • •. ��W �� ��+ Ar Jonesboro,
Toll Free: (800) 416-4458 r�� www.sigWstemsi.com
INC OR P O RAT ED
Board of Adjustment
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
501-371-4790
Fax: 371-6863
SignSystems, Inc. is requesting a zoning variance to Little Rock Code 36-55 5(a)(2) for
the property located at 1509 Mart Drive, owned by S.C.R., L.L.C. SignSystems, Inc. is
seeking to erect a wall sign on the South wall of the location for W. Randall Byars,
Interiors and Fine Linens, a tenant at the above location. The sign for which
SignSystems, Inc. is seeking a variance has a square footage of 32 square feet, which
exceeds the ordinance's allowance. The tenant in question has an occupancy facade area
that faces West and has a length of approximately 6'-0".
The primary reason for the variance request is the size limitation imposed on the sign due
to the tenant's facade area. A sign with a square footage of less than 4'-0" would afford
the tenant little if any identification from Mart Dr., and also due to the sign's potential
placement on the building, no exposure to south -bound traffic. The secondary reason for
the variance request is that as a result of the tenant's location in the building itself, W.
Randall Byars, Interiors and Fine Linens' entrance area is completely obscured from
south -bound traffic on Mart. Dr. Adhering to the ordinance's current size and placement
restrictions would result in a lack of visibility for the tenant in question and would deny
said tenant the business of drive-by, impulse customers. If S.C.R., L.L.C. cannot provide
to their tenants adequate identification, the possibility exists that said tenants will seek a
more visible location from which to do business. This lack of visibility has the potential
to not only create undue hardship upon the property owner, but also the tenant in
question.
SignSystems, Inc. respectfully extends its appreciation to the Board of Adjustment for
their consideration of this variance request.
in rely,
Rochelle Broglen
Office Administrator
Innovative Ideas In Szgn Technology <52- Design
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 15
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7056
Mary Puckett Holt
344 Crystal Court
Lot 19, Block 1, Crystal Court
Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area coverage provisions of Section
36-156.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at 344 Crystal Court is
currently occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single-
family residence. The new owner is a recent retiree of the
Dallas School System who is moving to the site from
Richardson, Texas. She proposes to construct a one-story 22
feet by 24 feet accessory building in the rear yard. The
structure will contain a garage, storage space and a wood
working (hobby) studio. Due to the unusual shape of the
property, the structure will occupy more than 30% of the
required yard.
Staff is supportive of the variance request. This "pie -
shaped" lot has very little rear yard area, as defined by
the code. The maximum structure permitted by the code could
r
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 15 (Cont.
not exceed 187 square feet. With the setbacks proposed by
the applicant, approximately 352 square feet of the proposed
structure are located in the required rear yard. This
constitutes an approximate coverage of 56%. The proposed
setbacks exceed ordinance requirements. The structure is
not out of character with development in the area and, as
such, should have no impact on other properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested area coverage
variance subject to the structure being constructed with the
setbacks from the side and rear property lines as shown on
the site plan submitted with this application.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the condition outlined 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 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
2
May 24, 2001
Board of Adjustments
City of Little Rock
Dear Members of the Board,
I am writing to request a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. As a
recent retiree of the Dallas school system, I have purchased the property at 344 Crystal
Court for my retirement home. I am moving from Richardson Texas to be closer to my
family.
I understand that I am restricted from building a garage on the property by the 30% rule
(which as I understand allows only 30% of the back 25 feet of a property to be covered
by building). I have worked with several ideas, and believe the maximum space I would
need is a 22 x 24 foot garage as detailed on the attached survey.
I am requesting that the board grant a variance for my garage building based on the
following issues:
• The odd shape of the lot severely limits any opportunity for a much needed
garage
• As a woodworking enthusiast I need a place to set up my woodworking studio
and safely house equipment I own — especially given my new retirement
schedule.
