boa_09 24 2001LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 24, 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 August 27, 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: Cindy Dawson
I. NEW
ITEMS
1.
Z-7084
2.
Z-7085
3.
Z-7086
4.
5.
6
7
Z-7087
Z-7088
Z-6740
Z-7089
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
2:00 P.M.
65 Dartmouth Drive
120 Hickory Creek Circle
1401 M. L. King, Jr. Drive
5423 West 12th Street
7621 Geyer Springs Road
#3 Statehouse Plaza
Lot 5 (unrecorded), I-430 -
Colonel Glenn Commercial
Subdivision
4907 Country Club Blvd.
19 Arles Drive
V-
Q)
N
Ile
J
3NId
a312tlad
t
1lnpBlHf
q
^ 1
< yid
NVWa30
NIVry
'
AVMOV060
N01N08/
631S310
a3H380
~HOatl
0NIN lW
—
MOa000M g
3NId 1J
Q
3NId
ap0 0 N011lrvp 11005
$ SJNr
.�
AlIsa3M1iNn
AlIS83A1Nn
SONIIII a3A3J
Q
S3H9nH
F-
$
Idd6s SIM
y�
_
s
1001H0 —
�
8100353
MOa8p9 NHOf 3
3NN13H
O80131NJVHS g
Oa 3l p $
SIOM
_
Z
rvpHatld A3N00a
— o �
s
�� �
yoj
NY OB l $11W1 Alp
30OIa AWN
HJb
S11WIl Alp Ln
"JblS�
°bo!
N
OSiOAI
W�
$lmn up
l�'�P�
PP
s
J
s
~�►i
Zs42
" NVAIIInS
1a031S
HSdyy,
OOH
VMH IH
11WI1 Alp
yv,
�p
Jc,��
IS
' w
!,/010j 31pONa3d
0
0
O
September 24, 2001
Item No.: 1
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7084
Jessie Smith
65 Dartmouth Drive
Lot 164, Kensington Addition
MWa
Variances are requested from the
building line provisions of Section
31-12.
The new single family residence was
inadvertently constructed with
front steps and one side over the
front platted building line.
Construction of new single family
residence
Single family residential
The R-2 zoned property at 65 Dartmouth Drive is occupied by
a new one-story, brick, single family residence. The newly
constructed house encroaches approximately six (6) inches
over the platted 25 -foot building line along the western
property line, with front steps which encroach approximately
10.5 feet beyond the platted 25 -foot building line along the
southern property line. Section 31-12(c) of the City's
Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for
encroachments over platted building setback lines be
reviewed by the Board of Adjustment.
September 24,.2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The house
has been mostly constructed, with interior and landscape
work left to be completed. It is unclear how the error has
gone unnoticed throughout the building permit process. It
is apparent that during the initial stage of building permit
review the elevation of the structure's front porch was not
known. The front porch is approximately eight (8) feet
above grade.
Staff does not believe that the building line encroachments
will have an adverse impact on the adjacent property, as
both encroachments are along street side property lines. The
construction of the steps results in a 14.5 foot setback
from the southern property line and a 25.5 foot setback from
curb line of Dartmouth Drive. The western side of the house
is located 24.5 feet from the property line and 35.5 feet
from the curb line of Suffolk Drive.
If the Board approves the building variances, the applicant
will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the
changes in the building line for the newly constructed
house. The applicant should review the filing procedure
with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat
requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line
variances subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building
line as approved by the Board.
2. The front steps must remain uncovered beyond the platted
building line.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 24, 2001)
Jessie Smith was present, representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and noted
that the applicant had not completed the notification process to
property owners within 200 feet of the property, as required.
Staff noted that seven (7) of the 15 property owners within 200
feet of the site were notified in a timely manner. Staff then
noted that the remainder of the property owners were notified
2
September 24, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
of the public hearing no more than four (4) days prior to the
meeting, and three (3) of them were notified the day of the
hearing.
Chairman Ruck noted that the Board felt that the applicant should
notify the surrounding property owners in a timely manner, so
that they may have an opportunity to voice their opinion if they
desire. He stated that it was the Board's opinion that the
application needed to be deferred to the October agenda and that
the applicant needed to renotify the surrounding property owners
of that meeting.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
There was a motion to defer the application to the October 29,
2001 agenda, with the applicant renotifying the property owners of
that meeting. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and
0 absent. The application was deferred to the October 29, 2001
agenda.
