Loading...
boa_07 31 2000LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JULY 31, 2000 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being five (5) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the June 26, 2000 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Gary Langlais, Chairman William Ruck, Vice Chairman Norm Floyd Fred Gray Scott Richburg Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Debbie Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA JULY 31, 2000 2.00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEM A. Z-6855 5500 Pinnacle Valley Road B. Z -6689-C 300 East Markham C. Z-6870 1123 Kavanaugh Blvd. II. NEW ITEMS 1. Z -4463-C 8100 West Markham Street 2. Z -5889-A 7715 Geyer Springs Road 3. Z-6873 #3 Shannon Drive 4. Z-6874 815 Thomas Street 5. Z-6875 1705 Fair Park Blvd. 6. Z-6877 112 Normandy Road 7. Z-6878 12th and University, NE corner 8. Z-6879 1424 Point West Drive 9. Z-6880 1310 Cantrell Road 10. Z-6881 8306 Reymere Drive 11. Z-6882 5918 "C" Street 12. Z-6887 18 Honey Bear Court 0 0 0 — 3NId a31Ztla3 1 11Otl81H1 ` Jd�y tj r, �' gpV1p NtlWa30 - � - ._— Q::- o NIVW AV HOaV N°1/yp S3H0 83H380 4 ONIN IN — 0 MO6000M 3NId _ 3NId aV 0 NO1lIWV 11095 A8 6IV3 (V y/ AlISa3hINn ro TF A ISa3A1Nn J s`)Nlad 83A30 3H9nH o Iddlss IN 5 'P6 � O _ m 1001H0 Q a10Aa3S3a MONM NHOf 3 y2 `2 PE 3NN13H — aao33lN9vHs S slaays WVHWd A3N008 m 4—, hJ NV � 00 SilWll A110 �w 3001a ArvIA pROt o ./-QpEty'�PH — Q o o � v NtlAlll05 laVM31S /YS`db`V � 0 5 VPS S11Wil A11o�22� CIO 31VONa33 0 f Juls 31, 2000 Item No.: A File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Z-6855 Daniel Clayton 5500 Pinnacle Valley Road Lot "A", Berg Subdivision 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. Jul_ 31, 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 Pa Ju. , 31, 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2000) Pat McGetrick was present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the Building Line. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 31, 2000 Item No.: B File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: Z -6689-C 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. Jul. 31, 2000 Item No.: B (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, 2 July 31, 2000 Item No.: B (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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2000) Gary Langlais abstained on this item. The applicant, Melissa Tanner, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. It was noted that the River Market Design Review Committee had submitted a letter of support on Ms. Tanner's behalf. In that letter, the committee had suggested three conditions to be attached to approval of the sign. Ms. Tanner addressed the Board in support of her variance. She stated that although she had 5 signs, they were smaller than other signs in the district. Ms. Tanner stated that the easel sign was also used to advertise convention center and River Market activities. Fred Gray expressed concern about the number of signs already approved for "Vestals" and asked Ms. Tanner if she would consider "swapping -out" one of her previously approved signs for this 3 Jul, 31, 2000 Item No.: B (Cont.) easel sign. Ms. Tanner responded that she would prefer not to lose one of her existing signs. Scott Richburg asked about several other temporary signs he had seen in the River Market area. Ronyha O'Neal, of the Code Enforcement Staff, responded that those signs would be investigated by the staff. In response to a question from Fred Gray, Ms. Tanner stated that the sign was of no real financial benefit to her business but that it added to the atmosphere of the River Market. There was a brief discussion of the possibility of redoing the existing "Vestals" signs and of removing the word "Vestals" from the easel sign. A motion was made to allow the easel sign without the word "Vestals" and subject to compliance with the 3 conditions proposed by the River Market Design Review Committee. The vote was 2 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Langlais). The item was automatically deferred to the August 28, 2000 meeting. 4 2-667C, -r- �esta s Friday, May 19, 2000 City of Little Rock, Department of Planning and Development 723 WestMarkham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Requestfor Zoning Variance (Sign) This application is for a 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 Melssa 9anner, Owner 300 East Markham River -market Littce Rock, -qA 72201 ( Z-GC,6gi-C_ River Greg Hart, Chairman Market Larry Jacimore, Member Design Frank Porbeck, Member Review Don Renshaw, Member Committee 'Christie Godwin, Member Planning andDevelopment • 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 0 Jul, 31, 2000 Item No.: C 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-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. The reduced size of this lot creates the need for the variances. The buildable area is limited by the slope of the property. Single Family Single Family 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 20', 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 JulJ 31, 2000 Item No.: C (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 Jul, 31, 2000 Item No.: C (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. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has amended the request by turning the proposed carport 900 so that it is parallel to not perpendicular to her home and has moved the structure away from the west property line. Staff now recommends approval of the variance requests subject to the carport structure remaining open and unenclosed on all sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the required notices had been completed. Staff recommended approval of the amended application subject to the carport structure remaining open and unenclosed on all sides. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 July 31, 2000 Item No.: 1 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Z -4463-C Coulson Properties Limited Partnership 8100 West Markham Street Long Legal C-3 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-301 to permit construction of a building with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: 1) A proposed CLR drainage project and drainage easement will require removal of the existing canopy and prohibits replacement in an acceptable central location. 2) Open drainage ditch prohibits providing parking along in the eastern area of the site as alternative location to front area. 3) Site depth prohibits placing parking in front area and adequate building depth without encroachment into rear yard area. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: With Building Permit: Vacant commercial building, to be removed. New, one-story, 4,800 square feet commercial building 1. Right-of-way shown conforms with "MSP". 2. Easements shown for proposed storm drainage requested. f Jul, 31, 2000 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) 3. Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175 and the "MSP". 4. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. Driveway location shown has been approved by Public Works. 5. Stormwater Detention per Ordinance 14,787 and the "Drainage Manual" is required. 