boa_06 26 2000LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
JUNE 26, 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 May 22, 2000 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: Gary Langlais, Chairman
William Ruck, Vice Chairman
Norm Floyd
Fred Gray
Members Absent: Scott Richburg
City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
JUNE 26, 2000
2:00 P.M.
DEFERRED ITEM
A. Z-6855 5500 Pinnacle Valley Road
II. VARIANCE ITEMS
1.
Z -6689-C
300
East Markham Street
2.
Z -6713-A
5300
Edgewood Road
3.
Z-6852
1903
N. Tyler Street
4.
Z-6856
14900
Gorgeous View Trail
5.
Z-6858
7211
"N" Street
6.
Z-6865
5301
Kavanaugh Blvd.
7.
Z-6866
Mabelvale
West
8.
Z-6867
5123
Edgewood Road
9.
Z-6868
1212
West 11th Street
10.
Z-6869
5318
Centerwood Road
11.
Z-6870
1123
Kavanaugh Blvd.
12.
Z-6871
#9 Longfellow Lane
13.
Z-6872
5418
Asher Avenue
III. OTHER MATTERS
14. Interpretative Request U -Haul
0
0
0
• �
O
`����///
r /1
�
_
nnvelHi
3�d
a3lZtlai
M
`- J
VJ
Z
o WW
W
U
U
y
M
I_
_
a
r�
NIYW
AVMOVONS HOatl
c�
31SIHO
ONIN In
OHM
_
x
MOa000M
3NId
S
(0
e
3NId �
O NO111MY 11005
�
s
�
ulsa
tj
aavd a1tl3
� ulsa3nwn
�o
.�
� �
SONIN aM3s
(� j
s31anH
LO
,�� alOha3S3a
MO HV9 NW
3
�
3NN13H
Oa 3l
o aao33lNavHs �
SMYS
� a N
J
O
�—n
&
wvHard A3N008
NV OB
—
Al
VJ
UU)
J
z
S11WIl A110
3001a AWN
• E
�t
0
Je
in
U
a
NVnmlls
iwm31S
4
m
Q
jn� 31VONNB
Junes 26, 2000
Item No.: A
File No.: Z-6855
Owner: Daniel Clayton
Address: 5500 Pinnacle Valley Road
Description: Lot "A", Berg Subdivision
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-254 and the building line
provisions of Section 31-12 to
permit a reduced front yard
setback.
Justification: The house is existing. The survey
used to construct the house
incorrectly indicated the building
line measured from the previous
right-of-way and did not account
for right-of-way dedication.
Present Use of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
A one-story, brick and frame, single family residence has
recently been constructed on the R-2 zoned property located
at 5500 Pinnacle Valley Road. The home was built with a
front yard setback of 15± feet and has been built across a
35 foot platted building line. The Code requires a 25 foot
front yard setback in the R-2 district. Variances are
requested to accommodate the existing residence.
Jun- 26, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.)
The hardship presented for the variances is obvious in that
the only other option is to remove a portion of the
residence. This .75 acre lot was platted in 1998 when an
11.76 acre tract was subdivided into 2 lots. Pinnacle
Valley Road is classified by the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial street and a 20 foot right-of-way dedication
was required to bring the right-of-way to 45 feet from the
centerline. Section 31-256(2) requires residential lots
fronting on a minor arterial street to have a building line
of not less than 35 feet from the right-of-way line. The
preliminary plat and the final plat for this lot were
approved with the appropriate right-of-way and building
line. Subsequently, a building permit was applied for to
construct a single family residence on the lot. The survey
submitted for the building permit was prepared by a
different firm than that one which prepared the plat.
Unbeknownst to all parties, the survey submitted for the
building permit measured all setbacks and the 35 foot
building line from the old right-of-way and did not take
into account the additional 20 feet of right-of-way
dedication. All clearances, permits and inspections were
made based on the erroneous survey. The error was not
discovered until after the house was constructed and an as -
built survey was prepared. Fortunately, only a relatively
small portion of the house is built across the platted
building line. The home's garage is located behind the
building line and is side -loaded, so that vehicles do not
back directly out of the structure into the right-of-way.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the
applicant will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the
change in the building line. The applicant should review
the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to
determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback, and
building line variances subject to a one -lot replat
reflecting the change in the building line as approved by
the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 22, 2000)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had not completed the
E
C
Junes 26, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.)
required notices and had requested that the item be deferred to
the June 26, 2000 meeting.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
June 26, 2000 meeting. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2000)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested
deferral to the July 31, 2000 meeting due to ongoing discussions
between the builder, engineer and property owner.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
July 31, 2000 meeting with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3
Junes 26, 2000
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:
Melissa Tanner/Vesta's
300 East Markham
Part of Block 35, Original City
GB
A variance is requested from the
sign provisions of Section 36-
353(a) to permit a sign which does
not conform to the River Market
Design Overlay District Guidelines.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Retail
Retail
No issues related to this sign variance.
B. Staff Analysis:
This issue is before the Board as the result of action by
the Code Enforcement staff. Vesta's is a retail business
located in the recently remodeled building at 300 East
Markham Street. The site is located in the River Market
District. Vesta's occupies the corner of the building with
frontage on East Markham and Cumberland Streets. Vesta's
has been placing a small, easel -mounted sign within the
portico (recessed entry) of the business. The River Market
District Design Overlay regulations specifically address
allowable signage. The Overlay regulates the number,
location and appearance of signs within the District. The
easel sign does not conform to district standards. Signage
is specifically limited to walls and awnings within the
District. Free standing signage is not permitted.
Junes: 26, 2000
Item No.: 1 (Cont.
The sign is approximately 2' X 3' in size and is placed upon
an easel. The applicant states the sign will only be placed
out during business hours and will be placed in the portico
so that it does not obstruct the sidewalk. The sign will be
used to show that the store is open, to advertise River
Market events and to advertise store specials.
The River Market Design Review Committee voted to allow the
sign subject to three conditions:
1. The sign is not to be placed in the right-of-way.
2. The sign is to only be placed outside during normal
working hours.
3. The sign is not to advertise prices of items.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variance to allow
the sign. Although the sign is within the portico (recessed
entry) of the building, it is still a temporary sign.
Temporary signs are not permitted in the City without a
special event permit. Staff is concerned that the precedent
which could be set by allowing this sign could lead to a
proliferation of similar signs in the area. On December 27,
1999, this applicant appeared before the Board with an
application for multiple sign variances for sign size,
lettering size, illumination and to have a total of 5 signs.
Each business is limited to no more than 3 signs in the
River Market District. The Board approved some, but not
all, of the variances requested. The Board did approve the
request to have 5 signs. This proposed easel sign would
bring that total to 6 signs, 3 more than permitted in the
District. Vesta's now has as much, if not more, signage
than other businesses in the District.
The Purpose and Intent section of the River Market District
Design Overlay states, in part:
"Buildings, signs, street furnishings and
landscaping should all be designed to
complement and encourage pedestrian use during
the day and at night. Careful planning is
necessary to ensure the proper placement of
such items to avoid visual clutter.
Visual clutter is not a major problem in the
district at present, but good planning
anticipates and prepares for future problems,
N
Juno 26, 2000
Item No.: 1 (Cont.
especially in consideration of positive
economic development. Guidelines and
strategies must be in place to protect the
district from the negative impact of poorly
planned or incompatible projects.
Incompatible development has the potential to
destroy the attributes which will attract
people to the district."
It is staff's opinion that the proposed sign violates the
purpose and intent of the River Market District.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2000)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested
deferral of the item due to a death in her family. The required
notices had not been completed.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
July 31, 2000 meeting with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3
2-6679-C
Toes t a s
Friday, May 19, 2000
City of Little Rock, Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Requestfor Zoning Variance (Sign)
This application is fora variance to place a sign within the portico of the entrance of Vesta's Gifts
at 300 East Markham in The River Market District.
The proposed sign is approximately 2 feet by 3 feet and is placed upon an easel.
The sign will only be placed during business hours.
The entrance portico was specifically designed to accommodate such a sign without obstructing
the sidewalk.
The sign will be used to 1)show that the store is open; 2)advertise River Market events; and
3)advertise store specials.
Although the River Market District has been open for several years, it is only recently that
retailers have opened stores in the area. This sign is essential to advertise that the store is now open and
no longer a warehouse.
I believe that such portable signs that are not obstructing the sidewalk, are of modest size, and not
electrical or automated are within the spirit and decor of this area.
Sincerely,
Melissa Tanner, Owner
-%leCissa Z"anner, Owner Soo East .Markham River Narket LittCe Rock, AR. 72201
z- 6 G Fq -C—
River
C_River GregHai-t,Chairman
Market Larry Jacimore, Member
Design Frank Porbeck, Member
Review Don Renshaw, Member
Committee 1.
Christie Godwin, Member
Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock • Arkansas • 72201.501-371-4790 • fax 371-6863
June 12, 2000
Mr. Langlais, Chairman
Board of Adjustment
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Chairman Langlais and Board Members,
The River Market Design Review Committee (DRC) has met and discussed the temporary sign for
`Vesta's' at 300 East Markham. The DRC feels that it would be appropriate to allow Ms. Tanner to
place a temporary sign in her vestibule to advertise events in the River Market District and to
advertise any specials in her store. The DRC did place three conditions on their recommendation: the
sign is not to be placed in the right of way, the sign is only to be placed outside during normal
working hours, and the sign is not to advertise prices of items (ie. "shirts $9.99" not allowed, but
"shirts on sale" would be allowed.
The DRC members look forward to working with the Board of Adjustment members on protecting
the visual integrity of the district.
Shawn Spencer
DRC Staff
Jun.- 26, 2000
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 -6713-A
Wayne Moore/Ellen Yeary, Architect
5300 Edgewood Road
Lots 102, 131 and 132,
Prospect Terrace #2
R-2
Variances are requested from
the area provisions of Section
36-254 to permit construction of
additions with reduced side and
rear yard setbacks.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at 5300 Edgewood Road is
occupied by a two-story, rock, frame and stucco, single-
family residence. The property consists of three lots at
the northwest corner of Edgewood Road and Harrison Street
(Lots 102, 131 and 132 Prospect Terrace #2). The house is
currently being remodeled. The applicant proposes to
construct two additions onto the house. A large addition on
the west side is to contain a one-story exercise room and a
one and one-half story, two -car garage. This addition is
proposed to have a rear yard setback ranging from 3-4 feet.