3
September 24, 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 Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7085
Don Kirkpatrick
120 Hickory Creek Circle
Lot 13R, Hickory Creek Subdivision
F"�
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 residential
Single family residential
A new, one-story single family residence is currently being
constructed (framing) on the R-2 zoned lot located at 120
Hickory Creek Circle. The applicant proposes to add an 18
foot wide porte-cochere on the south side of the residence.
The applicant requests a variance to allow a reduced side
yard setback for the porte-cochere addition. A 1.4 foot
side setback is proposed along the south property line.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires
a minimum side yard setback of 8 feet.
Staff does not support the variance as requested. Staff
believes that the proposed 1.4 foot side setback will be out
of character with the neighborhood. The single family
structures in this subdivision maintain side yard setbacks
September 24, 2001
Item No.: 2 (Cont.)
which are closer to or exceed the minimum ordinance
requirement. Staff also is concerned with potential for
water run-off onto the adjacent property to the south and
the,close proximity of the proposed porte-cochere addition
to that single family structure. The existing single family
structure on the property to the south is located
approximately 8 feet from the side property line.
Although staff is not supporting the variance request as
filed, staff could support a revised application. Staff
could support a minimum 5 foot side yard setback for the
proposed porte-cochere addition with the following
conditions:
1. The porte-cochere structure must remain unenclosed.
2. The eave line of the porte-cochere structure must not
extend any more than one (1) foot into the 5 foot
setback.
Staff will forward this information to the applicant prior
to the public hearing.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 24, 2001)
Frank Riggins and Don Kirkpatrick were present, representing the
application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of denial.
Frank Riggins addressed the Board in support of the application.
He noted that the property owner wished to have the porte-cochere
addition for convenience. He noted that the structure would be
proportionately in line with the main structure. He described
the appearance/architectural design of the proposed porte-
cochere. He explained that the addition would have no adverse
impact on the general area. He noted that there was a letter of
support from the adjacent property owner, Joseph Blankenship. He
stated that the porte-cochere addition would be a quality
project. He also noted that the Hickory Creek Neighborhood
supported the project. Mr. Riggins also noted that there would
be a wall constructed along the property line to screen the
activity within the porte-cochere structure.
2
September 24, 2001
Item No.: 2 (Cont.)
Chairman Ruck noted that there was no person present in
opposition.
Vice -Chairman Gray asked Mr. Riggins to explain the roof pitch
and grade. Mr. Riggins explained that the property sloped and
drained from front to back. He noted that the porte-cochere
structure would have a hip roof and that it would have a gutter
system to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property.
It was noted that the front and rear of the structure would have
an archway, but that it would not be enclosed. This issue was
briefly discussed.
Andy Francis asked if the letter of support was from the property
owner to the west. Mr. Riggins confirmed that it was.
Chairman Ruck questioned Mr. Riggins about the proposed wall
along the west property line. Mr. Riggins explained that the
wall would be constructed of brick and limestone and be
approximately 8 feet in height. He noted that the primary
purpose of the wall was to provide screening. Don Kirkpatrick
also added comments related to this issue.
Gary Langlais asked Mr. Kirkpatrick about staff's recommendation
to revise the application. Mr. Kirkpatrick responded that
providing a five (5) foot sideyard would make the porte-cochere
too narrow for a vehicle and the residence's trash receptacles.
Mr. Langlais asked about the overall width of the porte-cochere.
Mr. Riggins noted that it was 18 feet wide and explained.
Scott Richburg asked about the clearance width. Mr. Riggins
responded that the clearance width would be approximately 14
feet.
Vice Chairman Gray asked about conditions of approval. Staff
suggested that the Board attach the following conditions to the
motion to approve:
1. The porte-cochere structure is to remain unenclosed except
for the wall along the west property line.
2. There must be a gutter system on the structure to prevent
water run-off onto the adjacent property.
There was a motion to approve the application subject to the two
(2) conditions as noted above. The motion passed by a vote of
5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was approved.
3
}
t ? 5
t v R fi�
The
Mehlburger
Firm
Engineers ❑ Landscape Architects ❑ Surveyors
August 24, 2001
Mr. Dana Carney, Zoning & Subdivision Manager
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Dana,
Enclosed is an application for a zoning variance to allow a porte cochere addition on to a
residence under construction at 120 Hickory Creek Circle. This proposed addition was added to
the plans after construction of the main structure had begun. This structure will provide for a
covered entry and will consist of four columns and a pitched roof which will attach to the main
structure of the house.
