boa_04 24 2000? La..•. �,._..'J,�.at io ...v.,'KJw� �.U+,n�.+twd5r n. -a. ..e:rw ✓w1r 4L..:'l,.-t.
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
APRIL 24, 2000
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being four (4) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The Minutes of the March 27, 2000 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: Gary Langlais, Chairman
William Ruck, Vice Chairman
Norm Floyd
Scott Richburg
Members Absent: Fred Gray
City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
APRIL 24, 2000
2:00 P.M.
I. VARIANCE ITEMS
1.
Z -5934-A
120
Commerce Street
2.
Z -6445-A
125
Hickory Creek Cr.
3.
Z-6826
424
Dennison Street
4.
Z-6839
2515
N. Grant Street
5.
Z-6842
5309
Edgewood Road
6.
Z-6843
129
Normandy Road
II. OTHER MATTERS
7.
Interpretative Request
3817
Jack
Mann Road
8.
Z-6842 - Time Extension
Kanis
and
Rodney Parham Roads
0
0
�
N
3NId
a31ZVa3
� V
n ,
�
llntlelHl
N
w
�Q
0�
NVWa30
_
_
c
W
NIVW
? `8
Of
AU& NO H08V
31S3HO
83010
�1NOyj
ONIN lW
o
MOMSf33dIs
3NId
ypdb
3NId
NO111Wtl 1100S
o
s Spry�bdS
'yob
AiIS
Na d al
A15a3AINn
U
J
�
SONIad 83430
sf
53HOOH
yr
z
�f
Idd55 IN
�'
J
1001H0
W
s
81003538
s
MO VO NHOf
3
M
.y 3NN1. H
fT-0a 31 OV
Oa0331NOVH5
w sloatls
F
v
o
mws
V
/1
W
0 0"
WVHaVd A3N00a
—
s °
,S
ti�
NV WOO i
S11WIl A110
y W w 3001a AWN
pp3pblS `o
v
Q
�Q
P�
s
0
23'
Z�
&
NVAIIInS
v
latlM31S
S11WIl A110
Syd
��
rr
W
0
W
31VONS33
Apr-_ 24, 2000
Item No.: 1
File No.: Z -5934-A
Owner: City of Little Rock as Trustee for
the Central Arkansas Library System
Address: 120 Commerce Street
Description: Part of Block 8, Pope's Addition
Zoned: GB
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from
the parking provisions of Section
36-417 to permit a reduction in the
number of required on site parking
spaces.
Justification: The site has been maximized for
parking with no additional space
being available. The new downtown
zoning which will be effective in a
few months will not require
parking.
Present Use of Property: Vacant building
Proposed Use of Property: Book sales, coffee shop, artist
co-op and galleries, meeting room
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The Central Arkansas Library System proposes to remodel the
vacant Cox Building located at 120 Commerce Street as a
mixed use development.
The building is 3 stories with a basement and has a total of
18,000 square feet, divided roughly into 4,500 square feet
per level. The basement level is to be used by the Friends
of the Library for book sorting and quarterly public book
Apr__ 24, 2000
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
sales. The first floor is to contain a retail book store
and coffee shop. The second floor will be developed as an
artists' co-op, containing studios and galleries. The third
floor will house an art gallery and a 75 person meeting
room. It has been determined that the mixture of uses
requires 67 on-site parking spaces based on the following
parking requirements taken from Section 36-417 of the Code:
Art gallery
1
space
per
400
sq.
ft.
Art studio
1
space
per
300
sq.
ft.
Book store
1
space
per
300
sq.
ft.
Restaurant/coffee shop
1
space
per
300
sq.
ft.
Auditorium (other public seating uses)
1
space
per
3 seats
On December 27, 1994, the Board approved a parking variance
for the Main Library building located west of Rock Street.
As part of that development, a 54 space parking lot was
developed east of Rock Street, north of East 2nd Street.
That parking lot was subsequently expanded to the east, to
the Cox Building. Through this proposed redevelopment of
the Cox Building, the overall parking lot will be redesigned
resulting in a total of 85 parking spaces. This gain of 31
spaces is less than the 67 spaces needed for the Cox
Building.
Staff is supportive of the requested parking variance. The
project is located within the pedestrian oriented River
Market district which depends upon off-site parking located
on the surrounding streets and public parking lots. The
proposed development is compatible with uses in the area and
the available on-site parking exceeds that typically found
in the River Market area.