6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property located at 8100 West Markham is currently occupied by a one-story, block building and a detached canopy. The property was formerly the site of a convenience store with gas pumps. The applicant proposes to remove the existing structures and construct a new, 4,800 square foot, one-story building. The site will be completely redeveloped, with new driveway, parking and landscaping. The proposed new building is to have a rear yard setback of 15 feet. The code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet in the C-3 district. No other variances are requested from the Board of Adjustment. Staff is supportive of the proposal. The property is relatively shallow for a commercial lot (1341) and is impacted by the presence of a large drainage easement that bisects the site. This large drainage easement, which consists of both an open ditch and an underground culvert, limits the buildable area of the site. Parking may be constructed over that portion of the easement containing the underground culvert. Pushing the building slightly to the rear of the lot allows adequate room for parking to be placed in front of the structure. The R-5 zoned property to the rear of the site is occupied by an apartment complex. A 6.5 foot tall wood fence separates the two properties. A large parking lot is located on that portion of the apartment property closest to the proposed new commercial building. Allowing the reduced rear yard setback should have no effect on the abutting property. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance subject to compliance with the following conditions: 2 Jul, 31, 2000 Item No.: 1 (Cont. 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. 2. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any variance or waiver as may be granted by the Director of Public Works or the Board of Directors. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2000) Robert Brown was present -representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 July 31, 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: With Building Permit: Z -5889-A Gary Johnson 7715 Geyer Springs Road Long Legal C-4, with conditions Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-302 and the buffer requirements of Section 36-522. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Retail audio store Same, with addition of truck accessory sales 1. Right-of-way dedication required per the "MSP", (90 feet or 45 feet from centerline for Geyer Springs Road right- of-way) . 2. Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175 and the "MSP". 3. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 5. Remove closed driveway on Geyer Springs Road frontage. B. Staff Analysis: The C-4 zoned property at 7715 Geyer Springs Road is occupied by a one-story commercial building and a detached canopy. The building is home to "Almost Everything", a { July 31, 2000 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) retail car audio store. The applicant wishes to add a truck accessory line of merchandise and proposes to expand the building to accommodate the increased inventory. The proposal is to construct additions onto both the north and south ends of the building, maintaining the structure's existing 4± foot rear yard setback. The additions will result in street -side yard setbacks of 1.5 feet on the north and south. The code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet and street side yard setbacks of 45 feet in the C-4 district. The code also requires street and rear yard buffers of 6 feet for this site. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Allowing the reduced setback on the north will result in the building being located 20± feet from the curb of Young Road. A large grassy area is located between the street and the property line. The property abuts the I-30 exit ramp on the south. The proposed addition on this side of the building will result in a setback of 20± feet from the ramp with a grassy strip also being located between the pavement and the south property line. The property adjacent to the east is occupied by a single family residence. The residence's carport is located on the end of the house closest to the commercial site. The existing commercial building now has a setback of 4± feet on the east. Allowing the proposed additions to maintain the existing reduced setback should have no greater impact on the abutting residential property and may actually create a better buffer from the noise and traffic on Geyer Springs Road. Staff believes there should be no openings in the rear of the new additions, allowing the building to further function as a screen. There is also a 6 foot tall, wood privacy fence along the property line between the two properties. At the time this site was rezoned to C-4 in 1994, the Board of Directors attached several conditions to the zoning. This proposal will not affect those conditions which will continue to remain in effect. A copy of the Board's action is attached. This level of building expansion will likely require an upgrade in landscaping. The applicant must provide required landscaping or seek a variance from the City Beautiful Commission. 2 I Jui, 31, 2000 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and buffer variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any variance or waivers as may be granted by the Director of Public Works or the Board of Directors. 2. Compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance including any variance or waivers as may be granted by the City Beautiful Commission. 3. There are to be no openings (doors or windows) in the east wall of the new additions adjacent to the residential property. 4. All activity is to take place within the enclosed building. There is to be no installation of auto -truck parts and accessories outside of the building. S. Continued compliance with the conditions attached to the rezoning of the property as stipulated in Ordinance No. 16,824 is required. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 To Whom It. May Concern: We, Don and Linda. Anderson, have a business in Little Rock at. 7715 Geyer Springs Rd. The property is owned by Gary Johnson whom we lease said property from. We have a. retail car audio store located there. We have 4 other locations. At all of our locations, we have car audio and truck accessories. We wish to add our truck accessory line to the Little Rock location, therefore generating more revenue for Little Rock and the State of .Arkansas. Mr. Johnson has agreed to sell the property to us, but as it stands now, the building is too small to accomodate our truck accessories and would therefore not be any help or profitable to us. We would like to add onto each end of the building, therefore making it large enough to carry our full line of merchandise. The sale of the property depends on this. If we cannot expand the building, we cannot buy the property. Please consider this recominendation. It will benefit everyone. I appreciate your help and consideration in this matter. Regards: Linda Anderson ALMOST EVERYTHING 7715 Geyer Springs Rd. Little Rock, AR 72209 SOI -5E? -9 '00 ORDINANCE NO. 16,824 AN ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS AS C-4 WITH CONDITIONS, AMENDING SECTION 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, SECTION 1. That the zone classification of the following property be and is hereby changed as indicated: Z-588 - Described as part of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 31, T -1-N, R -12-W, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which is the intersection of the East right-of-way of Geyer Springs Road and the South right -of' -way of Young Road, and is 18.7 feet South and 30.0 feet East of the NW corner of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4, Section 31, T -1-N, R -12- W; thence S87011'47"E along the South right-of-way of Young Road, 181.0 feet to a found concrete filled 2" pipe on the North right-of-way of Interstate 30; thence N870171W, 114.4 feet along said North right-of-way; thence N41051'W, 94.38 feet to the intersection of the East right-of-way of Geyer Springs Road, thence NO°E along said East right-of-way, 64.0 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.49 acres more or less from R-2 Single Family to C-4 Open Display. (7715 Geyer Springs). SECTION 2. That the map referred in Section 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock and designated district map be and is hereby amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in Section 1 hereof. The conditions are attached to the ordinance as Exhibit A. SECTION 3. That the ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval. PASSED: Decer.Lber 28, 1994 ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Rob ie Hancock Mayor J n Dailey {rn GEY1=R SPRINGS ROAD ----------- RIGHT -OF -MY • a Ci Ul / o l cl m f' �Mpx � I I• a 'I / I �rn . MIXING I ro-i uno 1 � EXISTING WOOD FENCE o mo >, > Ord. #16,8241 r --.I EXHIBIT A W to ixj (r n C) �t'�'inxt`+n� l ^ r cn xaa0 t�N x 4 ' U� I -�PO o� 0 oa >vi tr '� �• � z x d ra o mo >, > Ord. #16,8241 r --.I EXHIBIT A (r n I r V7 l ^ r t�N 4 I ata n oa tr --.I �� V7 C) t�N ata oa 0 Jui s 31, 2000 Item No.: 3 File No.: Z-6873 Owner: B. D. and June Starkey Address: #3 Shannon Drive Description: Lot 2 and North ',� of Lot 3, Paschel Heights Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the accessory structure area and separation requirements of Section 36-156. Justification: The applicant desires to have additional covered parking beyond the existing one -car carport. The structure cannot be moved back to the required setback because of a swimming pool. