Loading...
boa_08 27 2001LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES AUGUST 27, 2001 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being five (5) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the July 30, 2001 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman Scott Richburg Gary Langlais Andrew Francis Fred Gray, Vice Chairman Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Brad Chafin LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA AUGUST 27, 2001 2:00 P.M. I. NEW ITEMS 1. Z -4305-D 2300 Cottondale Lane 2. Z-7073 31 Dartmouth Drive 3. Z-7075 1819 N. Jackson Street 4. Z-7076 1806-1810 S. Battery Street 5. Z-7078 #2 Tracy Austin Court 6. Z-7080 1309 Cantrell Road 7. Z-7031 7515 Fairways Drive n 0 O N H 3NId 931ZHa3 I\ W � nnvelw � ^' s W W � ■ ` 0�0 b4 c b4 T NtlWa3O _ NI � AtlMOtlO89BB NJatl S3H0 a3113aO a NO�NOd'( JNIN IN C. z — 8 y MOa 3NId 1 Oyy Q 3NId 8tl0 N0111Wtl 110J5 5 SONiy � Q Natld a1v3 uUMINn Of A11Sa311Nn SON18d5 HW9 Q 3H511H WES If i alOna MOaatl8 NHOC yyery `��C 17 N f 3NN13H — 0 O803mYHS S 31 VSM. Slays W Hatld 43NO08 — a y NVWM08l simn AM 3O01a AWV " sLimn ko �R\t Yls � y X173 � W S1IW11 Alto ' r Lr) K BEV v NYM1IMS W 16VM31S OOS o$ VM IH —' s1tWi7 Alq 0J Jap f4) 31VONN33 b� g O o 1 O August 27, 2001 Item No.: 1 File No.: Z -4305-D Owner: Windriver L.L.C. Address: 2300 Cottondale Lane Description: Tract F -2B, Riverdale Zoned: 0-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-553 to permit a second ground -mounted sign on this office property. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Office Building Proposed Use of Property: Office Building Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No issues related to this sign variance. B. Staff Analysis: The 0-2 zoned property at 2300 Cottondale Lane is occupied by a 4 -story, 34,020 square foot building and an associated parking lot. The site has a small, precast, concrete monument sign that identifies only the building name and street address. The applicant proposes to place a second, monument style, ground -mounted sign on the property. This second sign will be 5 feet in height, will have an area of 30 square feet and will have space for identification of 3 of the building's tenants. Section 36-553 of the code limits Office zoned properties to one ground -mounted sign. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance and believes that the problem could be better addressed by replacing the existing ground -mounted sign will one large enough to meet the applicant's needs. The office district August 27, 2001 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) permits ground -mounted signs to be 6 feet in height and to have an area of 64 square feet; well above that of the two signs proposed by the applicant. One ground -mounted sign would be more compatible with other office signage in the Riverdale office area. Additional identification could be gained through the use of wall signs. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the application. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 27, 2001) The applicant, Jimmy Moses, was present. There was one objector present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Mr. Moses addressed the Board and stated his reasons for requesting a second sign. He stated the building was unique in that it had a restaurant as a tenant. Mr. Moses stated the restaurant needed additional signage. Mr. Moses stated it was his desire to have a second sign, segregated from the building identification sign. Ms. June Riddick addressed the Board in opposition to the item. She stated she designed the building and it was her desire to keep the signage "low-key." Ms. Riddick stated the restaurant occupied only 10% of the building and the restaurant owner was aware of her desire to keep the signage low-key. She stated the existing building identification sign was compatible with other signs in the area. Ms. Riddick stated she would prefer to see the restaurant create a new entrance that would be more clearly identifiable. Ms. Riddick described the proposed sign as more appropriate for a commercial strip center and "denigrating." Mr. Moses informed the Board that Ms. Riddick was a minority owner of the site; that her son, Dr. Bauer, whom he represented, owned 90%. During the ensuing discussion between Ms. Riddick and Mr. Moses, each agreed that there was no desire to remove the existing sign. There was no agreement on the issue of a second sign. Fred Gray commented that he did not agree with the proposal to have a second ground -mounted sign. He stated he would prefer to see the restaurant put a tasteful sign on the building. 2 August 27, 2001( Item No.: 1 (Cont.) In response to a question from Mr. Moses, Ms. Riddick stated she did not want wall signs on the building, other than for a small identification sign at the restaurant entrance. Fred Gray commented that the existing sign could be modified to accommodate the building's tenants. Ms. Riddick again stated her opposition to any change in the existing sign. William Ruck stated he would prefer to see the issue deferred to allow the parties to discuss the issue. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, stated that deferring the item would not change the issue before the Board. He stated staff would still oppose a second sign. Mr. Carney noted that the other options, such as wall signs or increasing the size of the existing ground sign, were allowed by right and, as such, would not require Board approval. Jimmy Moses requested a vote on the issue. A motion was made to approve the variance request to allow a second ground -sign. The vote was 0 ayes, 5 noes and 0 absent. The motion was denied. 3 MOSES TUCKER REAL ESTATE To: Mr. Dana Carney From: Jimmy Moses Subject: Sign Varian Windriver Building Date: 7-26-01 Dana, we are hereby submitting an application to add a second sign on the Windriver property. Initially, a small ground mounted, masonry sign was installed adjacent to the street that identifies the building name with a street number. Subsequent to that installation, one of the building owners/tenants, Brave New Restaurant realized they had no signage whatsoever, and the public was confused, as to where the restaurant had relocated. As we designed a sign for the restaurant, the building's other major tenant requested, that they too, be included on a second sign. Thus, we are submitting the plan to install the attached plan for a second, monument sign, 5'x6' in size, which would be located within the building's parking lot and be sized to accommodate the restaurant and, two (2) other tenants. Thanks in advance for considering our request. All information contained herein is secured from sources we believe to be reliable. However, no information is guaranteed in any way. Any reproduction of this material is prohibited without the consent of Moses Tucker Real Estate, Inc. Moses Tucker Real Estate, Inc. is the agent for the owner of the property described herein. Commercial Brokerage • ;\lanagement • Leasing • Development • Consulting 201 East Markham, Suite 100 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 • Phone 501-376-6555 • Fax 501-376.6699 www.mose,tucker.com August 27, 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 Z-7073 Roy Louden 31 Dartmouth Dr. Lots 118-119, Kensington R-2 A variance is requested from the easement provisions of Section 36-11 to permit construction of'a garage addition over an easement. The applicant owns the two adjacent lots which are separated by the 5 foot easement. All utility companies have approved the construction over the easement. Single Family Single Family Driveways shall conform to Section 31-210 or Ordinance No. 18,031. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 31 Dartmouth Drive is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single family residence. The applicant's ownership consists of two lots; Lots 118 and 119. His home is located on Lot 119. Lot 118 is vacant. The applicant proposes to construct a garage addition onto the side of the house; extending over the lot line, onto Lot 118. This is permitted since the two lots will then be considered a "zoning lot." There is, however, a 5 foot easement along the common lot line between Lots 118 and 119. August 27, 2001( Item No.: 2 (Cont.) Section 36-11 of the Code prohibits construction on, over or in an easement. Staff is supportive of the variance request to allow the garage addition to be built over the easement. The garage addition meets or exceeds all required zoning setbacks and does not extend beyond the platted building line on the front. All utility companies and the Public Works Department have approved the proposal. These are the only entities with rights to the easement. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance subject to compliance with Public Works Comments including any variance or waiver as may be granted by the Director of Public Works or the Board of Directors. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 27, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the "Staff Recommendation" above. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 2 August 27, 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-7075 Laura Raborn 1819 N. Jackson Street Lot 46, Shadowlawn R-2 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit an addition with reduced setbacks. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family The R-2 zoned property at 1819 N. Jackson Street is occupied by a one-story, frame, single-family residence and a detached, frame, garage. The applicants propose to construct a 512 square foot master bedroom suite addition onto the rear of the house. The addition will tie onto the detached garage structure, making the two structures into one. The new addition itself will have a 13± foot rear yard. The garage structure (which becomes part of the principal structure once the connection is made) has rear and side yard setbacks of 7.3 feet and 1.6 feet respectively. These will not change. The Code requires rear and side yard setbacks of 25 feet and 5 feet for this lot. August 27, 2001( Item No.: 3 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Although the garage becomes part of the principal structure and the setback requirements change, in reality, nothing structural changes. The setbacks for the garage portion of the house remain the same as when the garage was free-standing. Allowing the addition to the