The Code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet. The
second addition is a one-story expansion of the family room.
Jur, 26, 2000
Item No.: 2 (Cont.
This second addition will result in a side yard setback of 3
feet. The code requires a side yard setback of 7.5 feet.
Staff has concerns about the proposed expansions and the
requested setback variances. The existing house now has a
rear yard setback ranging from .8-1.8 feet. Allowing the
large exercise/garage addition to have a reduced rear yard
of 3-4 feet virtually lines the entire rear lot line with
structure. The property has a 20 foot platted building line
on Edgewood and the addition is proposed to have a front
yard setback of 33 feet. Moving the proposed addition to
the building line will provide a rear yard setback of 16-17
feet, creating some open space along the rear lot line and
reducing the impact on the adjacent lot (Lot 103). The
impact on that adjacent lot is further exacerbated by the
reduced side yard setback created by the proposed den
expansion. The full complement of additions proposed by the
applicant will result in nearly 90 feet of structure located
with .8-4 feet of the common lot lines between the
applicant's property and the adjacent Lot 103. Although it
cannot truly be said that the applicant is overbuilding the
property, because of the amount of open space available on
the remainder of his 3 lots, staff believes he is
overbuilding in a critical setback area which could result
in a negative impact on the adjacent property.
On July 26, 1999, the Board approved a rear yard setback
variance for this lot allowing what was an existing garage
to be connected to the main house with an addition which had
a rear yard setback of 4 feet. The proposed addition was
relatively minor in the scope of things. The existing
garage had a rear yard setback of .8-1.8 feet. A copy of
that previous action is attached.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested rear and side yard
setback variances as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2000)
The applicants, Ellen Yeary and Wayne Moore, were present. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of denial.
Ellen Yeary addressed the Board in support of her application.
She presented plans of the proposed additions. Ms. Yeary
F%
Jun 26, 2000
Item No.: 2 (Cont.)
described the addition as being one story in height with a low
eave line which would reduce the visual impact of the reduced
setback. She presented a letter from Mike and Robin Smith,
owners of the abutting the property at 5305 Centerwood. In that
letter the Smiths voiced their preference for the reduced setback
proposed by the applicants rather than having the addition moved
away from the rear property line as proposed by staff.
In response to a question from Fred Gray, Mr. Moore stated that
he had met with the owner of the property directly west of this
site and that person voiced no objection to the proposal. Ms.
Yeary commented that there was a large amount of vegetation
between this site and the property to the west. She noted that
the proposed addition did not intrude upon the required side yard
setback adjacent to the property on the west.
In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Ms. Yeary stated that
the proposed courtyard was an important issue to the new owners,
as they have small children and want to provide a safe play area.
Fred Gray asked Mr. Moore if he felt this would be the last
variance requested for the property. Mr. Moore deferred to the
new owners who indicated that their answer was yes.
Due to a lack of a motion, the Chairman called the question on
the application, as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of
3 ayes, 1 noe and 1 absent.
3
Z-6,713 -,1
Yeary Lindsey Architects
May 25, 2000
Mr. Dana Carney
Department of Planning & Development
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: 5300 Edgewood Road
Dear Mr. Carney,
We are requesting a zoning variance for reduced side and rear yard setbacks at 5300 Edgewood
Road.
We are proposing construction of a new one and one-half story two -car garage to the west of the
existing two story residence. This new garage front will align with the front (south) elevation of
the main house, parallel with Edgewood Road. A variance from the rear yard setback will be
necessary to facilitate construction of a single story exercise room to be built behind the garage,
which will link the garage to the existing house. The minimum distance from this new
construction to the north rear yard property line will now be three feet.
We are also proposing a one-story extension of the existing family room six feet to the north.
This extension would require a reduced side yard setback of 3'-0" from the west property line to
the corner of the new addition. An uncovered concrete stoop is planned to link the backyard
pool area to a mudroom next to the family room. This stoop will occur in the three foot space
between the fence and the new den extension.
Thank you for your serious consideration of this variance application.
Sincerely,
Ellen Yeary, A
319 E. Markham, Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-5940 PX: 501-707-0118
July 26, 1999
Item No.: 12
File No..
Owner:
Address:
Z-6713
Wayne Moore
5300 Edgewood Road
Description:
Lot 102, 131 and 132 Prospect
Terrace No. 2
Zoned:
R-2
Variance Requested:
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
to permit construction of an
addition with a reduced rear yard
setback.
Justification:
Applicant's Statement: We are
requesting a zoning variance at
5300 Edgewood to allow an
encroachment into the rear yard
Iftft
setback of lot 131 and into the
sideyard setback of lot 132. We
are proposing a 2 foot extension of
the existing den structure to the
north, conversion of an existing
stone and stucco garage structure
into a heated and cooled playroom,
and a 2 story connector piece to
link new playroom to the existing
house. The "link" piece will
include laundry and mudroom areas
on the first floor and master
bedroom/bath area at the second
floor. A stoop to the north of the
"link" will be necessary to access
the existing backyard. This stoop
will come within 18 inches of the
north property line at lot 131 and
may be constructed of concrete if
necessary.
The existing house is considered a
neighborhood landmark and the new
owners plan to remodel and update
Juiy 26, 1999
Item No.: 12 (Cont.
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
the house while taking care to
maintain its existing architectural
character. Our proposed 2 story
addition will allow the owners to
utilize an existing structure by
connecting it to the main house.
The location of this new connector
piece is such that it will impact
the existing elevations in the
least intrusive way. Our goal is
to construct this new piece in a
way that will look as if it has
always been a part of the original
house.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at 5300 Edgewood Road is
occupied by a large, two-story, rock and frame, single-
family residence with a detached two story garage/carport
structure. The property consists of three lots which front
onto Edgewood, Harrison and Centerwood. The applicants
propose to substantially remodel the home including removing
the carport, converting the garage into storage and a
playroom and constructing an addition which will connect the
house to the garage. The new two story addition will
contain laundry and mudroom areas on the first floor and
master bedroom/bath area on the second floor. The existing
garage structure has a rear yard setback of .8 feet. The
new connection between the house and garage will have a rear
yard setback of 4 feet with a small porch coming within 18
inches of the rear property line. The code requires a rear
yard setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot.
K
Nd
July 26, 1999
Item No.: 12 (Cont.)
Staff is supportive of the requested setback variances. The
existing garage and house currently have reduced rear yard
setbacks of .8 feet and 6 feet respectively. Allowing the
new addition to "fill-in" the gap between these two
structures should not greatly increase any impact on
adjacent properties. The.home directly behind the garage
fronts onto Centerwood Road and appears to have a rear yard
setback exceeding 25 feet, providing adequate separation
between structures.
The proposed remodeling, including the removal of the
carport and a greenhouse structure should be an improvement
which will be of benefit to the neighborhood.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance
as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 26, 1999)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
Staff informed the Board that the notices were completed on
July 19, 1999, three days later than required by the Board's
bylaws. The notices were substantially completed in a timely
manner.
A motion was made to waive the Board's bylaws and to accept the
notices as completed by the applicant. The motion was approved
by vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The setback variance request was placed on the Consent Agenda and
approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
3
Jun- 26, 2000
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 Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-6852
Edwin Cromwell/Eugene Levy, Agent
1903 N. Tyler Street
Lot 18, Block 2, Englewood Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from
the area coverage provisions of
Section 36-156 to permit
construction of an accessory
building which exceeds the
allowable rear yard coverage.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at 1903 N. Tyler Street is
occupied by a one-story, frame, single-family residence and
a detached storage building. The home is in the process of
being remodeled and expanded by the new owner. The
applicant proposes to remove the dilapidated storage
building and build in its place a new 554 square foot
garage/storage building. The new structure occupies 42
percent of the lot's required rear yard. Section 36-156
states that accessory structures are not to occupy more than
30 percent of the required rear yard. The maximum allowed
structure for this lot is 375 square feet.
Jure 26, 2000
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The proposed
structure exceeds all required setbacks. Numerous
properties in this block have similar structures adjacent to
the alley, some of which are larger than that proposed by
the applicant. The 30 percent coverage rule, when applied
to the 50 foot wide lots in the City's mature area, does not
allow for construction of a typical 2 -car garage without a
variance. The 42 percent coverage proposed by the applicant
still leaves adequate open area at the rear of the lot.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested area coverage
variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2000)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. One
letter of support had been received from Robyn Zinser of 5305
Kavanaugh Blvd. 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 with a
vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
2
Edwin B. Cromwell
1720 Beechwood
Little Rock, AR 72207
April 28, 2000
Board of Adjustment
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Ref: 1903 North Tyler Street, Lot 18, Block 2, Englewood Addition, Little Rock, AR
Dear Sir:
We wish to request a zoning variance for subject property to allow a detached garage to
be constructed in the rear yard setback area against the existing alley. There is not
sufficient property in the backyard to locate a garage outside of the 25' rear yard setback
area.
There is precedence for this variance in that there are currently nine garage or carports on
the existing alley in this block, which are against the alley (and which are within the rear
yard 25' setback area). One of these garages is immediately next door to the north of my
property. In addition, there is an existing detached storage building in the area of the
proposed garage, which is to be removed to make way for the new garage.
Thus, this is replacement of an exiting structure with a slightly larger one.
Attached is a survey, which shoNASthe proposed location of the garage and also an
Application for Variance.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eugene P. Levy
Agent for Edwin B. Cromwell, P operty Owner
EPL/mh
Enc.
z`,zu,t /Lvz�k- 6`i��a S, Zvo
72 3
;f4 -7i�o i
4a,t� 4,,-k 4,'c
5'30,5— Ac;r4-r a
i
Jun, 26, 2000
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:
Bobby Makin
14900 Gorgeous View Trail
Lot 113, Spring Valley Manor
R-2
A variance is requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-156 to permit construction of an
accessory building with a reduced
front yard setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
14900 Gorgeous View Trail is located in Spring Valley Manor,
a residential subdivision at the City's western edge that
developed prior to its annexation in 1993. This R-2 zoned
lot currently contains a one-story, rock and frame, single
family residence. The house was constructed without a
carport or garage. The applicant proposes to construct a
16' X 261, open carport in front of the house. The carport
construction will match the house and the structure will be
connected to the house by an unenclosed, covered walkway.
The carport will have a front yard setback of 26 feet. The
code requires accessory structures to have a front yard
setback of at least 60 feet.