On March 7, 2000, the Board of Directors passed the
Ordinance rezoning this property to Urban Use district as
part of the major Downtown Rezoning Initiative. The Urban
Use District has no on-site parking requirement. The new
zoning designation will be effective in September 2000, at
which point this parking variance would no longer even be
necessary.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance.
2
Apr_ 24, 2000 <
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 24, 2000)
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, 1 absent and 1 abstaining (Floyd).
3
Apra_ 24, 2000
Item No.: 2
File No.:
Owner:
Z -6445-A
Mariann Harrington
Address: 125 Hickory Creek Circle
Description: Lot 76-R, Hickory Creek
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested:
A variance is requested from
the fence height provisions of
Section 36-516 to permit a fence
exceeding allowable height.
Applicant's Statement: The
justifications are as follows:
1. An eight -foot tall fence will
afford the homeowner of this
"Estate" an added measure of
privacy and security.
2. The wall with an electric gate
will add additional safety
against intrusion into the
swimming pool and rear yard
areas.
3. There are three homes directly
across the street from this
property that have eight foot
walls and several others in
the subdivision.
Present Use of Property: Single Family under construction
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
Apr.- 24, 2000
Item No.: 2 (Cont.)
B. Staff Analysis:
A new single family residence is being constructed on the
R-2 zoned lot located at 125 Hickory Creek Circle. The
applicant proposes to enclose the rear yard with an 8 foot
tall fence with the portion along the north (side) property
line extending toward the street being 6 feet tall. The
code limits the height of fences in residential zones to 6
feet with fences within the setback adjacent to the street
being limited to 4 feet in height. In a letter to the
Subdivision's Architectural Review Committee, the applicant
described the proposed fence/wall as follows:
On Lot 76R an eight -foot tall concrete block wall (Plot Plan
attached with location). The wall will be adjacent to the
existing wood fences on the northeast and southeast property
lines and the south property line, which at this time does
not have a fence.
The wall will consist of 12" X 16" concrete blocks on a
concrete footing with re -bar. The concrete blocks will be
covered with stucco facing the interior of property and on
the exterior adjacent to existing wood fences were possible.
The south wall interior and exterior will be stucco. The
interior of the wall joining the left and right of the house
will be stucco. The exterior will be brick and pre -cast
with iron gates. Columns will be 24" X 108" tall with rock
veneer and capped with pre -cast concrete. The columns will
be placed periodically throughout the wall for structure.
The fence/wall was approved by the Architectural Committee.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The property
does sit slightly lower than the abutting properties to the
north and west which have 6 foot fences. The lot to the
south is currently vacant. The 6 foot tall portion of the
fence/wall in the front yard is adjacent to an existing 6
foot tall fence on the adjacent property and should not
create a sight -distance hazard. Walls exceeding the
allowable height established by the code are not unusual in
this gated community. Previous variances for fence height
have been granted in the immediate vicinity. Appropriate
building permits must be obtained for the proposed
structure.
2
Apr--,.. 24, 2000
Item No.: 2 (Cont.)
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence/wall height
variance subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1. All required building permits must be obtained prior to
construction of the structure.
2. The structure is to be designed as described by the
applicant and approved by the Hickory Creek
Architectural Review Committee.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 24, 2000)
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 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3
Apr-- 24, 2000
Item No.: 3
File No.: Z-6826
Owner: Paul Duane Heard
Address: 424 Dennison
Description: Lot 8 and Lot "B" Capitol View and
West 205 feet of Block 30, Capitol
Hill Extension
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
R-3
A variance is requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-156 to permit an accessory
structure with a reduced front
yard setback.
Applicant's Statement: I am
trying to build a shed over a
camper on the south portion of my
lot. This neighborhood is built on
a mountain and this is the only
"somewhat" flat spot I can find.
The shed which I am trying to build
would have six poles and a roof to
match the color of my roof. I
don't feel like it would be an eye
sore. Also, with the embankment
next to the sidewalk I don't feel
it would pose a hazard to either
pedestrians or vehicles. I have
talked with the neighbors and
renters and they don't mind at all.
Single Family
Single Family
Apr -.L 24, 2000
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-3 zoned property located at 424 Dennison is occupied
by a one-story, frame, single-family residence. The
applicant has recently begun construction of a 12' X 221,
unenclosed carport structure for the purpose of covering a
camper. The carport (accessory structure) has a front yard
setback of 6 feet. The Code requires a front yard setback
of 60 feet for accessory structures.