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located at #3 Shannon Drive is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single family residence. The residence has a small, single -car carport. The applicant proposes to construct a detached, two -car garage south of the house. The garage will have a front yard setback of 30 feet and will be separated from the house by 2-3 feet. The code requires accessory structures to have a front yard setback of at least 60 feet and a separation from the principal structure of 6 feet. Jug, 31, 2000 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The proposed garage is to be built in line with the front wall of the home and will be constructed in an architectural style that complements the house. The structure cannot be pushed further into the rear yard because of the presence of a swimming pool and deck. The structure will be located nearly 50 feet from the edge of the street. A row of 5± feet tall hedges is located along the south and street perimeters of the property, lessening the visual impact of the garage. If the garage structure were built as an addition to the house rather than as a freestanding structure, it would conform to or exceed all required setbacks. Architectural constraints make it more desirable to build the garage as a freestanding structure. Although the garage is separated by only 2-3 feet from the house, the separation is measured from an unenclosed patio, not the main, enclosed body of the house. The reduced separation should not be an issue of concern as long as the patio remains unenclosed, allowing for ease of passage between the structures. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and separation variances subject to the patio on the south side of the house not being enclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to the patio on the south side of the house not being enclosed. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 2 1 July 31, 2000 Item No.: 4 File No.: Z-6874 Owner: Arkansas Painting and Specialties, Inc. Address: 815 Thomas Street Description: Long Legal Zoned: I-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-321 to permit construction of a new building with reduced setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Commercial painting contractor Proposed Use of Property: Commercial painting contractor Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: With Building Permit: 1. Right-of-way dedication required per the "MSP", 60 feet (30 feet from centerline on Thomas Street). 2. Proposed design of streets conforming to "MSP", (industrial improvement to Thomas). 3. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. 4. Stormwater Detention per Ordinance 14,787 and the "Drainage Manual" is required. 5. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. B. Staff Analysis: Arkansas Painting and Specialties/McCormick Painting and Sandblasting is located on the I-3 zoned property at 815 Thomas Street. The site contains several buildings in which this industrial painting company conducts its f Jul, 31, 2000 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) business. The applicant proposes to construct a new, 24,100 square foot building on the site. The new building is to replace two older buildings which are to be removed and one building which was demolished by the January 1999 tornado. The total square footage of the buildings to be removed or which have been destroyed is 15,500 square feet. The proposed new building is to have a rear yard setback of 5 feet and side yard setbacks on both the north and south of 5 feet. The code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet and side yard setbacks of 30 feet in the I-3 district. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The property is located in the older, East Little Rock Industrial area and is surrounded by intense, I-3 Industrial uses. The removal of the older buildings, which can only be described as dilapidated, and the construction of a new building in their place should improve the site. The property abuts the Union Pacific Railroad's 100 foot right- of-way on the east. Allowing the reduced rear yard setback should have no effect on the railroad property. The nearest buildings to the east are located beyond Bond Street, east of the railroad right-of-way. Allowing the reduced side yard setbacks on the north and south should not affect the abutting properties. These properties are occupied by industrial companies. The AFCO Steel property to the north contains large industrial buildings which are built very close to all property lines. The Phelp's Industries property to the south contains similar industrial buildings. This older, industrial area was developed at a time when no setbacks were required in the "K" Heavy Industrial district. The applicant also proposes to construct an addition onto the existing building located nearest Thomas Street. This addition will have a side yard setback of 14.5 feet, maintaining the existing side yard setback. The property directly southwest of the addition is vacant. Allowing this addition to have a reduced side yard should have no effect on that abutting property. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side and rear yard setback variances subject to the compliance with the following conditions: 2 Ju31, 2000 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) 1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any variances or waivers as may be granted by the Director of Public Works or the Board of Directors. 2. Compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance including any variance or waiver as may be granted by the City Beautiful Commission. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 KEMP, DUCKETT, SPRADLEY & GUPPY ATTORNEYS AT LACY SUITE 1300 111 CENTER STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 HAL JOSEPH KEMP, P.A TELEPHONE JAMES M. DUCKETT (501) 372-7243 J. MARK SPRADLEY TELEGOPIER STEPHEN L. CURRY June 13, 2000 (501) 372-5553 Mr. Dana Carney, Zoning Administrator Little Rock Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Application for Zoning Variance; Arkansas Painting & Specialties, Inc. Dear Mr. Carney: Submitted herewith on behalf of Arkansas Painting and Specialties, Inc., the property owner -Applicant, is an application for a non-residential zoning variance, six copies of the required survey and our check for $155.00 for the filing fee. Please accept the enclosures to commence the application process. The Applicant owns the lands described in the application and shown on the survey as Tracts 1, 2 and 3. The Applicant uses all three tracts in its business of commercial and specialty painting. The Applicant does not manufacture paint or paint products, and no change in land use is requested. It is in the area of Tract 3 where the variance is requested. The Applicant's lands, and those surrounding it, are zoned 13. 