Jui._ 26, 2000
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
Staff is supportive of the requested setback variance. The
lot slopes down steeply from the street so that the ridge of
the house is actually below street grade. The house and
parking pad are constructed on terraces with about 5 feet of
difference in elevation, making it difficult to build the
carport as an attached addition to the house. If it was
practical to construct an addition onto the front of the
house, the addition could come to within 15 feet of the
front property line. Staff believes this proposed carport
will have no effect on neighboring properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested front yard
setback for the proposed unenclosed carport structure, as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 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 with a
vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
2
Z-6 r --6
May 24, 2000
Mr. Dana Carney, Zoning Administrator
Department of Planning & Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR
Re: Request for Zoning Variance
Dear Mr. Carney:
Attached is a completed Application for Zoning Variance for my residence at 14900
Gorgeous View Trail in Little Rock. I propose to construct a protective carport for my motor
vehicle.
The residence was originally constructed without a carport or garage and I am in need of a
structure to protect my truck from the weather, falling tree limbs and acorns, and birds. I
propose to construct an open carport on the existing concrete parking pad in front of the
house, with a covered walkway connecting them. Carport construction will match the
eAsting house. Attached is a partial copy of my contractor's proposal describing the
construction features.
The proposed location for the carport is the only feasible alternative due to the following
reasons:
1. The lot is steeply sloping from the front to the back. The parking pad and house are
constructed on terraces in stair step fashion with the pad elevation being about five feet
above the house floor. There is no practical way to attach a carport or garage directly to
the existing structure.
2. Access to the backyard is restricted due the following factors
a. The orientation of the house on the lot.
b. Along the west property line is a 5 -foot drainage and utility easement restricting
passage and construction of a drive. Also there are two large oak trees and one
sweet gum tree which further restrict passage.
c. Along the east property line is a 10 -foot utility easement restricting the construction
of retaining walls and dirt fill necessary to extend the drive into the backyard. (This
easement is not shown on the survey, but it was acquired about two years ago as a
part of the SID'S ongoing efforts to transfer ownership of the sewer collection system
to the Little Rock Wastewater Department.)
Please accept this application for review by your office and consideration by the Board of
Adjustment.
Sincerely,
Bobby Makin
14900 Gorgeous View Trail
Little Rock, AR 72210
Jur, _ 26, 2000
Item No.: 5
File No.: Z-6858
Owner: Michael C. Davis
Address: 7211 "N" Street
Description: Lot 4, Block 15, Riffel and
Rhoton's Forest Park Highlands
Addition
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
R-2
Variances are requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-254 to permit construction of a
carport addition with reduced front
and side yard setbacks.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at 7211 "N" Street is
currently occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single-
family residence. A free-standing, 10' X 20', detached
carport was previously located over the driveway in front of
the house. As part of the City project to widen and improve
"N" Street, the carport was removed and the applicant's
driveway was rebuilt. The slope of the driveway was changed
and the carport would have to be rebuilt to a taller height
to provide adequate vertical clearance for vehicles. The
street widening also eliminated the applicant's ability to
park a second vehicle on the driveway, behind the carport.
To replace the loss of the carport and the second, stacked
Jul— 26, 2000
Item No.: 5 (Cont.
parking space the applicant has proposed to construct a two -
car carport addition onto the front of the house. The
carport addition will result in a front yard setback of
4 feet and a side yard setback of 2 feet, less than the
25 foot front yard and 5 foot side yard setbacks required
for this lot.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. In truth,
the loss of the carport and the second, stacked parking
space was brought about by the City's street widening
project. The previous, detached carport had a front yard
setback of 1-2 feet, well below the 60 foot front yard
setback required for accessory structures. By making the
carport an addition to the house, a 4 foot setback is
provided in lieu of the 25 foot front yard requirement.
There are other homes on the street with similar carport
structures in the front yard, including the homes next door
and across the street from this site. The proposed 2 foot
side yard setback provides adequate room for installation of
guttering and a reduced eave. The carport should remain
open and unenclosed.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested front and side
yard setback variances subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1.The carport is to remain open and unenclosed on all sides
other than at the point it adjoins the house.
2. The eave/overhang on the east side of the carport is to
be limited to no more than 6 inches.
3. Guttering is to be installed on the east side of the
carport to prohibit water run-off onto the adjacent
property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 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. Staff informed the Board that, although
the notices appeared to be complete, they were completed late.
Approximately half of the notices were completed 9 days prior to
the Board meeting and the remainder were completed 6 days prior,
E
Jul.. 26, 2000
Item No.: 5 !Cont.
not 10 days as required by the Board's bylaws. After a brief
discussion, the Board determined that the notices were
substantially complete and a motion was made to waive the Bylaws
and to accept the notices. The motion was approved with a vote
of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The variance request was placed on the Consent Agenda and
approved as recommended by staff, including all conditions. The
vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to approve the item.
3
MICHAEL C. DAVIS
7211 "N" Street
Little Rock, AR 72207-6056
(501) 663-3737
May 4, 2000
Mr. Dana Carney
Zoning Administrator
Department of Planning & Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Regarding: Application for Residential Zoning Variance
Dear Sir,
I would appreciate consideration for a residential zoning variance for my property located at 7211
"N" Street, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Arkansas. "N" Street was formerly know as Texas
street.
My proposal is to replace an existing carport, of twenty(20) feet in length and ten(10) feet wide
with a carport of twenty(20) feet in length and eighteen(18) feet wide.
Our existing carport was removed to facilitate street reconstruction, and resolve drainage
problems. The removal of the existing carport provides adequate vertical vehicle clearance, and
the proper slope, for undercarriage vehicle clearance, due to the elevation of the street. The
existing carport, of twenty(20) feet in length and ten(10) feet wide exceeded the twenty-five(25)
feet offset from the street, required by ordinance. This carport was constructed prior to the
implementation of the ordinance. Our property offset from the street has decreased due to the
widening of the street. I am requesting a variance to widen the carport to eighteen(18) feet, and to
maintain the existing twenty(20) foot length, to park our two vehicles side by side, which can no
longer be parked vertically without extending into the street. I have received permission from the
adjacent property owner, Mr. Darin Hoover, for this variance.
Thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration, and invaluable assistance.
Sincerely,
Michael C. Davis
Permission for Driveway Entrance Flare
/ 72-6 7
I property owner of 42-e9 "N" Street, Little Rock,
Arkansas, arch 3, 2 0o, gi e Michael and Laverne Davis property owners of 7211 "N" Street,
Little Ro , Arkansas, permission to extend their driveway into the City of Little Rock's
property. I am permitting the entrance flare of the driveway of 7211 "N" Street to extend to the
electrical pole, located in the City of Little Rock's property and in front of the adjacent property
of -7289 "N" Street.
?267
Jus_ 26, 2000
Item No.: 6
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Z-6865
TC Real Estate Holdings, LLC/
James Williams, Architect
5301 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Description: Lot "A", Dunaway and Fowler's
Replat of Lots 12 and 13, Block 2,
Englewood Addition
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
MMI
Variances are requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-281, the on-site parking
provisions of Section 36-502 and
the buffer requirements of Section
36-522.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Vacant lot
Office Building
1. Harrison Street is classified on the Master Street Plan
as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required
at the corner of Harrison and Kavanaugh.
3. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master
Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned
development.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
5. Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current
ADA standards. (ramp shown is not acceptable).
Junes 26, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.
6. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant proposes to construct a new, 3 -story office
building on the 0-3 zoned lot located at 5301 Kavanaugh
Blvd. The lot is located at the southwest corner of
Kavanaugh Blvd. and N. Harrison Street. The lot is
currently vacant. The property was previously occupied by a
service station which had for the past several years been
used by a barber shop (Mackey's).
The applicant proposes to construct a 6,000 sq. ft. office
building with parking on the lower level and 2 floors of
offices above. The parking will be partially below grade,
reducing the height of the building above grade. A 6,000
sq. ft. office building requires 15 on-site parking spaces.
Seven spaces will be provided on-site, in the lower level
garage. The proposed building is to have side yard setbacks
of 2 feet on the east and 3 feet on the west. The Code
requires side yard setbacks of 10 feet in the 0-3 district.
The building has stairs in the front which come down to the
sidewalk and the main body of the building has a front yard
setback of 11.3 feet. The Code requires a front yard
setback of 25 feet. The stairs on the rear of the building
are set back from the rear property line 11 feet and the
main body of the building is set at 15 feet. The code
requires a rear yard setback of 15 feet. Zoning buffers of
6 feet in width are required on the east and south
perimeters. The applicant proposes buffer widths in these
areas of 2 feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances for this
innovative, in -fill development. Staff's support is based,
in great part;, on the nature of the Heights neighborhood.
The venerable heights Commercial district, particularly the
development on Kavanaugh Blvd., is typified by reduced
setbacks and parking. Staff believes this proposed
brownstone -style development would be compatible with and
complement the neighborhood.
The 0-3 zoned properties adjacent to the west are occupied
by two, one-story office buildings. These adjacent
buildings have reduced side yard setbacks of 3-5 feet and
are built to within 1-2 feet of the front property line.
Other than for the front stairs, the applicant's building
2
Jun'_ 26, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
will be set back 9-10 feet further from the front property
line than the adjacent buildings. The reduced side yard
setback on the west, adjacent to the other office buildings,
is comparable to setbacks between non-residential
developments in the area and should have no impact on the
adjacent property. The previous building which existed on
this site had a side yard setback of 3 feet on the west.
The proposed 11.3 ft. front yard setback is very typical of
nonresidential development in the Heights. Most of the
older commercial buildings and some of the newer development
have less front yard setback and are, in some cases, built
to the front property line. The street appeal of this
project, with the stairway, landscaping and a fountain
feature, will help to assure its compatibility with the
neighborhood.
The properties across Harrison Street, to the east, are
zoned R-2 and are occupied by single family homes. The
reduced setback of 2 feet on this side is a potential issue
of concern and treatment of this perimeter of the site is of
utmost importance. If it were not for the requirement to
dedicate 5 feet of the property for additional right-of-way
for Harrison Street, the building would have a 7 ft. side
yard setback on the east. The building will sit 17± from
the curb of the street. The street adds to the separation
between this proposed building and the homes to the east.
The applicant has proposed to heavily landscape the eastern
perimeter of the site, including the right-of-way between
the sidewalk and the street, to help mitigate the visual
impact of the reduced setback. The building fagade is
designed to present a pleasant appearance to the east.