Staff is supportive of the requested setback variance. This
property is the last on a dead-end street. Due to a steep
embankment on the front of the lot, access to the carport is
from a alley which wraps around the property on the south
and west. There is no access to the structure from Dennison
Street. Numerous structures along Dennison Street, in the
immediate vicinity, have setbacks less than that required by
the code. Staff does not believe that the structure will
negatively impact other properties in the neighborhood.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
3. The carport structure is to remain open and unenclosed
on all sides.
4. There is to be no direct access to the carport
structure from Dennison Street.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 24, 2000)
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 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
E
Apr__ 24, 2000
Item No.: 4
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Z-6839
Virginia Young
2515 N. Grant Street
Lot 3 and South 22.5 feet of Lot 2,
Block 27, Parkview Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from
the area regulations of Section 36-
254 to permit an addition resulting
in a reduced side yard setback.
Justification: Applicant's Statement: Several
months ago, I contracted with Jake
Hall to make improvements on my
property at 2515 N. Grant.
Initially, I wanted to add a
carport, a deck on the back and to
finish out the garage apartment in
the back. I was told by my
neighbors that both the main house
and the garage apartment had been
rental properties in the past.
For safety reasons and to increase
the space for family members, not
for rental, I decided that an
attached garage and linking the two
structures together would allow me
to enter both structures from an
enclosed and lighted area.
I know that a permit was obtained
for the original plan. All of my
neighbors have been informed of the
construction and have signed the
attached notice.
Over the past two months, my Mother
became ill and has recently passed
away. I apologize for not getting
the necessary documents.
Apr__ 24, 2000
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
Present Use of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 2515 N. Grant Street is
occupied by a one-story, frame, single-family residence and
a detached garage -apartment. The applicant is in the
process of remodeling the accessory structure and has added
on to the house, tying the two structures together. The
accessory structure has a side yard setback of 2 feet. Now
that it is part of the principal structure, the code
requires a side yard setback of 7.2 feet. The addition
tying the two structures together has a side yard setback of
4 feet. The applicant hired a contractor to do the
construction. The contractor obtained permits for
remodeling the accessory structure but began the addition
without proper permits. Once the applicant was advised of
the violation, she filed for variances from the Board of
Adjustment.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Tying the
two structures together does not change the setback
relationship of the older, existing garage -apartment. It
will maintain the same 2 foot setback that it has had for
many years. The new addition, tying the structures
together, has been moved back to provide a 4 foot side yard.
The lots in this area were platted as 50 feet in width and 5
foot side yard setbacks are common in the neighborhood. The
owner of the property adjacent to the north, the property
impacted by the reduced side yard setback, has submitted a
letter in support of the applicant's request. The roof of
the existing garage -apartment and the new addition slopes to
the north and south. Staff believes it is reasonable to
require guttering on the north side of the structure to
prevent water run-off onto the neighbor's property.
2
Apr_. 24, 2000 �
Item No.: 4 (Cont.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback
variance subject to guttering being installed on the north
side of the existing garage -apartment and the new addition
to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 24, 2000)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval
subject to compliance with the condition noted in the "Staff
Recommendation" above. A letter of support had been received
from H. T. Wilson, the owner of the abutting property at 2523 N.
Grant Street.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3
March 10, 2000
To: Department of Neighborhood Planning and Development
Re: Ms. Virginia Young and the addition to her residence at 2515 N. Grant Street,
Little Rock, 72207
To Whom It May Concern,
In order to conform with Ms. Young's wishes and needs, an addition to her house was
suggested, to the rear(East) being most feasible. After obtaining the permits she was
aware of, it now develops that she must get another. She is now engaged in the
process of fulfilling this requirement, for which this letter is needed.
It is my opinion that the work she proposes will not damage my property in any way
and should enhance the living qualities and value of her house.
My property lies adjacent to 2515 N. Grant along the North line, running East/West
and is numbered 2523. Ms. Young's property is approximately 2.5 feet lower than
mine and is separated by a rock wall at ground level, down the middle of which runs
the property line.
In conclusion, let me say there is no way my property can be harmed by the work she
plans.
Sincerely,
H. T. Wilson
{
Apr_i 24, 2000
Item No.: 5
File No.: Z-6842
Owner: Keith Hardin
Address: 5309 Edgewood
Description: Lot 136, Prospect Terrace
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from
the area regulations of 36-254 to
permit an addition with a reduced
side yard setback.