I have also enclosed, as required, three copies of a recent survey which shows the main
house and this proposed addition.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional materials or information
concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
THE MEHLBURGER FIRM, INC.
O-_..._
400*
*Rii
201 South Izard 0 P.O. Box 3837 o Little Rock, AR 72203-3837 a 501:'375-5331 0 rax .375-7;5 2
September 24, 2001
Item No.: 3
File No.: Z-7086
Owner: Church's Fried Chicken
Address: 1.) 1401 Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr.
2.) 5423 West 12th Street
3.) 7621 Geyer Springs Road
Description:
1.) Southeast corner of Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. and Daisy
Gaston Bates Drive
2.) Southeast corner of West 12th Street and Fair Park Blvd.
3.) Northeast corner of Geyer Springs and Young Roads
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
C-3
Variances are requested from
Sections 36-543(7) and 36-557(a)
to permit two (2) roof signs and
one (1) canopy sign without street
frontage at each Church's location.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Commercial
Commercial
The applicant, Church's Fried Chicken, recently installed
new commercial signs at three (3) of their Little Rock
restaurant locations. The new signage is part of a national
campaign to re-image their restaurants. Two (2) wall -
mounted signs, which extend above the fagade roof line, on
which they are located and one (1) canopy sign were
September 24, 2001
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
installed at each restaurant location. The sign locations
are noted on an attached site plan sketch. Based on the
fact that the wall signs extend above the facade roof line,
they are considered roof signs and are prohibited by City
Ordinance. There is a canopy at each location which is
located above the drive-thru window. There is a sign
located on each canopy. These canopy signs are located on
building sides which have no street frontage, which is also
prohibited by Ordinance.
The applicant requests variances from the City's Zoning
Ordinance Sections 36-543(7) and 36-557(a), to permit the
two (2) roof signs and one (1) canopy sign without street
frontage at each restaurant location. Section 36-543(7)
prohibits roof signs (signs erected over the roof of a
building) and Section 36-557(a) probihits signs without
street frontage. The proposed roof signs extend
approximately 2.5 to 3 feet above the fagade that they are
located on. However, the roof signs do not exceed the
overall roof height. There is an inner fagade which has a
roof line that is slightly higher than the signs.
Staff feels that the requested variances are reasonable.
Each of the three (3) signs at each restaurant location
replaced old signs. In the case of the roof signs, the new
signs are smaller than the old signs. According to the
applicant, the old signs extended higher above the fagade
roof line than do the new signs. Also, as noted above, the
new roof signs do not exceed the overall roof height of the
inner fagade. The new canopy structure with sign over the
drive-thru at each location replaced old canopy structures,
which also included signage without street frontage. Each
of the canopy signs can be seen from one (1) of the street
frontages by traffic traveling in one (1) direction.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances and the
signage as existing. If the signs are ever removed, they
must be replaced with signs that comply with City Ordinance
standards, or a new Board of Adjustment variance application
must be filed.
2
September 24, 2001
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 24, 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 as
recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention
(Francis) and 0 absent.
3
_P --,, -tf 3
i�-- -7 OY6
ArkansasSign 8525 Distribution Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (501) 562-3942
OEM
and Neon
AUGUST 16, 2001
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
MR. DANA CARNEY
RE: CHURCH'S FRIED CHICKEN NATIONAL RE-IMAGE CAMPAIGN
DEAR SIR(S),
CHURCH'S FRIED CHICKEN IS WORKING ON A NATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO RE-IMAGE THEIR
RESTAURANTS. ARKANSAS SIGN & NEON HAS BEEN CONTRACTED TO REMOVE THE OLD
SIGNAGE AND INSTALL THE NEW SIGNS FOR THEIR THREE LITTLE ROCK LOCATIONS AT;
1401 MARTIN LUTHER KING, 5423 W. 12TH, AND 7621 GEYER SPRINGS.
THE WALL SIGNS APPEAR TO BE ABOVE THE ROOFLINE, THEREFORE, WE NEED A
VARIANCE TO PUT THEM UP IN ORDER TO KEEP THE NEW IMAGE THAT CHURCH'S IS
TRYING TO ACHIEVE NATIONALLY.