The building is proposed to conform to the required 15 foot
rear yard setback with the exception of a required stairway.
The stairs extend 4 feet into the required setback. The
stairs are unenclosed and should have a minimal impact on
the adjacent property. The property to the south is
occupied by a single family home which fronts onto Harrison
Street. An access driveway, a 6 foot privacy fence and the
proposed 2 foot buffer separate the proposed building from
the adjacent residential property. The applicant has
proposed to plant trees in a number twice that required by
the Code in the area between the fence and the driveway to
help mitigate the impact of the reduced buffer and building
(stairway) setback.
3
Jun'_ 26, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
The issue of parking is a fairly difficult one to address in
the Heights in general and for this site in particular.
Very few businesses in the area have adequate on-site
parking, depending instead on available on -street parking
and a walking neighborhood populace. That concept seems to
work well for the commercial businesses; retail,
restaurants, etc. It is a different issue when addressing
an office use where employees might be expected to be on the
site 8 hours per day. This site is so small that it would
not be feasible to build an office building and to provide
surface parking. The applicant has taken the extraordinary
and expensive step of providing 7 parking spaces in the
lower level of the building itself. On street parking is
available on the south side of Kavanaugh Blvd. and on
Harrison Street directly adjacent to this property. That
on -street parking could provide space for 5-6 vehicles. The
total of on-site parking spaces and on -street parking
adjacent to the property appears to be 12-13 spaces. The
applicant is building the office building for his own use.
He owns a private investment company with a limited number
of employees and virtually no walk-in customer traffic.
The site was small to begin with, being only 5,000 sq. ft.
in area. The lot will be reduced to less than 4,500 sq. ft.
in area once the required right-of-way dedication is
accomplished on Harrison Street and at the corner. Staff
believes the applicant has designed a project which is
architecturally compatible with the neighborhood and which
does the best job possible of working within the constraints
of such a small site.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of
and parking variance subject
following conditions:
the requested setback, buffer
to compliance with the
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments
2. The eastern and southern perimeters of the site are to be
heavily landscaped as indicated on the architectural
rendering submitted by the applicant.
3. The building is to be designed in the style represented
in the architectural rendering submitted by the
applicant.
4
Jui._ 26, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.
I*93VAVawa3af`lk106
(JUNE 26, 2000)
James Williams and Geoffrey Tirman were present representing the
application. There were several objectors and one supporter
present. One letter of support, from Wesley Walls of 1915 N.
Harrison Street, had been received. Staff presented the item and
a recommendation of approval, subject to compliance with the
conditions noted in the "Staff Recommendation" above.
James Williams addressed the Board in support of his application.
He stated that he agreed with staff's recommendation and would
fully comply with the plans he submitted. Mr. Williams stated
that it was his intent to build a first class project. He stated
that the owner was a neighborhood resident who wanted his office
to be located near his home. Mr. Williams commented that the
owner had gone to great expense to provide on-site parking by
designing a building with garage parking.
Fred Gray asked what type of business was proposed for the site
and why there was no need for the required 15 parking spaces.
Geoffrey Tirman responded that his was a private money management
business with approximately 50 clients, 25 in the U.S. and 25
outside the country. He stated that he only had 5 clients in
Little Rock and never had more than 2-3 visitors per month come
to his office. Mr. Tirman stated that a total of 8 persons
worked in the office and 5 of those persons lived within walking
distance of the site. He stated most walk or bicycle to work and
that there might be 4 vehicles a day come to the office.
Fred Gray asked Mr. Tirman if he expected his business to expand.
Mr. Tirman responded that he stated his company in 1987 and since
that time the business had expanded only from 5 persons to the
current 8. He stated that he might hire one more analyst and one
more senior person.
Tim Hicks, of 1910 N. Harrison Street, spoke in opposition to the
item. He stated that he appreciated the applicant's efforts to
be sensitive to the neighborhood. Mr. Hicks stated that his
concern was allowing a 6,000 square foot office building to have
only 7 on-site parking spaces. He asked the Board to consider
future users of the building if this applicant moves on. Mr.
Hicks stated that he felt the building was too large for the
site.
In response to a question from Fred Gray, Mr. Hicks stated that
the typical neighborhood residence had two cars. He stated that
5
iu.__ 26, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
one car was typically parked on the street and one was parked on
the driveway.
Wooly Simmons, of 1912 N. Harrison Street, spoke in opposition.
He stated that he was concerned about the lack of parking and the
height of the building. Mr. Simmons stated that he felt the
proposed building was "out of scale" with nearby homes and
businesses.
Robynn Zinser, owner of the Chiropractic Clinic at 5305 Kavanaugh
Blvd., spoke in opposition. Ms. Zinser voiced concerns about the
lack of parking and the reduced side yard setback adjacent to her
property. She stated that the building which previously occupied
the site also had a reduced side yard but it was much smaller and
less imposing. Ms. Zinser asked that the building be moved
further away from the west lot line. She also expressed concern
about possible damage that might occur to her building as a
result of excavation on the applicant's property. Ms. Zinser
acknowledged that her own building had setbacks less than those
required by Code but she stated that the impact is less since her
building is much smaller than that proposed by the applicant.
Ms. Zinser also expressed concern that the driveway on the south
side of the applicant's property be maintained as an access
easement to provide access to the parking lot on her property.
She also expressed concern about vehicles parking on Harrison
Street and traffic congestion in general.
In response to a question from Fred Gray, Ms. Zinser stated that
she had 4 parking spaces behind her building. She stated that
hers was a low traffic generating business and that she employed
only one person besides herself.
Ms. Zinser had previously expressed concerns about the loss of
light and privacy created by the proposed building. William Ruck
asked her to describe the type of windows she had on the east
side of her building. Ms. Zinser responded that the windows were
long and horizontal, along the top of the wall.
In response to a question from Fred Gray, Ms. Zinser stated that
she had an office, 2 patient rooms and a bathroom without windows
located along the east side of her building.
Mica Strother, of 1910 N. Harrison, spoke in opposition. She
stated that she felt the building was too large for the lot and
that it should be reduced in size, consequently reducing the
parking requirement. Ms. Strother commented that there would be
C
Ju%._ 26, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
rainy days when everyone would drive to the office, rather than
walk or bicycle as suggested by the applicant.
Scott Johnson, of 1919 N. Harrison, spoke in opposition. He
stated that he also was concerned about the lack of parking and
the size of the proposed structure.
Jim Pfeifer, Ms. Zinser's husband, stated that he endorsed the
previous comments by his wife and neighbors. He stated that
parking was too tight in the neighborhood.
Wesley Walls, of 1915 N. Harrison, spoke in support of the item.
Mr. Walls stated that he moved to the Heights because he liked
the mixed use neighborhood with offices, residences and
commercial uses in close proximity. Mr. Walls stated that he
thought the proposed building was architecturally pleasing and
would fit in the neighborhood. He stated that he felt the
concept of a single -tenant office building was attractive and the
proposed use should be considered as a good alternative to urban
sprawl. He stated that he appreciated urban infill development.
James Williams stated that there was a 10 foot access easement
across the rear of the property and the applicant would work with
his neighbors to address their concerns about continued access
off of Harrison Street (the site plan did not show an access
easement but the presence of the easement was confirmed by a
survey). Mr. Williams surmised that the high cost of land in The
Heights required this type of high quality development. He
stated that the applicant had tried to be sensitive to the
neighborhood in designing the building. In response to a
question, Mr. Williams stated that the west elevation of the
building was a mirror image of the east elevation, with the
exception of the 1st floor which would have no windows.
Norm Floyd stated he was concerned about the radius of the
driveway entering the garage. He surmised that if it was too
difficult to use the garage, people would park on the street.
Mr. Williams responded that the garage door was wide enough to
address that concern. Mr. Williams stated that reducing the
building in size would eliminate the garage, since it would then
be too small to provide required parking and maneuvering room.
Geoffrey Tirman stated that the entry to the garage would be
gated and would only be open to allow access and egress. Mr.
Tirman stated that his was a good use of a small, difficult site.
He reiterated his contention that his business would generate
very little traffic. He stated that he was trying to do a
7
f �
Jun= 26, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
quality development and was attempting to address parking
concerns. In response to a question regarding building a 6,000
square foot structure for 8 employees, Mr. Tirman described other
use areas in the building other than the offices for each
employee. He stated the building would also contain a conference
room, library, computer room, restroom, kitchen and breakroom.
Fred Gray asked Mr. Tirman if he could reduce the building to one
story in height and 3,000 square feet in area, thus reducing the
parking requirement. Mr. Tirman responded that such a proposal
would cause all of his parking to be on -street and that small of
a building would not meet his needs.
William Ruck asked Mr. Tirman if he had approached the property
owner to the south about purchasing that lot for additional
parking. Mr. Tirman responded that he had not but that he had
approached the owner of the property adjacent to the west. Mr.
Tirman stated that the property to the west was cost prohibitive.
Gary Langlais stated that he felt the proposal was admirable
infill development that was actually increasing the parking
capacity in the area.
A motion was made to approve the requested variances subject to
compliance with the conditions recommended by staff. The motion
was approved with a vote of 3 ayes, 1 noe and 1 absent.
8
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
The applicant is planning to build an office building for his own use. He owns a private
investment company and would relocate his existing offices to this building.
With the small size of the original lot and the required reduction in size due to the
additional 5' right-of-way dedication, it is nearly impossible to build an office and have on
site parking. The applicant is asking to adjust the Harrison Street setback from 15' to 2',
the sideyard from 10' to 3', the rear yard can be maintained at 15', and the front yard
setback (Kavanaugh) reduced from 25' to 11'.
In order to provide off-street parking the owner is constructing 7 enclosed parking spaces
beneath the building . It is estimated that a maximum of 15 spaces could be required for
this building, therefore a variance is also being asked to the parking requirement.
It should also be pointed out that the building which existed on this site previously was
only 3.4', from the sideyard property line and its entry canopy was setback only 8' from the
front property line and 3' from the new Harrison Street property line.
This lot, though zoned 0-3, was originally 5,000 sq.ft. but with the right-of-way dedication
the area will now be 4500 sq.ft. Minimum lot size for new 0-3 development is 14,000 sq.ft.
and the minimum lot width is 100'. Because of this large discrepancy in size and
dimension, typical 0-3 requirements are impractical to apply to this lot.