Justification: Applicant's Statement: We want to
add an additional room to the
existing house, located on the
south side of the home. It will be
approximately 1514" X 1916". It
will need to be in the line with
the existing west side of the home.
We realize that it will be
encroaching on the existing
property easement to the west by
approximately 3 feet.
Present Use of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 5309 Edgewood is occupied
by a one-story, brick and frame, single-family residence.
The applicants are substantially remodeling the home,
including finishing out the attic as additional living space
and adding a master bedroom suite to the rear of the house.
The proposed master bedroom is to maintain the home's
Apx__L 24, 2000
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
existing side yard setback of 2.2 feet. The code requires a
side yard setback of 5 feet for this lot.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. A driveway
on the lot to the west separates the house on that lot from
the applicant's home. The proposed addition is located
beyond the rear of the neighboring home, further mitigating
the impact of the reduced setback. Allowing the proposed
addition to tie into the house so that it maintains the
existing setback and roof line is architecturally and
aesthetically more desirable. The proposed setback of 2.2
feet is sufficient to allow for construction and maintenance
of the addition without encroaching on the neighboring
property. Staff believes it is reasonable to require a
reduced overhang and guttering on the west side of the
addition, to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent
property.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback
variance subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. The eave/overhang on the west side of the proposed
addition is to be limited to no more than 6 inches.
2. Guttering is to be installed on the west side of the
addition to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent
property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 24, 2000)
Sheri Trammell and Keith Hardin were present representing the
application. Michael Smith, owner of the abutting property at
5311 Edgewood Road was present in opposition. Mr. Smith had
previously submitted a letter outlining his concerns. Staff
presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to
compliance with the conditions noted in the "Staff
Recommendation" above.
Gary Langlais commented that Mr. Smith had a problem with the
requested 2.2 foot side yard setback and asked if the addition
could be moved over, providing a 3.3 foot side yard setback. In
response, Ms. Trammell showed the Board plans and elevations of
the house and the proposed addition. Mr. Hardin stated that the
E
l
Apr -i 24, 2000
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
remodeling project will benefit the neighborhood by increasing
the value of the house.
Norm Floyd asked if the addition could be moved to provide a side
yard of 3.3 feet. Mr. Hardin and Ms. Trammell responded that it
would be difficult to move the addition due to the location of
the home's heating and air conditioning unit. Mr. Hardin stated
that moving the addition even 1 foot would require a drastic
remodeling of the house. He stated that it may require
constructing a two-story addition to provide the proposed square
footage.
Ms. Trammell presented photographs of the house. She stated that
they did construct a "post -up", showing the height and setback of
the proposed addition.
In response to a question from William Ruck, Mr. Hardin stated
that there would be no windows on the west side of the addition.
In response to a concern raised by Mr. Smith, Ms. Trammell noted
that there was a 65 foot tall tree on the east side of her
property that currently shades both her and Mr. Smith's back
yards until nearly noon each day. She commented that the
proposed addition would not further shade Mr. Smith's property.
Mr. Smith stated that he would prefer the addition to maintain a
3.3 foot side yard setback. He noted that the code required a 5
foot side yard.
At Gary Langlais' request, Ms. Trammell showed the proposed plans
to Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith stated that his opinion had not changed,
that he was still opposed to a 2.2 foot setback.
Norm Floyd suggested changes in the plans that would result in a
3.3 foot side yard setback for the addition.
Mr. Hardin questioned why the variance should not be approved.
He asked if Mr. Smith should not be required to prove why the
variance shouldn't be granted. Dana Carney, of the Planning
Staff, responded that there was no "right" to a variance and Mr.
Hardin had to justify the variance request. Cindy Dawson, of the
City Attorney's Office, noted that there should be circumstances
unique to the property for the Board to consider a variance
request.
William Ruck commented that Mr. Hardin did inherit a hardship due
to the house's existing reduced side yard. He stated that the
K
Api24, 2000
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
Board must make a judgement call whether it is reasonable to
extend that hardship when the neighboring property owner feels
that the house is already too close.
A motion was made to approve the variance request as submitted,
with the conditions proposed by staff. The motion failed with a
vote of 1 aye, 3 noes and 1 absent.