WE PRAY THAT A VARIANCE WILL BE GIVEN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN
THIS MATTER.
SINCERELY,
CHARLIE WITHROW
GARY MENEAR
ARKANSAS SIGN & NEON
Designers and Fabricators of Quality Electrical Outdoor Advertising Displays
Neon - Plastic - Flexible Face Signs - Service & Repair - Erection - Outdoor Advertising
September 24, 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 Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7087
Peabody Hotel Group
#3 Statehouse Plaza
North side of West Markham Street,
between Center and Main Streets
UU
A variance is requested from
Section 36-547(6) to allow a
commercial sign with the illusion
of movement.
The applicant's explanation is
presented in attached letter.
Hotel
Hotel
The UU zoned property at #3 Statehouse Plaza is occupied by
the Peabody Hotel. The applicant proposes to place a sign
on the north wall on the hotel building, above the 22nd
floor on a brick elevator shaft. The sign will overlook the
Arkansas River. The sign ("Marching Ducks" logo) consists
of three (3) 10 -foot ducks constructed of neon and aluminum
framing. The applicant requests a variance to allow for
very subtle movement of the feet of the "Marching Ducks"
logo. According to Section 36-547, "no sign regulated by
this chapter may utilize:"
(6) "The illusion of movement by means of a
preprogrammed repetitious sequential switching
September 24, 2001
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
action in which illuminated elements of the
sign are turned off or on to visually simulate
the impression of motion characteristic of
chasing, running, blinking, oscillating,
twinkling, scintillating, or expanding and
contracting light patterns."
The applicant notes that the "Marching Ducks" logo will be
static during the day, with no lighting or movement. The
sign will be illuminated only at night, to identify the
property. When the sign is illuminated, the only neon
movement will be the feet of the ducks in a back and forth
rhythmic motion, simulating the marching of the ducks. Only
approximately 10 percent of the overall "Marching Ducks"
logo will have any movement.
Staff feels the variance request is reasonable. Given the
fact that such a small percentage of the sign will have
simulated movement and that the sign is located above the
22nd floor of the existing building (overlooking the
Arkansas River), staff feels that the proposed sign will
have no adverse impact on the general area or create a
distraction.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 24, 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 as
recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention
(Langlais) and 0 absent.
2
08/24/2001 FRI � 3 FAX t lin002/004
z4e�,— -?4�
2- 76,Y7
"FA9VO MITCHELL SIGNS
P.O. Box 4177 3208 Hwy. 45 North Meridian, MS 39304 (601) 482.7471 FAX (601) 482-7474
August 24, 2001
To: The Honorable Board of Adjustment
For The City of Little Rock, Arkansas
Department of Planning and Development
For The City of Little Rock, Arkansas
Mr. Dana Carney
Thank you for your consideration to allow very subtle movement of the -feet of The
Peabody "Marching Ducks" logo. The "Marching Ducks" logo consists of three 10' ducks
made with neon and aluminum framing. The "Marching Ducks" logo is synonymous
with the grand tradition and heritage of the Peabody Hotel
associated it. , as well as the quality
The "Marching Ducks" logo would be static during the day, with no neon or subtle
movement showing. They would illuminate at night only, to identify the property. At
night, when they are illuminated the only neon movement would be the feet in a back
and forth rhythmic motion, simulating the marching for which the Ducks are famous for.
Only 10 percent of the overall "Marching Ducks" logo would have any movement.
The ducks are on the North wall, above the 22nd floor, on the brick elevator shaft. This
wall faces the Arkansas River.
The "Marching Ducks" logo would not be a distraction, but instead become a landmark
for the City of Little Rock. This would only have a positive impact on the City and
Downtown.
Thank you for your consideration and allowing The Peabody to be a part of the City of
Little Rock.
Rick Courtney
President
Mitchell Signs, Inc.
www.mitchsllCcmpanies.Com
September 24, 2001
Item No.: 5
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
Z-7088
Vogel Enterprises
Near the southwest corner of
Interstate 430 and Colonel Glenn
Road
Lot 5 (unrecorded), I-430 - Colonel
Glenn Commercial Subdivision
C-3 and C-4
A variance is requested from the
height regulations of Sections
36-301(d) and 36-302(d) to permit
a new commercial building to exceed
the 35 -foot maximum allowed height.
The applicant's explanation is
presented in an attached letter.