house to have a rear yard setback of 13 feet is not out of character for the neighborhood. There is adequate separation from the structures on the lot to the east. The house does have a front yard setback of 30 feet to the porch and 38± feet to the main body of the house itself. This is in excess of the Zoning Ordinance requirement of a 25 foot front yard setback. The increased front yard setback has the effect of pushing the house farther back on the lot. Staff does not believe the requested variance will have a negative effect on adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 27, 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 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. E Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Raborn 1819 N. Jackson St. Little Rock, AR 72207 501-664-0805 July 19, 2001 Mr. Dana Carney City of Little Rock Zoning Department 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 V. Dear Mr. Carney: At the suggestion of our architects, Herron & Horton, I am writing in regards to our zoning variance request. Our goal is to meet the 7/27/01 filing date and subsequent Legal Ad and Meeting Date. Enclosed is a detailed property survey and addition plan (3 copies) as well as the filing fee. This letter is to serve as the requested cover letter detailing our proposal and justification for requesting a variance. My husband and I want to add a master bedroom and bathroom off the back end of our house. By expanding in the backyard (and therefore needing a zoning variance), several problems can be avoided. First, we want to maintain the original appearance of the house from the street view so the house maintains the historic and quaint look of the neighborhood and specifically, of our block. Second, we discussed other options with the architects, such as building in the north or south directions. However, the driveway and garage inhibit southbound plans and a beautiful old oak tree would most likely parish due to a northbound addition. The plan we are presenting will allow full driveway and garage access and most importantly, will not disturb the oak. Lastly, due to the age of the house, we are told that building upward is not advisable. After much thought and planning, we believe the proposed addition will have the least impact on the neighbors, on all existing structures and on the natural elements. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Laura Brainard Raborn August 27, 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-7076 Patsy Jordan Steverson 1806 S. Battery Street South '-i� of Lot 20, all of Lot 21, North 1,� of Lot 22, Block 42, Centennial Addition R-3 and R-4 A variance is requested from the fence height provisions of Section 36-516 to permit construction of a 6 foot tall fence. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family The R-3 and R-4 zoned property located at 1806 Battery Street is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single- family residence. The applicant's property consists of two lots; the house is located on the northern lot and the southern lot is yard. The southern lot was previously occupied by a condemned house. The applicant bought the property and had that dilapidated structure removed. She now proposes to enclose portions of her yard with a 6 foot tall privacy fence. The fence would enclose the entirety of the vacant lot and the rear and side yard of the lot occupied by the house. The 6 foot fence is proposed to extend to the front property line of the vacant lot. The Code limits the height of fences erected within the setback August 27, 2001( Item No.: 4 (Cont.) adjacent to the street to 4 feet. The front 25 feet of the proposed fence fall within this setback area. Staff is sensitive to the applicant's desire to provide security and privacy and to reduce unauthorized access to the lot. However, we do have concerns about the visual appearance of a 6 foot privacy fence within the front yard area. Staff recommends that the fence be modified so that it is a solid fence up to a height of 4 feet, with the remaining 2 feet to be constructed of trellis to allow passage of light and air. This style fence would be less visually intrusive and more aesthetically compatible with the neighborhood. The portions of the fence outside of the front 25 foot setback may be constructed of solid materials up to a height of 6 feet. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend approval of the application as filed. Staff recommends that the portion of the fence within the front yard 25 foot setback be constructed of solid materials only up to a height of 4 feet with the remaining 2 feet to be constructed of trellis. Staff further recommends that the fence be constructed in "good neighbor" fashion, with the finished side facing outward. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 27, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Mrs. Steverson addressed the Board. She presented photos and described the problems she had with people trespassing on the lot and throwing trash on her property. Mrs. Steverson stated it was her desire to make the lot part of her yard and she needed a 6 foot tall fence for privacy and security. Andrew Francis asked Mrs. Steverson if she felt that building the fence as suggested by staff would compromise her desire for security. She responded that it would. Fred Gray asked if part of the idea of bringing the fence to the front property line was to prevent people from parking in that area. Mrs. Steverson responded that it was. 2 August 27, 2001( Item No.: 4 (Cont. William Ruck expressed concern about extending a 6 foot tall fence out to the property line. He stated he would hate to see the street lined with 6 foot tall fences. Mr. and Mrs. Steverson described their neighborhood as being different than that portion of Battery Street south of Wright Avenue. Each stated that a 4 foot tall fence would not provide security or privacy. Fred Gray commented that the fence would not need to extend all the way to the front property line to prevent people from parking on the lot. Mrs. Steverson agreed. Scott Richburg noted that pulling the fence too far back from the front property line would still leave room for people to park. Gary Langlais suggested that the curb of the street be repaired to eliminate the old driveway onto the vacant lot. Scott Richburg stated she would prefer to see the fence pulled back 5-6 feet from the front property line. Fred Gray also suggested a 5 foot setback. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, noted that the front property line was located 2 feet behind the sidewalk. A motion was made to approve the fence height variance subject to the following conditions: 1. The fence is to be constructed in "good -neighbor" fashion, with the finished side facing out. 2. The fence is to be located 7 feet behind the back edge of the sidewalk. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 1806 South Battery St. Little Rock, AR 72202 July 24, 2001 Board of Adjustment City of Little Rock Little Rock, AR 72201 Greetings! My name is Patsy A. Jordan and I reside at the above address, in central Little Rock. Last summer I pur- chased a condemnedhouse next door at 1810 Battery, had it taken down, and the land cleared. The house u was an eyesore of overgrown grass/weeds and was often used for dumping. This request if for permission to build a wooden fence six feet high (6 ft.) in front of the vacant lot, which is now a part of the yard which faces east. The same fence will be placed on the sides facing north and the back facing west. The home structure adjoining will not be fenced from the front, only the side and back. The request is being made due to extreme problems of lit- tering, trespassing/which includes days and late nights and parking of vehicles. There is a total disregard for trespassing signs in place, along with efforts to beautify and maintain the site. The Alert Center Officer on Wright Avenue, on request, made a visit to one of the neighbors' house where some children frequent, to request that children not be per- mitted to come into the yard, playing, passing, litter- ing. Several trespassing signs have been placed as advised by the Alert Center and on each occasion, they were destroyed by the next morning -shredded. We have also experienced two break-ins of a storage house on the back. A wooden fence six feet high should do a much needed service by eliminating much debris from littering, as well as the parking, trespassing, stealing and other con- cerns. Thank you for consideration of this request and your con- cern for the beauty of the city. IRS; e A lz,,� - ordan-Steverson enc: Pictures August 27, 2001 Item No.: 5 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Landscape Review: Z-7078 Dale McGinnis #2 Tracy Austin Court Lot 492, Otter Creek R-2 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 and the building line provision't of Section 31-11. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family The R-2 zoned property at #2 Tracy Austin Court is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single family residence. The property has recently been purchased by the applicant. When he approached staff about a proposal to add a sunroom to the rear of the house, it become apparent that the house had been constructed across a platted 25 foot building line. Since the applicant proposes to construct the sunroom addition so that it lines up with the existing house, staff determined that a building line variance would be needed. The variance can address both the sunroom addition and the existing house. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The house has been in place several years. It is unclear how the August 27, 2001 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) error went unnoticed through the building process but staff surmises that it occurred because of a "bow" in the property line on the Wimbleton Loop frontage. The "bow" is negligible but it is enough that when a string is pulled from pin -to -pin, it results in a 4-5 foot error at the midpoint of the lot. It is apparent that the house having been built over the building line has not had any effect on adjacent properties. Staff does not believe that allowing the sunroom addition will have any greater impact. The addition will result in a setback of 20+ feet from the Wimbleton Loop property line and 30+ feet from the curb of the street itself. 