A motion was then made to expunge the previous vote. The motion
passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
Norm Floyd asked Mr. Hardin if he would agree to a 3.3 foot side
yard setback for the new addition with a proposed bay window in
the existing house having a 2.2 foot side yard setback. Mr.
Hardin responded that he would.
A motion was then made to approve a setback variance to allow the
new addition to have a 3.3 foot side yard setback, to align with
the existing house, and to allow a bay window on the existing
house with a side yard setback of not less than 2.2 feet subject
to compliance with the following conditions:
1. Guttering is to be installed on the west side of the
addition.
2. The eave/overhang on the west side of the addition is not to
come closer to the property line than the existing
eave/overhang of the house.
The motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
4
Api_. 24, 2000
Item No.: 6
File No.:
Z-6843
Owner:
William B. and Genie J. Sigler
Revocable Trust
Address:
129 Normandy Road
Description:
Lots 105 and 106, Normandy Addition
Zoned:
R-2
Variance Requested:
Variances are requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-254 and the building line
provisions of Sections 31-12 to
permit an addition with reduced
side and rear yard setbacks and
which crosses a platted building
line.
Justification:
Applicant's Statement: This
request for variance will allow me
to construct a one story,
downstairs bedroom and bath on a
two story, single family residence.
We have lived in this house for
twenty-four years and look forward
to remaining there in retirement.
A downstairs bedroom is becoming a
necessity as stairs get more
difficult to climb.
The lot provides adequate space for
this room addition and there will
remain a good deal of separation
between me and the adjacent
residences.
Present Use of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family
Api __L 24, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 129 Normandy Road is
occupied by a two-story, brick and frame, single-family
residence. The applicants propose to construct a one-story
master bedroom suite onto the rear of the house. The new
addition will have a side yard setback of 6.5 feet and a
rear yard setback of 21 feet. The Code requires side and
rear yard setbacks of 8 feet and 25 feet respectively for
this lot. A 35 foot building line extends across the rear
of the property. The proposed addition is to extend across
the building line which may require a variance.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The 1.5
foot side yard and 4 foot rear yard variances are both very
minor and should have no impact on adjacent properties.
There remains good separation between the addition and the
residences on the lots to the south and east. The property
has a 20 foot front building line but the existing house has
a front yard setback of 37 feet. If the house were actually
located at the front building line, no rear yard variance
would be necessary.
As was previously mentioned, the property has a 35 foot
building line across the rear. A portion of the existing
house and the proposed addition are located across this
building line. Staff believes it is very likely that this
building line is an "out building" setback line. Such
setback lines were common in neighborhoods such as Normandy,
Crestwood and Edgehill to require that "out buildings" be
located at the rear of the lot. Zoning setback requirements
for accessory buildings now accomplish the same goal. The
survey, unfortunately, does not indicate this building line
specifically as an outbuilding setback line and staff must
treat the issue as a building line variance. 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 as approved by the Board. The applicant
should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's
office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
E
Api 24, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
Assurance. If the applicant can provide proof, prior to
requesting a building permit, that the building line is an
"out building" setback line, no replat is necessary.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and
building line variances subject to a one -lot replat (if
necessary as described above) reflecting the change in the
building line as approved by the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 24, 2000)
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 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3
Api_s 24, 2000
Item No.: 7
Name:
Address:
Scott Knoedl; Arkansas Stone
Importers
3817 Jack Mann Road
Type of Issue: Interpretative Request; is the
proposed building expansion an
expansion of this nonconforming
use?
Staff Report:
Arkansas Stone Importers, a marble supply and custom work company
is located on the R-2 zoned property at 3817 Jack Mann Road.
This nonconforming business has been in existence at this
location for approximately 10 years. The property is outside of
the city limits but is within the City's extraterritorial
jurisdiction. The jurisdiction line is literally across the
street from this site. Jack Mann Road is located south of
Colonel Glenn Road, 4.7 miles west of I-430. The subject
property is located on the east side of Jack Mann Road, .5 miles
south of Colonel Glenn Road. The applicant's property consists
of 12.02 acres containing 3 residential structures and a
commercial building housing the business. The applicant proposes
to add to the commercial building, providing additional storage
space for marble inventory which he states has been kept outside,
subject to the elements.
Section 36-153(a) of the code states:
(a) Expansions. A nonconforming use shall not be
extended, expanded, enlarged or increased in
intensity to any structure or land area other than
that occupied by such nonconforming use on the
effective date of this chapter, or any amendment
hereto which causes such use to become
nonconforming.