• As an avid gardener, my new home offers plenty of landscaping challenge
with no provision for storage of gardening tools and supplies that I want and
need in order to fully enjoy my yard.
• A garage would allow me to avoid street parking (which can become very
difficult to maneuver on this tree covered street)
• A garage would allow me to park my car in a discreet location for extended
retirement travels for which I have planned and saved.
I believe the above circumstances warrant a variance. I want to be considerate of my
neighbors and have moved the proposed building in from the requisite 3 feet of the
property lines. It is my hope that you will give this matter every consideration.
Sincerely,
Mary P cke ' Holt
344 Crystal Court
Little Rock, AR 72205
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 16
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-7057
Cathy Cook
2106 N. Beechwood
Lot 2, Country Club Heights
R-2
Variances are requested from
the area coverage and setback
provisions of Section 36-156.
Applicant's Statement: "Due to the
original guest house located in the
rear yard, the 30% coverage rule
has already been violated. The
house was built in 1904."
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned lot located at 2106 N. Beechwood is occupied
by a two-story, frame, single-family residence and a
detached accessory structure. The accessory structure is
currently in the process of being repaired/remodeled. The
applicant proposes to construct a swimming pool in the rear
yard. The code limits accessory structures to 30% coverage
of the required rear yard. The existing accessory structure
now covers 51% of the required rear yard. The pool will
bring the rear yard coverage to approximately 63%.
Additionally, the proposed pool is to have a side yard
setback of 2 feet. The code requires a side yard setback of
3 feet.
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 16 (Cont.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Although a
swimming pool is defined as a "structure" by the code and,
as such, must meet area coverage and setback requirements,
in reality the visual and spatial impact is different. This
in -ground pool will not add to the above -grade clutter of
the site in the same manner as another structure. The pool
becomes more of an element of the landscape and should not
impact adjacent properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested area coverage and
setback variances to allow the proposed in -ground pool.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that of the notification signatures
obtained by the applicant; 9 were timely, 1 was one day late,
2 were 3 days late and 2 were 4 days late. Cathy Cook stated
that she thought the day the notices were to be turned in to
staff was the final day to obtain the signatures. Consequently,
some of the signatures were late.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made to accept the
notices. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
Staff then presented the variance requests and a recommendation
of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments.
A motion was made to approve the variance requests. The motion
was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absents.
2
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 17
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned•
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A
Public Works Issues:
Z-7058
Weingarten Realty/Mexico Chiquito
Mex -to -Go
11406 West Markham
Long Legal
C-3
A variance is requested from the
wall sign provisions of Section
36-557.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Drive-Thru Restaurant
Drive-Thru Restaurant
No issues related to this sign variance.
B. Staff Analysis:
Mexico Chiquito Mex -to -Go, a small drive-through restaurant
is located on the C-3 zoned property at 11406 West Markham
Street. The building is part of a large, multiple building
shopping center. The building is located fairly near
Markham Street and is hidden to some degree from traffic by
the landscaping along the street. The building is very
narrow and, as such, there is a small window of opportunity
to look directly at the site from Markham Street. To help
identify the site, the applicant has placed lettering on
awnings mounted on the east and west sides of the building.
The awning signs do not conform to code in that the signs do
not directly face the required street frontage.
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 17 (Cont.)
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The building
is part of a larger shopping center and the signs are also
visible from the driveways, parking lots and other buildings
within the larger development. The lettering on each awning
is a total of 18 inches in height and 6 feet long. The
awnings are 3 feet by 23 feet in size on each side of the
building. Allowing the signs should not impact adjacent
properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the two
awning signs without direct street frontage.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
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 by a vote
of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
2
Dept of Planning & Development
May 2, 2001
Re: Zoning Variance
To whom it may concern,
Mexico Chiquito is requesting a Zoning Variance at 11406 W. Markham. We are
requesting to be allowed to have two signs without street frontage. Due to poor
visibility, we would like better building identification. Trees lining the street in
front of the building are causing the visibility problems. We hope the Dept of
Planning and Development will grant our Zoning Variance. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Sincerely,
rjlt�
Chad Jones
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 18
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-7059
Unleashed Innovations, Inc.