Junc 26, 2000
Item No.: 7
File No.: Z-6866
Owner: Larry and Martha Cross, Robert
and Carolyn Ashcraft, Ray and Mary
Cross/William Putnam, Agent
Address: North side of Mabelvale West Road,
west of its intersection with
Darris Drive
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Long Legal
O-3
A variance is requested from
the floodway provisions of Article
IV, of Chapter 8 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Little
Rock.
It is the applicant's contention
that the flood insurance rate map
is incorrect, that this property is
not in the floodway.
Vacant
Potential future development of
retail store
1.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
29-186(b) will be required with building permit.
2. A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 8-283
will be required with building permit.
3. Show floodway/floodplain on site plan/base flood
elevation and site contours at 2 feet increments.
4. Calculate runoff and upstream flow for 100 -year storm as
outlined in May 5, 2000 letter to Mr. Ken Harper on same
subject.
5. Design on-site structures to accommodate 100 -year flow as
outlined in May 5, 2000 letter.
Jun _ 26, 2000
Item No.: 7 (Cont.
6. Mabelvale Pike is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet
from centerline is required. Right-of-way radius at
curve, 600 feet at centerline.
7. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master
Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned
development.
8. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
9.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
B. Staff Analysis:
An undeveloped 5.23± acre, 0-3 zoned tract is located on the
north side of Mabelvale West Road, west of its intersection
with Darris Drive. The Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
Panel No. 050181-0021E dated November 3, 1993 shows portions
of the property to lie within the regulatory floodway.
Section 8-305(a) of the Code prohibits development in the
floodway unless a professional engineer certifies that the
development will not result in an increase in base flood
elevations. The applicant is in the early stages of
possible development of the land. Any potential development
is affected by the floodway designation. It is the
applicant's contention that the flood map is incorrect and
that this property should not be designated floodway.
The City's Public Works Department has been reviewing this
issue for some time. Public Works agrees that this site
should probably not be designated floodway due to the small
drainage basin which flows through the site and the
realignment of Mabelvale Pike/Mabelvale West Road. Public
Works will support a "conditional variance" based upon the
applicant providing the required hydrologic study and Corps
of Engineers permits prior to the issuance of any
development/building permits for the site.
A copy of the FIRM panel and a letter from Public Works to
the applicant is attached.
The property is currently zoned 0-3. The applicant is
proposing a commercial development. This Board of
Adjustment Action does not include a review of the site plan
nor is it an endorsement of the required rezoning. Those
are issues to be resolved by the Planning Commission and
Board of Directors.
K
Junes.: 26, 2000
Item No.: 7 (Cont.)
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of a conditional variance subject
to compliance with Public Works Comments, including these
outlined in the May 5, 2000 letter from Public Works to Ken
Harper.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000)
The applicant, William Putnam, was present. There was one
concerned neighborhood resident present. Steve Haralson,
Environmental Compliance Engineer with Public Works, presented
the issue. Mr. Haralson presented a copy of the FEMA map
indicating flood hazard areas. He surmised that this property
should not be designated floodway. He stated that the upper
1,000 feet of the drainage way (north of this site) serve as a
holding area for Nash Creek. Mr. Haralson stated that the
drainage basin that flows into this area is less than that area
typically regulated by FEMA.
William Ruck asked Mr. Haralson if he had done a study of the
drainage area at full development and determined that there would
be no problems. Mr. Haralson responded that he had and
development of the site would be designed to accommodate a 100
year flood. Norm Floyd asked how drainage went under Mabelvale
West Road. Mr. Haralson responded that there were culverts under
the road bed.
William Putnam presented aerial photographs and discussed the
drainage pattern in the area. He stated that Nash Creek was the
major drainage -way in the area.
Ann Schweitzer, owner of the property at 10117 Nash Lane, stated
that she was neither for nor against the item, that she only
wanted assurances that development on this site would not affect
how water flows across her property. She stated that development
in the area had increased the speed at which water flowed across
her property.
Mr. Haralson briefly discussed the City's Stormwater Management
regulations. He stated that features would be designed into the
development to assure that water flow is not increased in either
speed or volume. He stated that those features would hold the
water on the site and control the speed at which it leaves the
site.
3
Jun- 26, 2000
Item No.: 7 (Cont.
A motion was made to approve the variance subject to compliance
with the condition recommended by staff. The motion was approved
with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
4
t
urc�
City of Little Rock
Department of
Public Works
Via Regular Mail
May 5, 2000
Mr. Ken Harper.
Harper Development
5200 Highway 5 North, Suite
Bryant, AR 72022
Le
Civil Engineering Division
701 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1300 D� N
371-4811 FAX 371-4460 i
Subject: Proposed Commercial Development
Mabelvale West Road
Dear Mr. Harper:
We have reviewed the plan that you left us after our meeting last week and have examined in
depth its status as it relates to floodplain and floodway development considerations. As we will
explain below, the proposed entrance violates city ordinances because it encroaches on a
regulatory floodway.
Referenced drawing shows southern and eastern portions of property to be in a regulatory
floodplain which includes floodway. Although the building is located outside the floodplain and
floodway, the site entrance is shown to cross both. The FIRM also shows the base flood
elevation to vary across the property from about 301' at the proposed entrance to around 300'.
Little Rock Code of Ordinances ("Code") section 8-305(a) prohibits floodway encroachments,
like the proposed crossing, unless a professional engineer certifies that the development will not
result in an increase in base flood elevations and 8-305(c) requires that the FIRM be revised if
the development results in a base flood elevation increase
Two possibilities exist — one is to change in the FIRM according to federal guidelines and the
other is to seek a variance. Changing the FIRM is usually a costly and time-consuming task and
involves generating flood flow information, and submitting that information to FEMA for review
and approval. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of an "MT -2" application that can be used to
apply for Letters of Map Revision ("LOMB").. See also 44 C.F.R. Part 65.
Secondly, a variance can be granted by the City's Board of Adjustment. Code section 8-2840)
provides that primary criteria for a variance are: (1) a showing of good cause; (2) a determination
that failing to grant the variance would result in an "exceptional hardship"; and (3) a
"We're Proud of Our Works!"
determination that the variance will not result in increased flood heights, public safety threats or
other undesirable effects. There are other procedural steps involved such as notifying property
owners, so you contact the Planning Department for full information about these requirements.
First and third variance elements may be. supported through a hydrologic study performed by
your consultant. This study would determine the flow through the site as a result of the 100 -year
storm event and hydraulic performance of any on-site structures. Second variance element must
be presented to the Board of Adjustment by you or your representative. Any necessary permits
from the Corps of Engineers necessary for these improvements will also be required as will
compliance with other applicable City ordinances such as detention requirements.
In summary, because a portion of this land is shown to be in a regulatory floodway, City
ordinances prohibit any encroachment and require that the FMM be modified or that a variance
be obtained. If your consultant will perform hydrologic studies and incorporate necessary
drainage features into the project, after review and approval, Public Works can support a
variance subject to Board of Adjustment approval of a hardship provision.
Please contact me of you have any questions about the above.
Sincerely,
Steve W. Haralson, P.E.
Environmental Compliance Engineer
CC' Mr. David Scherer, Civil Engineering Manager
Mr. Tad Borkowski, Civil Engineer III, Private Development
Mr. Melvin Hall, Engineering Specialist
"We're Proud of Our Works!"
ITNIAGINEERED
13
NEWROCK
PARKING
DECK
a
TRAVELERS
INSURANCE
BUILDING
W
HOWARD
JOHNSON
RESTAURANT
a
VILLAGE
SHOPPING
CENTER
H
STORYBOOK
VILLAGE
5
GLENWOOD
HEIGHTS
M
HOWARD
JOHNSON
MOTEL
as
SCHOOLWOOD
0
ALLENDALE
JAMESTOWN
APARTMENTS
a
WINDAMERE
APARTMENTS
PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE
BUILDING
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
SPECIALISTS
PUTNAM REALTY INC.
SUITE 1820 UNION NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT
COUNSE1,016
!2 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
June 14, 2000
T0: Little Rock Board of Adjustment
Gentlemen:
IMAGINEERS
M PHONE AC 501 376-3616
I, William B. Putnam represent the property owner by a
signed document from said owner.
We are asking for a zoning variance as per the
application.
It was recommended to me by Mr. Bob Turner, director of
Public Works for the City of Little Rock, That I apply for
this variance due to the fact that with the construction of
new Mablevale West Street, with a new road bed and curb and
gutter in place there is no longer any floodway on the
existing site.
The new roadway is approximately 2.5 feet above the
site and blocks out what was once some surface runoff.
Mr. Steve Haralson, Flood Plain Director for the City,
after meeting with the Public Works Director, agreed with
this approach to the situation.
Mr. Turner said he would be at your meeting to support
this application.
Thanking you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
William B. Putnam
WBP/jh
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS *
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS
DIVESTMENTS & ACQUISITIONS
APPRAISALS
June 26, 2000
Item No.: 8
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Z-6867
Miriam May Hundley
5123 Edgewood Road
Lot 57, Prospect Terrace Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from
the area regulations of Section 36-
254 to permit construction of an
addition with a reduced side yard
setback.
Justification: Applicant's Statement: Our
proposed plan includes a two story
one -car carport with a sitting room
above that encroaches 1.7 feet into
the east side yard setback to
provide the proper width for
parking one car. It is our opinion
that since the two-story residence
to the east has a driveway adjacent
to this shared property line such a
minor encroachment would be
inconsequential to the overall
scale and character of Edgewood
Road.
Present Use of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Relocate driveway slightly to provide 5 foot setback from
east property line.
JunC 26, 2000
Item No.: 8 (Cont.)
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 5123 Edgewood Road is
currently occupied by a two-story, stucco and frame, single-
family residence. The applicant proposes to remove a sun
room addition from the east side of the house and build in
its place a two-story addition consisting of a porte-cochere
with a sitting room above. The new addition will result in
a side yard setback varying from 5 feet to 6 feet. The Code
requires a side yard setback of 6.7 feet for this lot.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The majority
of the lots in Prospect Terrace were platted as 50-55 feet
in width, although those immediately around this lot are
slightly wider. Side yard setbacks of 5-6 feet are common
in the area. The reduced side yard is only for the 2118"
length of the proposed addition. The property adjacent to
the east has a driveway on the side nearest the applicant's
property. This driveway provides additional separation
between the structures. Staff does not believe the minor
side yard setback variance of .6' - 1.6' will negatively
impact adjacent properties. The lower level of the addition
will not be enclosed, allowing for passage of light and air.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback
variance for the proposed addition as described by the
applicant subject to compliance with Public Works Comment.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2000)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with Public Works' Comment. 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
z-� F6 7
May 23, 2000
Mr. Dana Carney
Department of Neighborhoods and Planning
723 West Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Zoning Variance Application for
Hundley Residence, 5123 Edgewood Rd.