It is the applicant's contention that he is not extending,
expanding, enlarging or increasing the intensity of the
nonconforming use since the proposed addition is to cover an area
that is now used for the storage of materials and the addition is
to serve the same purpose.
The Board is asked to determine if the proposed addition is an
expansion, extension, enlargement or increase in intensity of
this nonconforming use.
Api--L 24, 2000
Item No.: 7 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 24, 2000)
The applicant, Scott Knoedl, was present. Staff presented the
item.
Mr. Knoedl stated that the proposed building was to provide cover
for pallets of marble and granite which he is currently storing
outside, under tarps.
William Ruck asked Mr. Knoedl if he was in any way changing the
way he was doing business. Mr. Knoedl responded that he was not,
that the building addition was for the sole purpose of covering
material that was currently being stored outside. Mr. Knoedl
stated that the material could be damaged by acid rain.
Mr. Ruck asked Mr. Knoedl if he was enlarging the business by
adding new products, more employees or creating a retail outlet.
Mr. Knoedl responded that he was not and reiterated that the only
use of the building would be to store pallets of material.
Mr. Ruck commented that in his opinion the proposed building
addition was not an expansion of the nonconforming use.
Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, pointed out the
provisions of Section 36-153 of the code.
Norm Floyd asked if any cutting or shaping of the material took
place in the building. Mr. Knoedl answered that all cutting is
done in Dallas, prior to shipment to his location.
Mr. Floyd commented that constructing a new building was in his
opinion an expansion of the nonconforming use. He noted that the
property was at the edge of the Extraterritorial Zoning
jurisdiction.
A motion was made to find that constructing the building
addition, for the purpose of storing materials which were
currently being stored outside, was not an expansion of a
nonconforming use. The vote was 3 ayes, 1 noes and 1 absent.
2
Api.- . 24, 2000
Item No.: 8
File No.: Z-6482
Name: Toll Corporation; Richard Toll
Address: Kanis and Rodney Parham Roads
Type of Issue: 4 month extension of previously
approved variances from the area
regulations of Section 36-320.
Variances initially approved on
April 27, 1998.
Staff Report:
On April 27, 1998, the applicant received Board of Adjustment
approval of a front yard setback variance to allow for
construction of a new 14,000 square foot office building on this
I-2 zoned property. The building has not yet been constructed.
The applicant has been negotiating with a tenant for lease of the
building and is concerned that it will not be possible to
consummate the lease agreement, design the building, draw the
plans and obtain the required permits by April 27, 2000.
Article IV, Section 2 of the Board of Adjustment Bylaws states:
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. Otherwise, the Board approval of the
application shall be considered void.
The applicant is requesting a 4 month extension of the Board's
approval, through August 27, 2000.
As of the date of this writing, the applicant had submitted a
request through building codes for a foundation permit. Other
permits, building, plumbing, electrical, etc... should be obtained
within 4 months.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the requested 4 month extension,
through August 27, 2000, subject to compliance with all
conditions noted in the April 27, 1998 Board minute record,
Z-6482.
r
Api24, 2000
Item No.: 8 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 24, 2000)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and recommended approval of the
requested 4 month time extension.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
2
Corporation
p,C. Box 21840 * Little Rack, Arkansas 72221-1640 * (501) 221-3224
MEMORANDUM 212/00
FAX # 371-6663
TO; MR, DANA CARNY, BOARD SECRETARY, L.R. CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FROM: RICHARD TOLL, TOLL CORPORATION
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATE OF ZONING
VARIANCE GRANTED 4/27/98, IN THE MATTER OF ZONING CASE FILE # Z-6482
WE ARE NEGOTIATING WITH A TENANT FOR LEASE OF A BUILDING TO BE
CONSTRUCTED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND EXPECT TO CONSUMMATE
A CONTRACT SOON. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE BOARD ACTION
ALLOWING THE VARIANCES EXPIRES IN 2 YEARS FROM DATE OF GRANTING
WHICH IS LESS THAN 3 MONTHS FROM NOW, IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT IF
NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSUMMATE THE LEASE AGREEMENT, DESIGN THE
INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING TO MEET THE TENANT'S NEEDS, DRAW THE
COMPLETED PLANS, AND APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE A BUILDING PERMIT BY
APRIL 27, 2000.