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 for the existing home and the sunroom addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested building line variance subject to a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 27, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to a one -lot replat. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. E July 26, 2001 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR Dear Sirs, My wife and I have recently purchased # 2 Tracy Austin Court in the Otter Creek Community of Little Rock. When Purchasing the house we envisioned what we thought would be the ideal home for our retirement. A community atmosphere surrounded by nature being trees creeks and a neighborhood that took care of their properties. When looking for property we knew that whatever. house we purchased we would be doing our own personal touches. When we found the house on Tracy Austin Court we felt it was as near perfect layout as we had found. We saw the tall ceilings in the den walking out to a concrete patio area with a post and lean to type roof we thought we could close in to form a sunroom. In planning for the sunroom, we got a contractor to work with us on designing the room and re -doing the rest of the house. We are going to put ceramic tile throughout the house, repaint, install a more neutral color vinyl siding (replacing Masonite siding painted a red/brown color), and replacing all the doors and window with the energy efficient Pella brand. When the contractor went to the city building permit section, they were told they would have to get a variance on the house because it was built too close to the street on the side. We believe what we plan for the house will greatly enhance the aesthetics of the neighborhood. We would be replaceing the post and lean to type roof with a roof line that matches the side of the house facing the street. Pella doors and windows will be used and the vinyl siding will be neutral colors and blend in with nature better than the redibrown color the house is now. The lot is now beatifully landscaped and we plan to add more after completion of the project. Architectural shingles will be applied over the entire house assuring a long term low upkeep home. The existing slab with the roof over it is about 2 feet from the side of the house on Wimbledon Street. We are requesting to build even with the pre-existing house on the side and build about 7 feet past the back of the house. These measurements will bring us to approximately 20 feet from the side property line and about 25 feet from the back property line. Again, I think the addition will make the house much more appealing to the neighborhood by alleviating the lean to roof on the back corner of the house that can easily be seen from the street. This addition will in not interfere with traffic at the intersection as it is on the back side of the house. The colors we chosen to use will have more eye appeal, and fit into the surrounding neighborhood more attractively. Thanks Much for your time in considering this request Sincerely, Dale McGinnis August 27, 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: Z-7080 Charles Phillip Boyd, Jr. 1309-1317 Cantrell Road Lot 5, Weeks Subdivision of Block 359, Original City O-3 Variances are requested from the sign height and area provisionsi'of Section 36-553. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Law Firm and parking lot Law Firm and parking lot No issues related to this sign variance. B. Landscape Review: Boyd Law Firm is located in the 1890's structure located on the 0-3 zoned property at 1317 Cantrell Road. The law firm has recently purchased the adjacent 0-3 zoned property at 1309 Cantrell Road. That property had previously been occupied by a sign manufacturing business. The sign company buildings have been removed. The applicant will develop a parking lot on the property to serve the adjacent law firm. Additionally, the applicant proposes to place a new ground - mounted sign on the newly acquired lot. Since the two lots will be developed as a single use, they will be considered a "zoning lot" and the new sign will not be an off -premise sign. The new sign is proposed to be 10 feet in height and will have a total area (including sign face and brick frame) of approximately 80 square feet. The sign code limits August 27, 2001( Item No.: 6 (Cont.) ground -mounted signs in the office zone to 6 feet in height and 64 square feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The actual sign area itself is 77" X 100" (53.31 square feet), below the allowable area of 64 square feet. It is the addition of the decorative, brick support that pushes the area up to 80 square feet. The property consists of two lots which have been combined into 1 use. The one sign is less obtrusive than if each lot had its own sign. The property fronts onto a highly trafficked arterial street. A somewhat greater degree of visibility is desirable as clients search out the site while negotiating the fast moving, congested roadway. It is also for this purpose that staff believes the final location of the sign must be approved by Traffic Engineering prior to the issuance of a sign permit. The site is near the convergence of Cantrell Road and LaHarpe Blvd., at the Baring Cross railroad bridge. Visibility can be an issue if the sign is not properly placed. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign height and area variances subject to final approval being received from the Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of a sign permit. Permits must be obtained prior to placement of the sign on the property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 27, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to 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 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 2 The Boyd Law Firm Trial Lawyers Representing Injured People CHARLES PHILLIP BOYD, JR., J.D. P.O. BOX 3494 1317 CANTRELL FACSIMILE - (501) 372-1807 CHRISTOPHER D. ANDERSON, J.D. LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203-3494 TOLL FREE - 1-800-952-4303 EDWINA KEITH, PARALEGAL (501) 372-0770 E-mail address: boydlawf m@aol.comt July 27, 2001 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Application for Zoning Variance 1309 Cantrell Blvd. Dear Sirs and/or Madams: 1�1 bought a building located at 1317 Cantrell approximately 5 years ago to operate a law firm. This building was built in the 1890's, and there is little frontage for a parking lot between said building and Cantrell Road. When my clients, and employees, attempt to park in front of this building, it creates a hazard to the motorist traveling east and west on Cantrell Road. I purchased the lot adjacent, and east, of my property in 1997 (See Exh. A). Attached hereto is a sketch of the proposed landscaping/terracing to be constructed on said property. Included in said plans is a sign for my law firm (see Exh. B). This work will be first class, with an estimated total price of $25,000. In order for the sign to be visible, it needs to be at least 10 feet high. The sign itself is approximately 100" by 77", with a brick masonry foundation/flower bed as a base, and perimeter surrounding same. The landscaping contractor was not aware of the limitation on the size of this proposed sign until after all the work had been completed and actual work started. (See Exh. C) There are two large billboards directly East of my parking lot and "proposed sign", which are leased by Donrey Advertising. These billboards have advertised everything from whiskey, to motels, in the past. Said billboards hide the view of my property from motorists traveling West on Cantrell, and provide another basis for the fact that the sign I propose needs to be at least 10 feet high. Of more significance to the City, the existing parking lot is vacant, and has been an eyesore for the community for many, many years prior to my purchase of same. The Variance I seek will allow me to put a sign on the property which goes along with the landscaping I propose, that will help beautify this area of Cantrell for the entire City. The proposal will make ingress and egress to the property much safer for all motorists along this busy boulevard. The landscaping will comply with all other city ordinances and regulations. Finally, the landscaping I intend to perform is in line with the renovations that have been conducted on this area of Cantrell by landowners over the past several years. For the reasons listed hereinabove, I respectfully request that the City of Little Rock issue a Zoning Variance, and allow me to construct the §�iqn as proposed. Si Encs. f/ Ilip Boyd, Jr. August 27, 2001 Item No.: 7 Name: Robert Alvey Address: 7515 Fairways Drive Type of Issue: Time Extension Staff Report: On May 21, 2001, the Board approved a variance to allow an accessory structure to remain in an easement on the R-2 zoned property at 7515 Fairways Drive. The applicant had begun construction without a permit and had been stopped by Code Enforcement. The building complies with zoning setback and area coverage requirements (once the older accessory building is removed). Since the structure had been built within an easement, approval was needed from Public Works and the Public Utility Companies. All of these entities signed -off except Entergy. The applicant stated he was working with the power company to gain their approval but had not completed those negotiations at the time of the May board meeting. The Board's approval included allowing the applicant 90 days to gain approval from the utility company or to remove the building. That approval has not been received. The applicant is requesting an extension of time as he continues to work with the Utility. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 27, 2001) The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and recommended approval of a 30 -day extension. The applicant offered no additional comments. The issue was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for a 30 -day extension. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. O U W 0_ W H O z w F- 0 Q LL O Q O m WIN I a O O a LLJ o 0 Q 0 w < U Q J a� W U LL Q Z (D c m W `L< } z z m Y 0 � 2U cr- G� Q a O O a� c 0 Q c a� a� a z Q m Q z Li U) m Q O - = - w Q z 0 w } O F- ozoc¢��Q o Z Z Q W LL w >- Q w U z> Q o = Y N � w � CD Z Q U August 27, 2001 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. Date: �( Chairman ec et ry