13 zoning requires a rear setback line of twenty-five (25) feet and side setback lines of thirty'(30) feet. It is those area setbacks for which the variance is requested. The Applicant proposes to raze the two old, dilapidated buildings, shown faintly on the survey, and construct a new building on essentially the same and expanded site. The new building will also cover the area where a third old building stood that was mostly destroyed by the last tornado. The two buildings to be razed contain approximately 9,000 square feet and the demolished building contained approximately 6,500 square feet. The proposed building will contain 24,100 square feet. The Applicant proposes to build the building shown as the "proposed building" on the survey with a five (5) foot setback from its property boundaries on the north, east and south. A set back from the west is not an issue because the Applicant owns the lands to the west. The Applicant's northern boundary is a common boundary with AkO Steel who has already constructed large buildings along its common boundary with the 9 Applicant closer than five (5) feet to the boundary line and that property owner should have no objection. The Applicant's eastern boundary is a common boundary with the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and the variance should present no adverse impacts to the railroad's use of its right-of-way. The Applicant's southern boundary is a common boundary with Phelp's Industries, Inc.'s northern boundary and the variance does not appear to present any adverse impact to the Phelps Industries, Inc. property or the use of it. As part of the Applicant's due diligence in this matter its representative met with Mr. John J. Phelps of Phelps Industries, Inc. and reviewed the survey, the Applicant's plans for the proposed building and specifically the setbacks required under 13 zoning and the variance being requested by the Applicant. Mr. Phelps said the Applicant may state to the Board that Phelps Industries, Inc. has no objection to the variance and further stated, in effect, that he believed the new structure would help clean up and improve the area. The entire area of Applicant's lands, whether under roof or as surface storage, is used consistent with 13 zoning. Construction of the proposed building as shown on the survey will not change the land use but will be a substantial improvement for an area dominated by older, and in many cases, dilapidated buildings. The granting of the variance produces no adverse impact to adjoining landowners or the area as a whole. To the contrary, it will allow construction of the type that will help clean up and improve the area as well as renew the support and desirability of the area for the quality of industrial uses intended for the area. Your favorable support of the variance is respectfully requested. Yours truly, Kemp, Duckett, Spradley, Curry & Arnold 1741 U By J. Mark Spradley for Applicant Arkansas Painting and Specialties, Inc. Enclosures Jms/lhs A.AJL= 6caroeylwer.doc Jul 31, 2000 Item No.: 5 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: Z-6875 Richard Powell 1705 Fair Park Blvd. Lot 10, Block 15, Cherry and Cox R-3 A variance is requested from the accessory structure area regulations of Section 36-156 to permit rebuilding an accessory structure with a reduced side yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family 1. For informational purposes, alley right-of-way is less than standard of 20 feet minimum and street right-of-way is less than Master Street Plan of 60 feet. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property located at 1705 Fair Park Blvd. is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single family residence and a detached, frame accessory building. The accessory building has deteriorated to the point that it is beyond repair and the applicant proposes to remove the structure and build a new one back in the exact same place. The structure now has a side yard setback of 1.2 feet. The applicant proposes to build the new structure on the existing foundation, maintaining the 1.2 foot side yard. The code requires accessory structures to have a side yard JU_L 31, 2000 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) setback of no less than 3 feet. All other required setbacks are exceeded. Staff is supportive of the variance request. The existing structure has been in place for approximately 50 years with no evidence of any impact on the adjacent property. There are no structures on the adjacent lot in close proximity to this structure. The accessory structure is only 20.5 feet deep on the side adjacent to the property line. Staff does not believe this minor variance will affect adjacent properties. Staff believes it is appropriate to require guttering and to limit the size of the eave/overhang on the north side of the structure. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback variance subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. The eave/overhang on the north side of the accessory structure is to be limited to no more than 6 inches. 2. Guttering is to be installed on the north side of the accessory structure to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2000) Gary Langlais abstained on this item. The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Langlais). Pa DANA CARNEY 16 JUNE 00 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVE.LOPEMENT 723 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MR. CARNEY, MY DETACHED, WOOD -FRAME GARAGE HAS DETERIORATED TO THE POINT THAT, ON THE RECOMMEDATION OF THREE BUILDING CONTRACTORS, I AM FORCED TO TEAR IT DOWN AND REBUILD RATHER THAN REPAIRING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE- WHICH I WOULD MUCH RATHER DO. I PROPOSE TO REBUILD THE GARAGE ON ITS PRESENT LOCATION AND BACK TO ITS ORI- GINAL CONFIGURATION USING THE SAME MATERIALS. A NEW GARAGE WILL CERTAINLY ENHANCE MY PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN GENERAL. MY PROBLEM IS THIS -THE LOCATION OF THE GARAGE IS 1.2 FEET (REFER TO ATTACHED SURVEY) FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE AND REBUILDING IN THE SAME LOCATION WOULD VIOLATE CITY ORDINANCES. I AM THEREFORE SEEKING A VARIANCE TO REBUILD ON THE ORI- GINAL 50 ODD YEAR OLD SITE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. THE L -SHAPED GARAGE REST ON ITS ORIGINAL FOUNDATION SYSTEM WITH ABOVE GRADE BRICK VENEER FOUNDATION WALLS. THE BRICK MATCH THE BRICK ON MY HOUSE AND MOVING THIS FOUNDATION WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT. THE EXISTING FOUNDATION IS IN GENERALLY GOOD SHAPE AND READY TO RECIEVE THE NEW BUILDING. 2. TO THE SOUTH OF THE BUILDING NEXT TO THE WALLS ARE TWO LARGE DECORATIVE SHRUBS IN THEIR ORIGINAL PLANTERS SURROUNDED BY CONCRETE CURBS THAT RETURN TO AND ABUT THE GARAGE. CONTINUING SOUTH NEXT TO THESE PLANTERS IS A PATIO OF 2'-6" X 2'-6" X 3" THICK CONCRETE TILES GROUTED IN PLACE AND ORIGINAL TO THE LOT. I WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO PRESERVE IN TACT THESE DESIREABLE FEATURES. 3. AS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY THE GARAGE'S TWO LARGE SWING ENTRY DOORS ARE ALIGNED WITH THE LONG, NARROW DRIVE WAY. MOVING THE GARAGE TO THE SOUTH WOULD DISTURB THIS ALIGNMENT AND MAKE IT DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO DRIVE A CAR INTO THE GARAGE. t MY GOAL IS TO MAINTAIN THE LOOK AND INTEGRITY OF MY PROPERTY. IT HAS SERVED ME WELL THE TWELVE YEARS I HAVE LIVED HERE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER AND I LOOK FORWARD TO MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS THEY MAY HAVE. SINCERELY, RICHARD W. OWELL Ju.,I 31, 2000 Item No.: 6 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: Z-6877 John and Kim Lewis 112 Normandy Road Lots 75, 76 and 77 and NE '-� of Lot 78, Normandy owl A variance is requested from the accessory structure 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 1. For informational purposes, right-of-way on Normandy is less than Master Street Plan required 50 -foot right-of- way. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located at 112 Normandy Road is occupied by a single family home that is currently in the process of being substantially remodeled. As part of the project, the applicant proposes to construct a two-story accessory structure adjacent to the home. The structure will contain a ground level carport and upper-level game room. The structure will have the appearance of being part of the principal structure but will actually be separated from the home by a 6 foot wide breezeway. Since there is no "structural tie" connecting the two structures, the l Jul, 31, 2000 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) carport/game room is classified as an accessory structure. The applicant proposes to line the accessory structure with the front wall of the house, providing a 40 foot front yard setback. The code requires accessory structures to have a front yard setback of at least 60 feet. Staff supports the requested variance. As proposed by the applicant, the carport/game room will indeed appear to be part of the house. If the structure were attached to the house by a heated and cooled connection rather than a breezeway, it would become part of the principal structure. As such, it would meet all required setbacks. From all appearances, the house/garage will be one structure. Staff does not believe that allowing the reduced front yard setback will negatively impact neighboring properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested front yard setback as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2000) Sheri Trammell was present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff informed the Board that 9 of the 11 signatures submitted by Ms. Trammell as her proof of notice were obtained on July 27, 2000, 4 days prior to the meeting, not 10 days as required by the Board's Bylaws. Ms. Trammell stated that the required sign was placed on the property in a timely manner. She stated that she had a hard time catching people at home during the day and that she had to work the evening of the 27th to get the signatures. Mr. Trammell stated that she always left a business card in the door of each home. Gary Langlais asked if there had been any statements or telephone calls of opposition. Ms. Trammell and staff both responded that there had been no opposition voiced. A motion was made to waive the Bylaw's and to accept the notices. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 1 noe and 0 absent. A motion was made to approve the requested variance. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 2 HARDIN DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, INC. KEITH H. HARDIN 2024 ARKANSAS VALLEY DR., STE. 402 ♦ LITTLE ROCK, AR 72212 Phone 501-312-8778 ♦ Fax 501-312-8780 1 Home Phone (501) 920-7788 MOBILE ♦ Email SHERITB@AOL.COM June 20, 2000 CITY OF LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 701 W. MARKHAM ST. LITTLE ROCK, AR 72213 DEAR SIRS OR MADAME, THIS IS A LETTER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR A BUILDING THAT IS CONSIDERED A DETACHED STRUCTURE, ACCORDING TO THE REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK BUILDING CODES. OUR INTENTION IS TO ADD A THREE CAR CARPORT TO THE REMODELED HOME LOCATED AT 112 NORMANDY IN LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, PULASKI CO. THE CARPORT WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE HOME WITH A & BREEZEWAY AND HAVE A GAME ROOM LOCATED OVER THE TOP OF THE CARPORT. THE CARPORT WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 53' FROM THE STREET AT IT'S CLOSEST CORNER. EVEN THOUGH THIS IS CLASSIFIED AS A DETACHED STRUCTURE, IT WILL LOOK AS THOUGH IT IS ATTACHED TO THE HOME, AS A GARAGE WOULD, BUT IT WILL BE OPEN ON THE FRONT AND THE EAST SIDE OF THE CARPORT. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THIS VARIANCE, IN ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY AND GIVE THIS HOME AND IT'S NEIGHBORS THE TYPE OF HOME THAT THEY WILL BE PROUD TO LIVE WITH. SINCERELY, SHERI A. TRAMMELL ASSISTANT TO KEITH H. HARDIN HARDIN DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, INC. { Jul, 31, 2000 Item No.: 7 File No.: Z-6878 Owner: ARVEST Central Bank Address: 12th and University, NE corner Description: Long Legal Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the wall sign provisions of Section 36-557 to permit placement of a wall sign without direct street frontage. Justification: Applicant's Statement: We are requesting a variance for (1) 8' X 22'6" single faced wall sign to be fabricated of .063 aluminum sheet metal with copy and colors as per art. The East elevation has no immediate street frontage, although when the sign is placed on the far left hand corner of the facia becomes very visible for traffic. Environmental codes has given permission for signs on the remaining 3 facias. Present Use of Property: Office Building Proposed Use of Property: Office Building Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No issues related to this sign variance. B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property located at the northeast corner of West 12th and University is occupied by the University Tower Building, a multi -story office building. At the top of the Jui 1 31, 2000 Item No.: 7 (Cont. building is the elevator/mechanical penthouse. ARVEST Central Bank proposes to place its sign on all 4 sides of the penthouse. Two sides face directly to streets (12th and University Avenue). The north side and the east side have no direct street frontage. The code requires wall signs to have direct street frontage. Staff supports the variance request. This area on top of the building was historically used for signage purposes. At one time, a continuous message sign wrapped around the structure. That ceased when the City Code was adopted prohibiting such signs. The north sign will be visible from University Avenue and I-630. The east sign, which faces a cemetery, will be visible from westbound traffic on West 12th Street. The area of the signs is well below the allowable area of 10% permitted for wall signs. Due to the design of the fagade of the building, there will likely never be wall signs on the structure equaling 10% of the wall area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the wall sign variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: Gary Langlais abstained on this There were no objectors present. recommendation of approval. (JULY 31, 2000) item. The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and a The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Langlais). E Jui Jugs 31, 2000 Item No.: 8 (Cont. I be enclosed with a 4 foot tall fence with no variance required. The fence will be 21 feet from the curb of the street. The area to be fenced is at the rear of the lot. As such, the fence should not affect traffic in the street or at the intersection. The house adjacent to the west faces Westglen Drive. The garage portion of the adjacent home is on the side nearest the applicant's property. There are no windows on the east side of that adjacent home. Allowing the applicant to construct the fence should not affect sight -lines or visibility for the adjacent property. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance subject to the fence being constructed in "good - neighbor" fashion, with the finished side facing outward. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to the fence being constructed in "good neighbor" fashion, with the finished side facing outward. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 2 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Date: June 29, 2000 Subject: Application for Zoning Variance Dear Directors;, This document is to serve as the cover letter for the residential zoning variance I have applied for. I have ask for a zoning variance to build a 6' wood fence coming out 16' from the center side of my house and back 34' to the property line. The fence will attach to a 6' wood fence already along the property line that runs parallel to my house. I understand that because I live on a corner lot to build a fence on my side yard I am required to submit an application for zoning variance. My reasons for the fence are as follows: When I first moved into my house we were the last corner before dead end streets. The traffic is so much heavier now because of the additional subdivisions in the last thirteen years. I have a 2 %z year old grand baby that likes to play out side. She is so quick it's almost impossible to keep up with her. About 18' feet out from the side of my house the yard drops off drastically which is difficult for her and me to maneuver. We would also like to get a kiddy pool to play in and we need the privacy a fence will provide. Also, the fence would provide the privacy I need to work in my little garden. I appreciate your consideration for this variance. Sincerely, Earlena Seward 1424 Point West Drive Little Rock, Ar 72211 Juis 31, 2000 Item No.: 9 File No.: Z-6880 Owner: Dillard Store Services, Inc. Address: 1310 Cantrell Road Description: Long Legal Zoned: 0-3 and C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area regulations of Sections 36-281 and 36-301 and the parking requirements of Section 36-502. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in the attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Data computer center Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: With Building Permit: 1. Right-of-way dedication is required per the "MSP" 55 feet from centerline. 2. Proposed design of streets conforming to "MSP" widens to 33 feet from centerline. 3. Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175 and the "MSP" 5 feet buffer. 4.Stormwater Detention per Ordinance 14,787 and the "Drainage Manual" will be required. 5. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Sec. 31-403. 6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 7. Contact the AHTD for work within the State Highway right- of-way. ight- of-way. 8. Board of Directors will consider request for right-of-way waiver on July 18, 2000. Dependent upon that request, comments may vary. Presently, Public Works recommends Jul, 31, 2000 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) denial of right-of-way requests, so comments are based upon Board of Directors denial of waiver. B. Staff Analysis: Dillards proposes to build a 30,000 square foot Data Computer Center on the vacant 0-3 and C-3 zoned property located at 1310 Cantrell Road, the site of the old Mo-Pac Hospital. The applicant proposes to construct 50 parking spaces on the site. The code requires 72 on-site parking spaces for an office building of this size. The proposed building will result in a reduced rear yard and may result in a reduced front yard as will be explained later. The 0-3 district has a rear yard requirement of 15 feet. C-3 requires a rear yard of 25 feet. Both districts require a front yard of 25 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested parking and setback variances. Although the building is classified as an office building, it will primarily contain computers and data processing equipment with a maximum of 18 people per shift working in the building. Even with an overlap at shift change, the proposed 50 parking spaces will exceed the needed number. An area of "future parking" is indicated which would bring the number of on-site parking spaces to approximately 70, if it were ever determined that they were needed. As currently shown, the building, including a future expansion area, has a front yard setback of 35 feet and a rear yard setback of 5-15 feet at two points. The difficulty comes from the right-of-way requirement for Cantrell Road. The street currently has a right-of-way of 60 feet, 30 feet from centerline. The Master Street Plan requires a right-of-way of 110 feet, 55 feet from centerline. If it is determined that the full right-of-way dedication requirement is needed, the building will be pushed slightly more to the rear of the lot resulting in a front yard setback of 15 feet, as measured from the new right-of-way line, and a rear yard setback of 0 feet. The Board of Directors is scheduled to address the right-of-way issue at its July 18, 2000 meeting. If a total waiver is granted, the site plan will remain as is. If the waiver is denied or if the dedication requirement is modified, the building will be moved back towards the river. In either case, staff supports the requested front and rear yard setback variances. The property backs up to the Arkansas 2 Jul., 31, 2000 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) River. Allowing a reduced setback adjacent to the river will have no effect on other properties. The reduced setback would only be for two "corner" intrusions, not the entire width of the building. If the waiver request is denied or modified and the applicant has to widen the street, the building will still be located 35± feet from the road at its nearest point. Allowing the reduced front yard should have no impact on adjacent properties or on traffic in the street. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested parking and setback variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any variances or waivers as may be granted by the Director of Public Works or the Board of Directors. 2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances including any variances or waivers as may be granted by the City Beautiful Commission. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 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 the Board of Directors had approved a reduction in the required right-of- way for Cantrell Road. The required right-of-way was reduced from 55 feet from centerline to 45 feet from centerline. Staff informed the Board that the building was now proposed to have a front yard setback of 25 feet with a 5 foot overhang. Phase I was now proposed to have a rear yard setback of 15 feet and a rear yard setback of 5 feet was now proposed for the future expansion. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 June 22, 2000 Hand Deliver Board of Adjustments Dept. of Planning and Development CITY OF LITTLE ROCK 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Attn: Dana Carney RE: Proposed Dillard's Data Computer Center 1310 Cantrell Road Ladies and/or Gentlemen: We are in the process of designing a new Data Computer Center for the Dillard's Department Store on the old Mo-Pac Hospital site on Cantrell Road east of the Dillard Executive Office Building. The Packett House occupies the lot immediately west of this site, the Arkansas River is along the north property line, and the Union Pacific Railroad to the east as indicated on the attached survey. Attached for your review are six copies of the existing site survey, dated 2-2-2000, and proposed site plan, sheet SP -1, dated 6-22-2000. The site has a very unusual lot configuration; it is a narrow sliver of land 270 feet deep on the west end and 109 feet on the east end x 600' long (not counting the required setbacks). These dimensions are based on the 60' R.O.W. for Cantrell Road which existed when Dillard's purchased the property. Also attached is a letter from Joe Story, Vice -President - Construction, stating that the use of the facility will only require a maximum of 18 people on any shift. The code requires this facility to have 72 parking spaces. Our site plan, SP -1, indicates a parking space count of fifty-eight (58) spaces which includes 3 ADA spaces. The property has two