Dear Dana,
We are requesting a zoning variance at 5123 Edgewood Road to allow an encroachment
into the east side yard setback of 6.7 feet.
Our proposed plan includes a two story one -car carport with a sitting room above that
encroaches 1.7 feet into the east side yard setback to provide the proper width for parking
one car. It is our opinion that since the two-story residence to the east has a driveway
adjacent to this shared property line such a minor encroachment would be inconsequential to
the overall scale and character of Edgewood Road.
We also propose rebuilding the front porch and constructing a new walk, driveway and
parking pad as shown, using the existing curb cut. None of these items will require a
variance.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Miriam May Hundley
l
Jun= 26, 2000
Item No.: 9
File No.: Z-6868
Owner: Bernice McJimpson
Address: 1212 West 11th Street
Description: West 54 feet of Lots 7 and 8 and
the West 54 feet of the South 7 1-,2
feet of Lot 9, Block 309, Original
City of Little Rock
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
R-4
A variance is requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-256 to permit construction of an
addition with a reduced rear yard
setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-4 zoned lot located at 1212 West 11th Street is
occupied by a one-story, frame, single-family dwelling. The
applicant proposes to remodel the home by adding a 19.6' X
25' master bedroom suite addition to the rear, a 5' X 8'
laundry -room addition to the east side and a 4.4' X 11'
entry addition to the west side. The smaller additions
conform to or exceed required setbacks. The master bedroom
suite addition will result in a rear yard setback of 16'.
The code requires a rear yard setback of 25' for this lot.
{
Jun,. 26, 2000
Item No.: 9 (Cont.)
Staff is encouraged by the proposed investment in a home
which is located in the older part of the City and is
supportive of the requested variance. The rear yard of the
applicant's property abuts the rear yard of a property which
fronts onto Cross Street. Allowing the reduced rear yard
should have no effect on this abutting property. The
reduced rear yard setback is only for the 19.6 foot width of
the bedroom addition, leaving the remainder of the rear yard
area open.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 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 with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
2
May 24, 2000
Mr. Dana Carney
Zoning Administrator
Department of Planning & Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
JUSTIFICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE REQUEST
Z -6F6 '
The undersigned parties, Bernice McJimpson and Rebecca A. Stewart, are mother and daughter
and joint owners of the single family dwelling at 1212 West 11th Street. Mrs. McJimpson has
lived in this house for nearly fifty years.
It is our desire to remodel said property for the purposes of general improvement and
establishing living accommodations that are compatible for senior occupants. It is also our desire
to remain in the area, which has seen virtually no development and consequently grown
increasingly depressed over the years. Our hope is to illustrate the value in upgrading homes in
the area, and motivate local property owners to assist in revitalizing the area and in attracting
new residents.
It is our understanding that the zoning ordinance requires that the building structure adhere to a
25' setback limit. The remodelling plan (see description below) would exceed the 25' limit and
in fact cause the structure to be within 10' to 13' of the property line. Given the limited land
boundaries, and our plan objectives, there are no alternatives to extending the rear of the building
to the proposed 10'-13' mark.
We request a waiver to allow this construction. Your positive consideration of this request will
be highly appreciated.
Sincerely,
G
Bernice McJimpson
Rebecca McJimpson Stewart
Description of remodeling plan: The main addition, at the rear of the residence, is a master bedroom suite with
bedroom, bath and walk-in closet that are approximately 19' wide x 24'4" long, totaling 462 square feet. On the
East Side, a 60 square foot Iaundry and storage addition is also proposed. A 55 square foot entry addition is
proposed on the West Side of the building and is adjacent to an existing bedroom that completes the main addition
as an entry/study.
The two minor additions are within overall city codes and ordinances. However, the main addition is extending
approximately 13'0" over the rear yard setback at 25'0". The rear yard setback actually already extends to the rear of
the existing residence. In organizing the design for an entry/study, and master bedroom suite, it became necessary to
extend over the rear yard setback to create useable interior space.
It is our opinion that all the additions and remodeling are complimentary to the residence's interior and exterior
design. We plan to extend existing exterior finishes to the additions. We also feel that the main addition would not
be obtrusive to surrounding property owners since the nearest structure to the rear yard is in the 40 to 50 foot range.
The house to the west is on two lots, and the house to the east has ample rear and side yards. The residence
immediately rear of the property is vacant. There are several vacant lots in the area due to demolition of residences.
Junes 26, 2000
Item No.: 10
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A.
Public Works Issues:
Z-6869
Wayne Moore Construction Company
5318 Centerwood Road
East 20 feet of Lot 96 and all
of Lot 97, Prospect Terrace No. 2
Addition
R-2
Variances are requested from
the accessory building setback and
area coverage provisions of Section
36-156 and the building line
provisions of Section 31-12.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
1. Proposed structure must be located minimum 25 feet from
centerline of "O" Street to provide adequate room for
future road widening, utilities, and sidewalk.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5318 Centerwood Road is occupied
by a two-story, frame and stucco, single-family residence
and a detached, two -car garage. The home is being remodeled
and the applicant proposes to expand the front stoop. The
addition will cross a platted 30 foot building line and will
result in a front yard setback of 26 feet. The Code
requires a front yard setback of 25 feet. The applicant
proposes to remodel the detached garage, salvaging as much
of the structure as possible and expanding it. The existing
garage has a 0' side yard setback and a 0' rear yard
r
Junc 26, 2000
Item No.: 10 (Cont.)
setback. The expanded structure is proposes to maintain
those same setbacks and will cover 33% of the required rear
yard. The Code requires side and rear yard setbacks of 3
feet for accessory structures and limits them to rear yard
coverage of 30%.
Staff is supportive of the building line variance proposed
for the front stoop addition. The stoop will be uncovered
and will have a front yard setback of 261, exceeding the 25'
front yard required by the Zoning Ordinance. Only a portion
of the stoop and the existing porch are across the building
line. The house itself is behind the building line. If the
Board approves the building line variance, the applicant
will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the change in
the building line. The applicant should review the filing
procedure with the Circuit Clerk's Office to determine if
the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
Staff does have concerns about the proposed remodeling and
expansion of the garage, particularly about the Of side yard
setback. The property backs up to 110" Street which serves
more like an alley, providing access to several similar
garage structures along the street. The street is one-way,
with traffic being limited to east -bound east of Tyler
Street and west -bound west of Tyler Street. The proposed 0'
setback on the rear is not out of character with other
structures in the area. The structure has a setback of
15.8' from the edge of "O" Street. Allowing the reduced
setback from "O" Street should not impact this lightly
traveled, minor residential street. No portion of the
eave/overhang should extend over the property line into the
public right-of-way. "O" Street, at this point, does have
25' of right-of-way measured from the centerline.
The minor area coverage variance is negligible and should
have no impact on adjacent properties.
As was previously mentioned, the existing 20.2' X 18.3'
garage has a 0' side yard setback. The proposal is to
expand the structure to 24' X 241. The applicant states
that he will try to save as much of the nonconforming
structure as possible. It may, however, be necessary to
remove the entire structure. The code requires a side yard
setback of 3 feet. There is an accessory structure on the
adjacent property, directly across from this structure, with
a side yard setback of 1±: Staff has consistently not
supported 0' setback between abutting properties. That
2
Jun- 26, 2000
Item No.: 10 (Cont.)
position is strengthened by the presence of the structure on
the adjacent property. The fire hazard of having structures
located so close is an issue which must be considered.
Allowing a 0' side yard implies that the eave/overhang could
extend to or over the property line, creating a water run-
off problem for the adjacent land owner. Staff understands
the applicant's desire to save a tree by not moving the
structure further west. The tree could be saved and a
reasonable side yard provided if the structure were reduced
in width from 24' to 21'-221.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff's recommendation is broken into the following
segments:
1. Staff recommends approval of the requested building
line variance to allow the stoop addition to the front
of the house subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
(a) A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the
building line as approved by the Board.
(b) The stoop is to remain uncovered and unenclosed.
2. Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard
setback and area coverage variances for the accessory
building subject to no portion of the eave/overhang
extending over the rear property line into the public
right-of-way.
3. Staff recommends denial of the requested side yard
setback variance for the accessory structure to allow a
side yard of 0'.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2000)
The applicant, Wayne Moore, was present. There were no objectors
present. Ellen Yeary, owner of the abutting property on the
east, was present in support. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of denial.
Wayne Moore addressed the Board. He stated that Ms. Yeary was
not only a neighbor in support of the item but was actually the
architect on his remodeling project. He stated that the old,
flat -roofed garage structure was beyond repair. Mr. Moore stated
that he could not reduce the building to 21 feet in width as
3
Junes 26, 2000
Item No.: 10 (Cont.)
suggested by staff and be able to get his two large vehicles in
it. He stated that moving the structure further west would cause
him to have to remove a tree. Mr. Moore described the building
as being designed to match the architecture of the house, with
the roof pitching to each side and gables on the front and rear.
Norm Floyd commented that water would then run off onto the
neighbor's property. Mr. Moore responded that it would.
Ellen Yeary, of 5312 Centerwood, spoke in support of the item.
She stated that she was happy with the reduced setback and would
prefer that to seeing Mr. Moore remove a tree.
William Ruck commented that the structure could have no overhang.
Mr. Moore responded that there would be no overhang unless Ms.
Yeary wanted guttering installed on the east side of the garage.
Ms. Yeary stated that she would wait and see if she felt
guttering would be needed. She suggested putting gravel in the
area between the two structures and designing drainage so that
water flows toward the street.
Norm Floyd asked staff if the Board could attach additional
conditions, beyond those suggested by staff. Dana Carney, of the
Planning Staff, responded that the Board could attach any
conditions it deems appropriate.
Mr. Floyd suggested approving the 0 foot setback and requiring
guttering to be installed on the east side of the structure. Mr.
Carney explained that the setback is measured to the vertical
wall of the structure and allowing a 0 foot setback while
requiring guttering would require the applicant to build a
structure that intrudes onto the abutting property. He suggested
that such a situation would not be acceptable.
Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, concurred. She
stated that the Board should not make a condition that requires
the applicant to trespass on neighboring property.
Fred Gray asked Mr. Moore if he could either reduce the structure
or move it enough to provide a 1 foot side yard setback. Mr.
Moore responded that the garage, as he proposed, would be located
about 4 feet from the tree. He stated that moving the garage
would result in the garage being 3 feet from the tree. Mr.
Carney commented that building the garage to within 4 feet of the
tree would likely kill the tree since the building would be
located over the tree's critical root zone.
4
Junes 26, 2000
Item No.: 10 (Cont.
Norm Floyd suggested as additional conditions that no portion of
the structure extend over the property line, that guttering be
installed on the structure and that there be no plumbing
installed in the structure.
Gary Langlais asked Mr. Moore if he would be agreeable to a 23
foot wide garage or moving the structure to provide a 1 foot side
yard. Mr. Moore responded that he needed a 24 foot wide garage
but that he would move the structure, providing a 1 foot side
yard setback.
A motion was made to approve the requested building line variance
subject to compliance with the conditions offered by staff. The
motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
A motion was made to approve the requested setback and area
coverage variances (as amended to include a 1 foot side yard
setback) subject to compliance with the conditions proposed by
staff and the following three conditions proposed by Norm Floyd:
1. No portion of the structure is to extend over the property
line.
2. Guttering is to be installed on the structure.
3. No plumbing is to be in the structure.
The motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
61
WAYNE MOORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
2121 WATT STREET, SUITE E / LITTLE ROCK, AR 72227 / 501.228.5515 TELEPHONE / 501.228.6787 FAX
May 30, 2000
Mr. Dana Carney
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham Street, 2nd Floor
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: 5318 Centerwood Road
Dear Mr. Carney,
i
I am requesting a zoning variance for reduced side and rear yard setbacks and amended
front building line at 5318 Centerwood Road. There is an existing, small two -car garage
in the northeast corner of my lot. This garage is serviced from O Street. Currently, it is
situated on my north and east property lines. I would like to try to salvage as much of
this structure as possible and expand it to measurements of 24' x 24'. Additionally, I
would like to allow for walk up storage access above the garage.
The property owners to my east are Jim and Ellen Yeary. Ellen is the architect for this
project and is aware of my plans. They have informed me that they would not object to
the addition to the garage. Also, there is a large mature tree to the west of the existing
garage. This tree will allow me to expand the garage to no more than the requested
overall east/west dimension of 24'.
Also, I am requesting a variance which would allow me to extend the existing front stoop
to the west approximately 12'. This additional porch area will not be covered and would
be more of a front patio type.
Thank you for your serious consideration of this variance application.
Sincerely,
%tQv
Wayne Moore,
President
113 SPECIALIST IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF FINE HOMES / REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ii i3A
RE•LTO.
Jur i, 26, 2000
Item No.: 11
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Z-6870
Kathryn Karr
1123 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Parts of Lots 11 and 12, Block 8,
Midland Hills
R-3
Variances are requested from
the accessory structure area and
separation provisions of Section
36-156 and the area regulations of
Section 36-255.
Justification: The reduced size of this lot
creates the need for the variances.
The buildable area is limited by
the slope of the property.
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-3 zoned lot located at 1123 Kavanaugh Blvd. is
occupied by a two-story, frame, single-family residence.
The applicant proposes to construct a bathroom addition onto
the west side of the house, resulting in a reduced side yard
setback of 3 feet. The Code requires a side yard setback of
5 feet for this lot. The applicant also proposes to
construct a 12' X 201, freestanding carport structure in
front of the house. This carport will have a front yard
setback of 18 feet and will be separated from the residence
by 2 feet. The Code requires a front yard setback of 60
June 26, 2000
Item No.: 11 (Cont.)
feet for accessory structures and requires that they be
separated from the principle structure by at least 6 feet.
There are circumstance unique to this property that justify
some relief from the literal provisions of the code. The
property itself is small, with side lot lengths of 60 feet
and 98 feet. The property slopes down rather severely from
both Kavanaugh Blvd. and Charles Street, leaving a level
building pad only in the area immediately in front of the
house.
The minor variance requested for the bathroom addition
should have no impact on adjacent properties. The proposed
setback ranges from 3 feet to 4.5 feet for the 8' X 9'
bathroom addition. The distance between the applicant's
home and the home on the adjacent lot increases from the
front of the lots to the rear. At the point where the
bathroom addition is proposed, there is 20± feet between the
two homes.
Staff does have concerns about the proposed location for the
carport structure. This lot and the adjacent property have
abutting driveways. The applicant proposes to place the
carport over her portion of the driveway. The house on the
adjacent property sits much closer to the street; within
10'-12' of the sidewalk. The front door on this adjacent
home faces the side property line, not the front. The
effect is that the applicant's proposed carport would be in
front of the neighbor's front door. Staff believes a better
alternative would be to turn the carport 900 so that it
would be parallel, not perpendicular, to the applicant's
home and to pull it away from the side property line. By
making those adjustments and keeping the carport closer to
the front of the applicant's home, the impact on the
neighboring property could be reduced.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback
variance to allow the proposed bathroom addition.
Staff does not recommend approval of the setback and
separation variances to allow the carport in the location
proposed by the applicant.
2
June 26, 2000
Item No.: 11 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2000)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had notified only 4
persons, those whose property directly abutted her own or were
located across the street. After a brief discussion, the Board
determined that the applicant had failed to provide proper notice
as stipulated by the Board's Bylaws.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
July 31, 2000 meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to
complete the required notices. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
3
June 26, 2000
Item No.: 12
File No.
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned-
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-6871
Dr. and Mrs. Ray Parker
#9 Longfellow Lane
Lot 5, Beverly Place Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-254 to permit construction of an
addition with a reduced side yard
setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
1. Install roof gutter to prevent stormwater runoff on
adjacent property.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at #9 Longfellow Lane is occupied by
a two-story, brick and frame, single-family residence. The
applicants propose to expand the house by constructing a
one-story addition along the full length of its east side.
The addition is proposed to have a side yard setback of
1.5'. The Code requires a side yard setback of 8 feet for
this lot. The roof of the addition will slope toward the
side property line. The addition will have an eave/overhang
not to exceed 1 feet and will have guttering along the edge.
The applicant states the variance is requested in order to
expand the home in such a way as to require the least amount
of modification to the existing dwelling. He further states
i
Jure 26, 2000
Item No.: 12 (Cont.
that the intended use is such that the proposed expansion
needs to occur in this area of the lot.
Staff has concerns about the proposed variance. The Code
requires a side yard setback of 8 feet. The applicant is
requesting a substantial variance to allow a side yard of
1.5 feet. With the overhang and guttering, the structure
could be built to within 1-2 inches of the property line.
The house is 53.8' deep and the requested variance is for
the full depth of the house creating a substantial visual
impact on the adjacent property. The requested 1.5' side
yard setback appears to be out of character with the
neighborhood. Most homes in the immediate vicinity have
side yard setbacks meeting or exceeding ordinance
requirements. In staff's opinion, the applicant is
overbuilding on the east side of his property. A side yard
setback of 5 feet would appear to be more reasonable.
The owner of the property adjacent to the east has submitted
a letter of support in which he notes that there will be
approximately 17 feet between the two homes.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested side yard setback
variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2000)
Frank Riggins, Ray Parker and Kelley Parker were present
representing the application. There were no objectors present.
A letter of support had been submitted by Dan Robinson, owner of
the abutting property at #7 Longfellow Lane. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of denial.
Frank Riggins addressed the Board. He stated that there was a
precedent for reduced setbacks in the neighborhood. Mr. Riggins
stated that the overriding issue is what effect the proposal
would have on the neighborhood. He stated that he felt there
would be no effect and, in fact, the proposal was supported by
the abutting property owner.
Ray Parker addressed the Board and presented photographs of his
property and his neighbor's home. He stated that the home was
built in 1936 and is smaller than other homes in the area, about
3,000 square feet. Mr. Parker stated that due to the design of
the home and the way it was situated on the lot, there was
2
Jun= 26, 2000
Item No.: 12 (Cont.)
limited area to add onto the house. He stated that the one story
addition would have no windows on the east side. Mr. Parker
commented on the amount of separation between his home and his
neighbors. He stated that he had spoken with all of his
neighbors and they all supported his plan.
Norm Floyd expressed his concerns about a reduced setback for
this amount of principal structure.
Frank Riggins repeated that he did not feel the proposal was out
of character with development in the area.
A motion was made to approve to application as submitted. The
motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3
z- 6 F�7/
May 26, 2000
The y,
1�i9e tiburger
Flan
Engineers ❑ Landscape Architects ❑ Surveyors
Mr. Dana Carney
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Mr. Carney,
Enclosed is an application requesting approval for a proposed addition to an existing residence at
9 Longfellow Lane in Little Rock. The applicant is asking for a variance to allow the proposed
addition to encroach to within 1.5' of the property line whereas ordinance requires an 8' setback.
This addition impacts an interior lot line and does not effect any setbacks along the street. The
applicant is requesting the variance in order to expand his existing dwelling for his own use and
enjoyment and in such a way as to require the least amount of modification to the existing
dwelling. The intended use of the addition is such that the proposed expansion occur in this area
of the lot.
I understand and will comply with the required notifications and will appear before the Board of
Adjustment at the appointed time and place. If you have any questions or need any additional
information concerning this application please contact me.
Since ly,
R
rank R. Ri gins fop
Vice President /l
IV'
201 South Izard 0 P.O. Box 3837 0 Little Rock, AR 72203-3837 0 501/375-5331 0 Fax 375-7452
New America International
One Financial Centre, Suite 425
650 South Shackleford Rd.
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
Dan R. Robinson, 11
President
Little Rock Board of Adjustment
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham, First Floor
Little Rock, AR 72201
6/2/00
Re: # 9 Longfellow Lane
Gentlemen:
Dr. & Mrs. Ray.Parker recently met with me regarding the proposed addition to # 9
Longfellow Lane. My wife and I have reviewed the architectural plans and survey which
shows the addition to the existing residence will lie within the sideyard setback area.
Normally eight feet is required and they are requesting one foot six inches.
This proposed addition will be all brick and will be consistent with the current style of the
original house. There will be approximately seventeen feet between the two houses after
the addition is complete.
We support the addition and encourage you to approve the requested variance. If you
have any questions, please call, 224-7500.