Vacant, undeveloped lot
Commercial
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
With Building Permit:
1. Health Care Blvd. and Commercial Center Drive are
classified on the Master Street Plan as commercial
streets. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
2. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master
Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements
to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with
planned development.
3. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
18,031. Eliminate driveways that do not meet Ordinance
requirements.
September 24, 2001
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
5. Grading permit will be required on this development.
6. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
Areas set aside for perimeter, interior and building
landscaping meet with landscape ordinance requirements.
However, a portion of the street buffer along Health Care
Blvd. drops 6 feet below the minimum 20 -foot width allowed
by the Zoning Ordinance.
All landscaped areas will be required to be irrigated.
Prior to a building permit being issued, a landscape plan
stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect
will be required.
C. Staff Analysis:
The proposed Lot 5, I-430 - Colonel Glenn Commercial
Subdivision is zoned C-3 and C-4 and is currently
undeveloped. The lot is approximately 14 acres in size.
The applicant proposes to construct a new one-story
commercial building on the property which will house a
multi -screen movie theater. The proposed theater prototype
building will have a maximum height of 51 feet - 6 inches.
The maximum building height allowed in C-3 and C-4 zoning is
35 feet.
Staff feels that the variance request is reasonable. The
proposed commercial building is located on a 14 acre lot,
with building setbacks which far exceed the minimum setbacks
allowed in C-3 and C-4 zoning. Based on the size of the
commercial lot and placement of the proposed commercial
building, staff feels that the proposed building height will
have no adverse impact on the surrounding lots.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the height variance subject to
compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs A
and B of this report. The proposed commercial building will
have a maximum overall height of 51 feet - 6 inches.
2
September 24, 2001
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 24, 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 as
recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 absent.
3
Transmittal
To: Mr. Dana Carney
From: Tim Daters
CC:
Date: 8/24/01
Re: Zoning Variance — Lot 5,1-430 Col. Glenn Commercial
Attached are six copies of the site plan for Lot 5 (unrecorded) on the above captioned
project. The Owner would like a variance of the maximum building height. Please
place this item on the agenda for the September 24t�' Board of Adjustment Meeting.
The multi screen movie theater proposed would exceed the 35' allowable under C-3
or C-4 zoning. The building and central lobby area are of such a scale that the
maximum height proposed of 51'-6" will not look out of proportion on the 14 acre lot.
The Operator has constructed this building in the Dallas area and can furnish
photographs of the building as well elevations. If you think it will be helpful I will obtain
these and forward them to your office.
Please call me if you need any additional information.
Thank you for your assistance.
Tim Daters
• Page 1
CAMy Documents\danacameycolglenn.doc
24 Rahling Circle, Little Rock, Ar 72223 501-821-1667 501-821-1668 fax
September 24, 2001
Item No.: 6
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Background:
Z-6740
Nolan and Barbara Rushing
4907 Country Club Blvd.
Lot 3, Block 15, Newton's
Addition
MWA
A two-year time extension for
previously approved reduced
rear yard setback and
increased fence/wall height
variances for a proposed
single family residence.
Vacant lot
New Single Family residence
On September 27, 1999, the Board of Adjustment voted
unanimously to approve a reduced yard setback variance
and an increased fence/wall height variance for a
proposed new single family residence at 4907 Country
Club Blvd. The proposed single family residence was
approved for a rear yard setback of 17 feet. Wing -
walls, which are to extend out from the front wall of
the proposed house to the side property lines and down
each side line for a short distance were approved for a
height of 9 feet - 6inches. The setback and fence/wall
height variances were approved subject to a
stormwater/drainage plan being approved by the City and
that the City contact Ashley Rankin, a nearby neighbor,
for her input on the drainage issue.
September 24, 2001
Item No.: 6
B. Proposal:
According to Article IV, Section 2 of the Little Rock
Board of Adjustment Bylaws, "If an application is
approved by the Board, all permits necessary for the
initiation of work shall be obtained within two (2)
years from the date of approval, unless an extension of
time is granted by the Board." The previously approved
application will expire on September 27, 2001. The lot
is currently vacant.
Therefore, the applicants, Nolan and Barbara Rushing,
request a two-year time extension for the previously
approved application. The applicants have noted that
they hope to begin construction on the new single
family residence later this fall.