different zones - 03 & C3 - and each has different setback requirements. Referring to the site plan, sheet SP -1, the front yard setback is the same twenty-five (25) feet and the side yards are both ten (10) feet. The rear yards, however, are different - the 03 is fifteen (15) feet and the C3 is twenty-five (25) feet. The proposed building footprint and the future expansion extend past the setback lines. While working with the City to develop the site plan, we were informed that the R.O.W. requirements on Cantrell Road have been increased from 60' to 110'. This would • Architecture + A Professional Corporation Washington Plaza Suite 400 300 Washington Street Monroe, Louisiana 7'2:' - Fax 318-325-9405 318-387-2:SO: Board of Adjustments Page 2 June 22, 2000 mean the loss of an additional 25' of property. This loss would make the property virtually useless for the purpose to which Dillard's intends it to be used. We have made a request to the Board of Directors that the expansion of the right-of-way be waived since this loss will create a hardship to the property. We are currently working with the Civil Engineering Section of the Department of Public Works. On behalf of Dillard's Department Stores, we are requesting the following variances: 1. A reduction in the required parking, per Section 36-502 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinance, from seventy-two (72) parking spaces to Fifty (50). 2-A. Reduce the rear yard setbacks from fifteen and twenty-five feet to zero (0) setback since the rear yard faces the river. 2-B Reduce front yard setbacks, per Sections 36-281 & 36-301 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances, from twenty-five to fifteen (15) feet since the city is requesting additional right-of-way. Your consideration and consent for these variance requests would be appreciated by Dillard's Department Stores. Should there be any questions or comments, please advise. With kindest regards, LarP. nt, AIA, P.E. Larry cf cc: Clyde Webb Glenn Golson w/enc. File i Jul, 31, 2000 Item No.: 10 File No.: Z-6881 Owner: Roy Snook Address: 8306 Reymere Drive Description: Lot 169, Sheridan Park Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence height restrictions of Section 36-516 to permit construction of an 8 foot tall fence. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: 1. Easements shall not be fenced due to utility and drainage use. Recommend removal from easements. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located at 8306 Reymere Drive is occupied by a split-level, brick and frame, single family residence. The rear yard of the property is enclosed by a 4 foot tall chain link fence. The applicant proposes to replace the fence on the west side of the property with an 8 foot tall, wood, privacy fence. The fence is to extend from the building line in the front to the existing chain link fence along the rear property line. Because of a drainage ditch along a portion of the west property line, the fence will not be located on that line but will be angled away from the property line. Because of that angle, only a portion of the fence is within the side yard setback where the code limits the fence height to 6 feet. Jui, 31, 2000 Item No.: 10 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the majority of the variance request. Due to the angle of the fence and its distance from the property line, allowing the 8 foot tall fence should not have an impact on the adjacent property with one exception. The house is not lined up parallel with the front building line, resulting in a portion of the proposed privacy fence extending beyond the front wall of the house, into the front yard area. Staff believes that portion of the fence should be limited to 6 feet in height, the height permitted by the code for fences erected behind the setback or building lines adjacent to streets. The Public Works staff has raised concerns about the fence extending into the 10 foot easement along the rear property line and has recommended that the existing fence in that area be removed. Staff believes it is appropriate to approve the fence height variance subject to the applicant working with Public Works staff and receiving Public Works approval prior to construction of the portion of the fence within the rear 10 foot easement. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the fence height variance subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. The fence is to be constructed in "good neighbor" fashion, with the finished side facing outward. 2. That portion of the fence located from the front wall of the house to the front 25 foot building line is to be limited to 6 feet in height. 3. Public Works approval must be received and made a part of this file prior to construction of that portion of the fence which extends into the rear 10 foot easement. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. The applicant offered no additional comments. 2 r' Jul, 31, 2000 Item No.: 10 (Cont.) The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 Date: June 21, 2000 Dept. of Planning and Development Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Sir or Madam: We purchased our 8306 reymere home in May of this year. We are improving the home significantly interior and exterior. The exterior improvements we have made to date are: we have painted the entire homes exterior, including the doors and shutters, improved the landscaping, and power washed the concrete drive and walks. We are currently improving the Deck (releveling and refinishing) and continue to improve the landscaping. We plan to build a fence on the West side of the home. The fence will be a standard wood privacy fence using treated materials and quality construction. The fence will conform to set backs and all requirements with the exception of the height. We are requesting that you allow us to use an 8' high fence versus the regular 6' height. We are requesting this for the primary reasons of: 1. Visible from the back of the home is a creek which the city has done some work which is structurally sound, but the concrete sculpted walls next to the 3' drainage pipe not real visually appetizing, should we say. The additional fence height will help hide this from visibility. 2. We currently have an architect working with us on more improvements to the front of the home. The lot slops to the point that the home stands 1 story on the East side and 2 stories on the West. A six foot fence looks very small in scale to the home both currently and even more so when we increase the size of the front porch (which will be within city code). We are raping the 4x4 poles to make them 6x6, this helps bring the scale up but the additional height would help much more. 3. The existing fence has been ruined by the overflowing water from the creek that runs on the west of the home and even after the cities work the water still over flows the banks and pushes on the fence. The more substantial fence should prevent continued damage. Review Criteria: a. The home is 1930 s/f. the lot is approximately 13,000 s/f. the front set bank line is 25'. b. One drive 42' long and 20' wide. c. The only point of entry is the drive. d. The only street adjacent in Reymere Drive. e. The home has all public utilities. f. No fire hydrants exist on the property. g. The home has city water. h. The west property line is 171', the frontage to Reymere is 74', the East property line is 160' and the North property line is 80'. i. No existing right of ways exist. j. Landscaping, will be improved but not changed in any material way. k. No handicap parting required, residential. We thank you for your consideration. We feel all of the improvements we are making to the home will add to the neighborhood. We are and will be investing significant money into the home and having all of the details of the homes appearance done right is the only way our homes value will equal to our investment. S4nok Teresa W. Snook { Juid 31, 2000 Item No.: 11 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: Z-6882 Annette Wahlgreen 5918 "C" Street Part of Lot 16, Howard Adams and R. D. Plunketts Subdivision R-3 A variance is requested from the location of off-street parking provisions of Section 36-507 to permit development of an office parking lot on residentially zoned property. The applicant's justification is presented in the attached letters. Residential Parking lot to serve adjacent medical offices 1.