I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE IT IF THE BOARD WOULD EXTEND THE
EXPIRATION DATE FOUR MONTHS HENCE WHICH WOULD BE UNTIL AUGUST
27, 2000. WILL YOU PLEASE MAKE THIS REQUEST AND ADVISE ME OF
ANYTHING I NEED TO DO IN THE MATTED. WOULD APPRECIATE CONFIRMATION
THAT YOU RECEIVED THIS FAX.
COPY: PAT MCGETRICK, ENC.
THANK YOU
��
TOLL CORPORATION
RICHARD TOLL
Z0'd ZSLT 5TZ TOS T=GI N0I1VH0dH00 ' q01 2Z:ST 00 -z0 -c0
l
Apri.L 27, 1998
Item No.• 5
File No.:
Z-6482
Owner•
Toll Corporation
Address:
NW corner of Kanis and Rodney
Parham Roads
Description:
Part of the SW 1/4, SW 1/4, Section
1, T -1-N, R -13-W, Little Rock
Zoned:
C-3 and I-2
Variance Requested:
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-320
to permit construction of a new
building with reduced setbacks.
Justification:
The proposed setback is not out of
character with other development on
the site. The reduced setback is
for only one small corner of the
building and should have no impact
on adjacent properties.
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report•
A. Public Works Issues:
2,080 square foot restaurant and
45,000 square foot office/warehouse
2,080 square foot restaurant and
45,000 square foot office/warehouse,
with addition of 14,000 square foot
office building.
1. The minimum Finish Floor elevation of 315 is required to
be shown on plat and grading plans.
2. Rushing Circle is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
collector street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
3. Rodney Parham Road is listed on the Master Street Plan
as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45
feet from centerline is required.
4. Driveways shall conform to Section 31-210 or Ordinance
16,577.
5. Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current
ADA standards.
6. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that
is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
i
April 27, 1998-
Item
998_
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
7. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
8. Obtain permits (barricade/street cut) for improvements
within proposed or existing right-of-way from Traffic
Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way.
9. Construct sidewalks along Rushing Circle.
10. Reduce width of eastern driveway on Kanis Road frontage
to 27 feet. Reduce width of driveway on Rodney Parham
Road frontage to 30 feet.
B. Staff Analysis:
The 4.53 acre tract at the northwest corner of Kanis and
Rodney Parham Roads is currently occupied by a 2,080 square
foot restaurant building and a 45,000 square foot
office/warehouse building. The applicant proposes to add a
one story, 14,000 square foot office building to the site.
The overall site consists of three tracts, combined into a
single zoning lot or development. The eastern end of the
site, where the restaurant is located, is zoned C-3. The
remainder of the site is zoned I-2. The proposed new
building will straddle the C -3/I-2 zoning line. The
building will have a front yard setback of 25 feet from
Rodney Parham. Since a point of the I-2 zoning comes to
Rodney Parham, it was determined that a 50 foot front yard
setback was required. The proposed building meets or
exceeds all other required setbacks.
Staff believes the proposal to be reasonable. The
encroachment into the front yard setback involves only a
corner of the building and should have no effect on other
properties. The combined uses require 116 on-site parking
spaces. 211 are provided. The proposed building is to be
located on a grassy knoll between the two existing
buildings. This same site was previously occupied by a
grocery store several years ago.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 27, 1998)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. One
telephone call of objection had been received from Jane Rogers,
owner of 1119 Rushing Circle. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval subject to compliance with Public
Works Comments and the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
2
l
April 27, 1998
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
The applicant noted that the required right-of-way dedication
for Rodney Parham would go through the middle of the restaurant.
Tad Borkowski, of Public Works, stated that the dedication
requirement for Rodney Parham would be deferred until the
restaurant building is removed. There were no additional
comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
KI
LYS
O
U
W
w
t -
O
W
U)
a
LL
O
0
e
O
m
W
^0
W
F
0
0)
�C
^W
W
0
A
Q
CO
m
Q
z
W
U)
m
Q
0
W
Q
z
Li
W
Q
0
O
Z
w
L
(�
D
J
W
m
�0<<zU
>-
Q
(D=
Y
LL
0
Q
U_
C�
Ir
-
W
^0
W
F
0
0)
�C
^W
W
0
A
Q
CO
m
Q
z
W
U)
m
Q
0
W
Q
z
Li
W
Q
0
April 24, 2000
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
Date: 22Mao zo?x)
Chairm�n