Sm erely,
C
Dan R. Robinson, II
SIOR CCIM
# 7 Longfellow Lane
In over 200 cities across: The United States Mexico
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, WORLDWIDE.
Canada South America Europe
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF
501/224.7500
Fax: 501/224-3570
Mobile: 501/680-0156
1YA1
DAN & ASSOCIATES INC.
E-mail: Lennox@alltel.net
ROBINSON
New America International
One Financial Centre, Suite 425
650 South Shackleford Rd.
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
Dan R. Robinson, 11
President
Little Rock Board of Adjustment
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham, First Floor
Little Rock, AR 72201
6/2/00
Re: # 9 Longfellow Lane
Gentlemen:
Dr. & Mrs. Ray.Parker recently met with me regarding the proposed addition to # 9
Longfellow Lane. My wife and I have reviewed the architectural plans and survey which
shows the addition to the existing residence will lie within the sideyard setback area.
Normally eight feet is required and they are requesting one foot six inches.
This proposed addition will be all brick and will be consistent with the current style of the
original house. There will be approximately seventeen feet between the two houses after
the addition is complete.
We support the addition and encourage you to approve the requested variance. If you
have any questions, please call, 224-7500.
Sm erely,
C
Dan R. Robinson, II
SIOR CCIM
# 7 Longfellow Lane
In over 200 cities across: The United States Mexico
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, WORLDWIDE.
Canada South America Europe
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF
Juries 26, 2000
Item No.: 13
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-6872
Paul Eller, Hub Cap Annie
5418 Asher Avenue
N/A
C-3
A variance is requested from
the flag provisions of Section
36-550(7) to permit multiple
company flags.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Retail
Retail
No issues related to this sign variance.
B. Staff Analysis:
Hub Cap Annie, a retail wheel, tire and hub cap store is
located on the C-3 zoned property at 5418 Asher Avenue. The
owner of the business has recently erected 4 flags on the
roof of the building. The tri -color flags were printed to
match the colors of the building and the business' sign.
Section 36-550(7) of the Code limits businesses to having
one company or organizational flag. It is staff's opinion
that the flags were designed to serve as company flags
although the name "Hub Cap Annie" is not printed on them.
In his attached letter, the owner of the business states
that the flags complement the building, make the building
look like a national headquarters and add beauty to the
building.
Junes 26, 2000
Item No.: 13 (Cont.)
One basic purpose of sign regulations is to prevent and
reduce visual clutter.
The applicant was issued a notice by the Codes Enforcement
staff and has requested this variance from the Board of
Adjustment.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2000)
The applicant, Paul Eller, was present. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
denial.
Mr. Eller stated that it was his goal to have the prettiest
building on Asher Avenue. He made note of other businesses in
the City that have flags, including one that had American flags.
Gary Langlais and Norm Floyd told Mr. Eller that American Flags
are permitted in lieu of the "company flags."
Mr. Eller stated that he was agreeable to removing all but one
"company flag" and would use one American flag and one Arkansas
flag instead.
Gary Langlais asked Mr. Eller if he was withdrawing his variance
request. Mr. Eller responded that he was.
A motion was made to accept the applicant's withdrawal of the
item. The motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
2
Mr. Jim Lawson
I am writing you to ask for a variance concerning my flags at Hub Cap Annie.
I have spend a ton of money to make Hub Cap Annie the most beautiful building on Asher
Avenue.
I have had people from all over Arkansas tell me what a beautiful building I have.
I had my flags special made so the colors of the flags matched the colors of my building
and the colors of my sign..
Please don't make me tear down what took over a year to plan and execute.
If you will drive by my store, I am sure you will agree that I do have the most beautiful
building on Asher Avenue and the flags only complement the building. The flags make my
building look like a national headquarters which it will be someday. The flags also add
beauty to my building.
Thank you for your consideration and help on helping me to improve Asher Avenue and
the city of Little Rock.
Paul Eller
Hub Cap Annie.
Junes 26, 2000
Item No.: 14
Name: U -Haul
Type of Issue: Interpretative Request:
Appropriateness of allowing truck
and trailer rental, with no
maintenance or hitch installation,
as a conditional use in C-3.
Staff Report:
U -Haul Company of Arkansas has filed this interpretative request
asking that truck and trailer rental (with no service, sales or
repair) be included in the use listing "Auto rental or leasing
(no service, sales or repair)".
The City Code has the following two defined uses dealing with
vehicle rental, on the far end of the spectrum from each other:
Auto or truck rental and leasing is defined as a
facility which for a fee provides automobiles,
trucks and trailers for rent or lease. This may
include ancillary activities, such as: repair,
maintenance, washing and sales of used units.
This use is permitted "by -right" in the C-4, I-2 and I-3
districts and is not permitted as a conditional use in any other
district.
Auto rental or leasing (no service, sales or
repair) is defined as a facility limited to an
office space, with display of automobiles which for
a fee are rented or leased.
This use is also permitted "by -right" in the C-4, I-2 and I-3
districts but is also permitted as a conditional use in the C-3
district.
In addition to its large facilities, such as those on West 65th
Street or Kanis Road, U -Haul has recently explored the
possibility of having truck and trailer rental at independent and
satellite locations. These satellite locations would be existing
commercial businesses such as a shopping center or a gas station
or convenience store. These properties are typically zoned C-3
which would allow auto rental or leasing (no service, sales or
repair) as a conditional use. U -Haul believes that it is
Junes 26, 2000
Item No.: 14 (Cont.
appropriate to allow truck and trailer rental (no service, sales
or repair) to be included in that defined use to allow it to be
considered as a conditional use in C-3. Conditional uses require
review and approval by the Planning Commission.
Staff has included this issue in the Planning Commission's 2000
Ordinance Amendment review work program. Typically, those
ordinance review packages take as long as a year to complete.
The question before the Board is whether the Code use listing of
"Auto rental or leasing (no service, sales or repair)" should
also include truck and trailer rental (no service, sales or
repair) .
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2000)
Dave DeLille was present representing U -Haul. Staff presented
the issue. Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office,
expressed concern about some of the wording in staff's analysis,
particularly the statement:
The question before the Board is whether the Code use listing of
"Auto rental or leasing (no service, sales or repair)" should
also include truck and trailer rental (no service, sales or
repair) .
Ms. Dawson stated that the statement implies the Board of
Adjustment is to consider whether the City should change the code
or not and that is not the function of the Board, it is a
Planning Commission issue. Ms. Dawson stated that the Board is
being asked to decide how to interpret the code, whether in fact
the use suggested by the applicant is fairly subsumed within the
zoning category "Auto rental or leasing (no service, sales or
repair)." Ms. Dawson stated that, with that understanding, the
Board could address the issue. She urged the Board to look
carefully at the literal language of the code.
There was a discussion of the conditional use permit procedure
and how any conditions are enforced.
Fred Gray asked if the issue was for the Board to determine if it
was the intent of the use listing "Auto rental and leasing (no
service, sales or repair)" to also include trucks and trailers.
Ms. Dawson responded that Mr. Gray's assessment was correct, that
the Board needed to determine if that use listing is fairly
interpreted to include the use proposed by the applicant.
E
Jun,-. 26, 2000
Item No.: 14 (Cont.)
Dave DeLille, of U -Haul, addressed the Board. He stated that
these satellite, C-3 sites might have 1-4 trucks for rental, if
they have available space as determined by the Planning
Commission through its conditional use permit review.
Fred Gray asked if any repairs or washing of the trucks and
trailers would take place at these satellite locations. Mr.
DeLille responded that all service would take place at the main
facility.
William Ruck asked Mr. DeLille if he had seen this type of
operation work in other locales. Mr. DeLille responded that he
had; that each site is different; that some sites can only
accommodate one vehicle and some sites can accommodate more.
In response to a question from Gary Langlais, Mr. DeLille said
each site would typically have 1 small truck, 1 larger truck and
a couple of trailers.
In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Mr. DeLille stated
that no hitch installation would occur on any of the C-3 zoned
(C.U.P.) sites.
William Ruck asked what would happen if the truck rental company
filled -up a site's required parking. Dana Carney, of the
Planning Staff, responded that the Planning Commission, through
the C.U.P. review, would determine exactly how many vehicles and
trailers could be located on a site and where they were to be
parked. Any violation of that provision would be a matter of
Code Enforcement. There was then a discussion of rezoning each
site through a Planned Development as opposed to a C.U.P.
Gary Langlais stated that the issue seemed to have been discussed
completely and it was now down to what type of motion to bring
before the Board. Ms. Dawson stated that the motion would be to
say that it is appropriate to allow truck or trailer rental with
no service, sales or repair as a conditional use in C-3.
After further discussion, Norm Floyd commented that the use
listing "tool and equipment rental (with outside display)", which
is also a conditional use in "C-311, seemed to include trailer and
trucks.
A motion was made that the Board interpret Section 36-301(c)(2)e,
auto rental or leasing (no service, sales or repair), to also
read "truck rental or leasing (no service, sales or repair) and
3
Jure- 26, 2000
Item No.: 14 (Cont.)
that Section 36-301 (c) (2) x, tool and
outside display), be interpreted to
was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 1
N
equipment rental (with
include trailers. The motion
noe and 1 absent.
O
U -HAUL CO. OF ARKANSAS
4809 WEST 65TH STREET • LITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72209-3899 • PHONE:(501) 562-1925
May 17, 2000
To Whom It May Concern:
We are appealing to the Board to be permitted to obtain a conditional use
permit on C-3 zoned properties. Exclusively for the purpose of renting
trucks and trailers at independent satellite locations.
These locations will have small inventories with no maintenance or hitch
installations being done on their premises. These businesses are
independently owned and operated.
Thanks for your consideration:
U� UOL4�
Ken Vadnais Mkt. Co. President
Dave DeLille Sr. Area Field Manager
4
Tt
W
:.
mi
r
z
w
CO
m
Q
V
W
Q
z
w
Q
.
rypq
®l
Is.
\p
p9�
OD
�1
d.
a
r
r
�o<u?
C)
¢
�z(Y
O
w
LL
O
C�
m
o
>-<O=Y
Q
m
Lu
OZ
U-
0
<
U
U
cr-
4
Tt
W
:.
mi
r
z
w
CO
m
Q
V
W
Q
z
w
Q
June 26, 2000
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
Date: 9J I bi�fC
, 2 LIq,,,, 9 -, �-, �.a Al
Chairman