C. Staff Analysis:
The applicants are requesting a two-year time extension
on the previously approved application for reduced rear
yard setback and increased fence/wall height variances
for a proposed new single family residence. To staff's
knowledge there are no new circumstances concerning
this property and staff can see no reason why the
application should not be extended.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the two-year time
extension as requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 24, 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 as
recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays, and
0 absent.
2
September 24, 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:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7089
William F. Ward
19 Arles Drive
Lot 52, Block 48, Chenal
Valley Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from
the area regulations of
Section 36-254 to permit a new
single family residence with a
reduced side yard setback.
The applicant's justification
is presented in an attached
letter.
Single family residential
Single family residential
A new, one-story brick single family residence has
recently been constructed on the R-2 zoned lot located
at 19 Arles Drive. After construction, the applicant
found that the southwest corner of the structure was
only approximately 4.7 feet from the south (side)
property line. The City's Zoning Ordinance requires a
minimum side yard setback of 6.9 feet.
l (-
September 24, 2001
Item No.: 7
According to the applicant, it is his opinion that the
survey pin at the southwest corner of the property was
originally placed in the wrong location, giving the
residence a 9 foot side setback (at the southwest
corner) when it was first laid out. This is further
supported by the fact that the water meter for this lot
was placed 4 to 5 feet onto the property to the south.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance, given
the fact that an apparent error was made in the
original property survey. The southwest corner of the
structure represents an appropriate 32 percent
encroachment into the required side yard. The
southeast corner of the structure complies with the
minimum setback requirement, as the structure angles
away from the south (side) property line. Staff
believes that the survey mistake was not intentional
and that the applicant did not knowingly place the
residential structure within the required side yard
setback.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard
setback variance as requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 24, 2001)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff noted that the application needed to be
deferred based on the fact that the applicant did not notify
the property owners within 200 feet of the site as required.
The application was placed on the Consent Agenda and
deferred to the October 29, 2001 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes,
0 nays and 0 absent.
2
oleman onze.6,
0 eal cfitate Oq
,:a,otaiset—Jffonttactot—�eaitot
9- 7 ok 1
Date: 8/24/01
To: City of Little Rock
From: Stephen Coleman
Subject: 19 Arles Drive
The above referenced home is located 4.7 feet from the property line at the right front corner and 7.5 feet
at the right rear corner (as shown on the attached "as is" survey).
At the beginning of construction, the home was placed approximately 9 feet from the right property line.
The method used in placing the home on the lot was as follows:
1. Lamar James extended a sting from the right front survey pin to the right rear pin. The right side
was used in placing the home due to a tree being located on the left line. A line was also
extended from the right front pin across the lot to the left front pin.
2. The batter board lines were placed with the home being approximately 9 feet front the right line,
as indicated by the right side string line. The location of the home was rotated, to allow about 1
foot at the front line and left side line which would be adequate for brick and a reasonable
margin of error due to the tree on the line and the curve in the front street.
3. Lamar James measured for adequate set backs. I was there to observe the location and the
building inspector viewed the set backs for compliance.
Lamar James and I have the opinion that the survey pin was placed in the wrong location. Also, the
water meters are located about 4-5 feet on the adjoining lot. The water department is currently in the
process of moving the meters to the lot line.
I believe that Lamar James, the building inspector and myself did not knowingly place the home out of
compliance with zoning ordinances at the beginning of construction, based on what we assumed to be an
accurate survey pin. At this time I will request a right side variance be granted for this property.
Cor 'ally,
Stephen Coleman
P.O. Box 241069, Little Rock, AR 72223
N0
D1
O
U
W
w
F-
0
z
2
F-
U)
Q
LL
O
0
Q
O
m
v
F-
ii
IN
c
<9
W
Q
z
0
W
Q
r
�
Q
W
M
W
r.
�—
F-
Q
ozoc��Q
Z
Q
W
C�
J
2
V
Z_
U
Q
�
WQaz=U
Q
Q
W
0-1Q
LCL�
CD
E
cr-
W
o<cnQ
U
(D
J_
UQ
z
Q
=
U
W
2
�
LL
cl�
(D
Q
J
U
ii
IN
c
<9
W
Q
z
0
W
Q
Q
W
W
�—
F-
Q
ozoc��Q
Z
Q
W
C�
J
Z_
U
Q
�
WQaz=U
Q
LCL�
CD
E
cr-
ii
IN
c
<9
W
Q
z
0
W
Q
September 24, 2001
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Date:. 4 W/
1 ,
Chairman Secret ry