12015 Hinson Road
Lots 1 and 2, McKinney Subdivision
O-3
Variances are requested from the
sign height and area provisions of
Section 36-553.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Office
Office
No issues related to this sign variance.
B. Staff Analysis:
Coldwell Banker Advantage Realty is located in the building
on the 0-3 zoned property at 12015 Hinson Road. The
property was previously occupied by Coldwell Banker McKinney
and Company. The applicant proposes to replace the existing
ground -mounted sign that still names McKinney and Company.
The proposed new sign will be of monument design, 70 square
feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height. The code
limits ground -mounted signs in the office districts to 6
feet in height and 64 square feet in area.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Due to the
difference in elevation and the presence of utility
facilities and landscaping, the existing sign is difficult
to see from Hinson Road. Allowing the slightly larger and
taller sign may help visibility and should have no impact on
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 18 (Cont.)
other properties. The proposed monument style sign will be
located 5 feet behind the property line, 25 feet from the
curb of the street. The sign will not create a sight
distance hazard for traffic entering or exiting the site.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances to
allow a 70 square foot sign with a maximum height of 8 feet
subject to the sign being designed in monument style as
shown on the rendering submitted with this application.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that all of the required notification
signatures had been obtained 5 days prior to the hearing, not 10
days as required by the Board's Bylaws. Wayne Richie apologized
for the error and stated there was confusion in starting -up his
office. He stated the person who had been given the task of
obtaining the signatures was no longer with his office. After a
brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the notices. The
motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
Staff presented the variance request and a recommendation of
approval, subject to compliance with the condition outlined in
the "Staff Recommendation" above.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
A motion was made to approve the variance as recommended by
staff. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
E
ADVANTAGE
REALTY
May 25, 2001
Mr. Dana Camey
Zoning Administrator
City of Little Rock Planning & Development
723 West Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
Dear Mr. Camey
12015 HINSON ROAD
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72212
BUS. (501) 224-1191
FAX (501) 224-8974
WEBSITE www.thecoldwellbankeradvantage.com
Please fmd our application for Zoning Variance (sign), three copies of a recent survey and filing fee of
$25.00 enclosed. Graphic information of our proposed sign will be available next week (in full detail) from
our sign vendor. Please enter our request for a sign zoning variance on your next meeting agenda if
possible.
Coldwell Banker Advantage Realty commenced business on February 7, 2001 in the same location as the
previous franchise owner, Coldwell Banker McKinney & Company. In the process we inherited
McKinney's street monument (light box) sign. This sign is well outside the right of way setback
requirements and sits high on an approximate 10 -foot high embankment.
We request a height waiver from the current six (6) foot maximum to seven (7) foot minimum to eight (8)
feet maximum. Reasons for seeking this variance include:
• Visibility from Hinson Road is not very good due to the 10 -foot high bank south of Hinson Road.
• Entergy power line poles and Southwestern Bell Telephone monuments are installed in the public
right of way in front of our sign location.
• Existing shrubbery, which enhances the landscape from Hinson Road, would have to be removed
without a taller sign.
• Traffic accidents have occurred previously in front of our driveway connection to Hinson Road.
Customers have reported driving by several times and at much slower than posted speeds to locate
our business, creating a safety hazzard.
• Sign location cannot be moved closer to Hinson Road due to the five (5) foot setback requirement
from the public right of way, reference Little Rock Code Section 36-553 (b), and the excessive
slope to Hinson Road in this right of way.
Thank you and the Board of Adjustment in advance for your cooperation and for this opportunity.
S' rely,
Waynechie
Chb/CE
Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated.
June 25, 2001
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Date: O DO/
-1��Zzz
Chairman