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e) will be required with a building permit. 2. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) will be required with a building permit. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant proposes to develop a parking lot on the R-3 zoned property located at 5918 "C" Street. The parking lot is to serve the medical offices located on the 0-3 zoned properties west of the site. The parking is needed to replace an existing parking lot located across "C" Street directly south of the site. The area of the existing parking lot is to be incorporated into a new 25,060 square Jul, 31, 2000 Item No.: 11 (Cont.) foot retail development planned for the property east of University Avenue, between "B" and "C" Streets. The proposed 39 space parking lot takes access via a single driveway onto "C" Street. The property consists of 2 lots, one of which currently contains a single family home. Staff's support for this issue is contingent upon the proposed retail development actually being built. Unless the existing parking lot south of "C" Street is displaced by the new development, there is no need for this proposed new parking lot. If the retail development is constructed, the character of this end of "C" Street changes so that the proposed new parking lot will be compatible with development and uses in the area. The proposed 25,060 square foot retail store is to be located directly south of this site. Areas set aside for perimeter landscaping on the proposed parking lot exceed ordinance requirements. No areas of interior landscaping are shown. As many as 5 parking spaces may be lost to provide the required interior landscaping area. Appropriate screening will be required along the north and east perimeters. The applicant has not proposed any lighting for the parking lot. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow for development of the R-3 zoned property at 5918 "C" Street as a parking lot to serve the adjacent 110-3" zoned medical offices subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. No permits are to be issued for development of the parking lot until such time as a building permit has been issued for the proposed retail development located on the south side of "C" Street. 2. Compliance with Public Works Comments 3. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 4. There is to be no lighting of the parking lot. 2 Jui IRWIN&SAVIERS COMPANY A Real Estate Brokerage, Deielopment &Investment Firm June 26, 2000 Dana Carney Dept of Planning & Development City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR RE: Application for development of a parking lot located at 5918 "C" Street adjacent to an existing parking lot. Dear Dana: The purpose of the application for development of the above described parking lot represents a portion of the recently approved PCD immediately south of this proposed lot and will result in a relocation of an existing lot on the south side of "C" street. This new lot will serve a series of medical buildings immediately west and will be incorporated into an existing lot that is a part of this complex. Please call me if you have any questions or comments regarding this application. Very truly yours, IRWIN & SAVIERS COMPANY /a Ronald E. Tabor Cc: Jim Irwin David Lewis Little Rock: 1701 Centerview, Suite 201 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 • 501-225-5700 • FAX 501-227-0280 Northwest Arkansas: 1526 Plaza Place, Suite 1 • Springdale, Arkansas 72764 • 501-872-1000 • FAX 501-756-8861 Texas: 730 North Post Oak, Suite 400 • Houston, Texas 77024 • 713-812-6543 - FAX 713-812-6542 RUM MCGETRICK & MCGETRICK, INC. PLANNING - ENGINEERING - LAND DEVELOPMENT June 26, 2000 Mr. Dana Carney Zoning Administrator Department of Neighborhoods & Planning 721 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Off -Site Parking for Lot 16 Howard Adam & R. D. Plunkett's Dear Mr. Carney, We would like to request a variance for off-site parking for the Doctor's Office Building located at the NE corner of University Ave. & "C" St.. This parking will be on R-2 Zoned property adjacent to the Doctors Office Building. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, MCGETRICK & MCGETRICK, INC. Patrick M. McGetnck, P.E. PMM: rm 319 East Markham Street, Suite 202 - Little Rock, AR 72201 - (501) 223-9900 - FAX (501) 223-9293 Jul., 31, 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: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-6887 Ruth Ann McMillan and James McMillan, M.D. 18 Honey Bear Court Lot 54, Longlea X R-2 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family The R-2 zoned property located at #18 Honey Bear Court is occupied by a two-story, brick and frame, single family residence. The house has a small, covered stoop on the front. The applicants propose to replace the stoop with a new, covered porch to extend the full width of the house. One corner of the new porch will extend to within 5 feet of the side property line. The code requires an 8 foot side yard setback for this lot. The porch will be built entirely behind the front 25 foot building line but it may be necessary to extend 3-4 steps down from the porch, across the building line. The steps will be uncovered. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. As was previously mentioned, only a corner of the new porch extends Jul, 31, 2000 Item No.: 12 (Cont.) into the side yard setback. This minor, corner intrusion should have no effect on the adjacent property. A driveway on the adjacent property is located adjacent to the property line, providing adequate separation between structures. The building line variance for the steps is also minor and should have no effect on neighboring properties or on traffic in the street. The property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and the steps would be located 30+ feet from the curb of the street. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line for the steps. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk 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 the compliance with the following conditions: 1.A one lot replat reflecting the change in the building line for the steps. 2. The porch is to remain unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. iq James A.McMillan, M.D. 18 Honey Bear Court Little Rock, AR 72223-5200 Home Phone 501-868-7351 Construction Proposal. June 25, 2000 The owners propose to build an attached, single -story porch along the front of the house with steps leading to the existing walkway. The porch will extend seven (7) feet from the present structure and will be approximately thirty-eight (38) feet in length. The lot is wedge-shaped, and the southwest comer of the porch will extend to about five (5) feet from the property line or about six and one-half (6 1/2) feet from the neighboring driveway. The front steps of the porch may encroach about one (1) foot on the building setback line though not requiring a change to the existing walkway. The front of the competed porch with steps will still be thirty-two (32) feet from the curb. /,,�James A. McMillan, M.D. Ruth Ann McMillan F "` a 0 �.3 7 ❑ < U) g ^7 0 Lli cr- w z LL Q m > = Y L'LL Q Q<0 J Q' or- MIR 0 U w w Q sl eQ 9 z z w U) m 0 w z C w i I July 31, 2000 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. Date: �% rA It IC ' �2 irmaAY c eta i