The URL can be used to link to this page

boa_09 25 2000LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 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 August 28, 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: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEM A. Z-6882 II. NEW ITEMS 5918 "C" Street 1. Z -3638-C 10800 Financial Centre Parkway 2. Z -6390-A #4 Production Drive 3. Z -6578-A 5525 Scenic Drive 4. Z-6914 ##1 Wildwood Road 5. Z-6916 205 Colonial Court 6. Z-6917 5125 Stonewall Road 7. Z-6918 24 Old Delmonte Drive 8. Z-6919 Valley Falls Estates 9. Z -5616-A 15602 Mooser Lane III. OTHER MATTER 10. Interpretative Request 9108 N. Rodney Parham 0 0 N 3NId a31ZVa3 Lo u J nvelHl C ' W U gpNp NVWa30 W AVMOVOaB HOaV 1S3H0 N�f/yp N3H380 ONIN IN — S � \RpNApN x MO8000M e ir 3NId l33dIS e Cfl d- = 3NId 8v0 0 NOITVWV 1100S o y'Ad/b s S,�pAfytls Ln --- sf�l Bio$ A11Sa3AINn � NaYd All Naltld 3A SINn yfU o w' a cz ((N, S3HOnH SONIad N3A30 o Iddlss IN y IOOIHO NIOA213S3H � M088VO NHOf N 3 2 o � 3NN13H ONOj3MMS o SlOatls a� WVHNtld A3NO08 — s — _I_� �x �oJ � NV 08 S11WIi Allo a ( 1 W 30O16 AWN y,,bo�3 Mbls o ORgR aoo, I1�J7f aux $�1/1�1 C'oo � � 0 L7 O Ono Nei V J hQ v o e s�= " Nvnnins 1avM31s ysd'b o h S11WIl A110 0 oQ? g oJP 3 CIO djpl00 31tlONa33 0 m S.Vtember 25, 2000 Item No.: A 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 S� r.tember 25, 2000 Item No.: A (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 S��,tember 25, 2000 Item No.: A (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2000) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the abstract company had made errors in identifying property owners within 200 feet of the site and, as such, the applicant had sent notices to the incorrect people. Staff recommended that the item be deferred and the applicant renotify. The Board concurred and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the August 28, 2000 Board meeting. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: At its August 15, 2000 meeting, the Board of Directors voted to deny the proposed rezoning for the commercial development to be located on the south side of "C" Street. In light of the Board's action, staff believes it is appropriate to withdraw this item. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the Board of Directors was to reconsider its vote on the related commercial development at its August 29, 2000 meeting. In light of that action, the applicant had requested deferral of this item to the September 25, 2000 Board of Adjustment meeting. The request for deferral had been received by staff on the morning of August 28, 2000. A motion was made to waive the Board's Bylaws to accept the late request for deferral. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: At its August 29, 2000 meeting, the Board of Directors voted to reconsider and approve the proposed rezoning for the commercial development to be located on the south side of "C" Street. 3 S�,_,tember 25, 2000 Item No.: A (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 2000) Ron Tabor and Jim Irwin were present representing the application. There were two objectors present. Staff informed the Board that a revised plan had been submitted showing a 30 foot wide landscaped area between the edge of the parking lot and the adjacent residential property to the east. Staff recommended approval of the item subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. Ron Tabor addressed the Board and gave a brief history of the commercial project proposed for the south side of "C" Street. He stated that there would be no need for this parking lot if the PCD does not go forward. Mr. Tabor stated that he had worked with the neighbors to address their concerns, including providing the 30 foot wide landscaped area on the east side of the parking lot. In response to a question from Fred Gray, Mr. Tabor noted that the proposed parking lot was closer to the medical offices than the existing parking lot which it was to replace. In response to a question from Scott Richburg, Mr. Tabor stated that he would work with the adjoining property owner to determine where to place a screening fence. In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Tad Borkowski of Public Works stated that the proposed parking lot would not have to comply with the City's stormwater detention regulations since it was less than 1 acre in area. Ken Shepard, of 5910 "C" Street, spoke in opposition to the item. He voiced concerns about stormwater run-off and increased traffic. Mr. Shepard stated that the realtor had promised him that the screening fence would be located closer to the parking lot, leaving more yard space near his property. Mr. Shepard voiced concern that the parking lot would be used by the commercial development, not just the medical offices. Norm Floyd noted that staff had suggested no lighting of the parking lot. He asked Mr. Shepard his opinion. Mr. Shepard responded that he would prefer that the lot be lighted with directional lighting. In response to a question from Fred Gray, Mr. Shepard reiterated that he would prefer a fence to be located closer to the parking lot, leaving more open space on his side of the fence. 4 S,-r.tember 25, 2000 Item No.: A (Cont.) In response to questions from William Ruck, Mr. Shepard stated that he felt the proposed parking lot would decrease his property value and would cause people to move out of the neighborhood. Scott Richburg asked Mr. Tabor if he would commit to providing stormwater detention on the parking lot. Mr. Tabor responded that he was not an engineer, that he would look at the issue, but that he could not make that commitment. Patrick McGetrick, the applicant's engineer, stated that they would work with the City to address stormwater concerns. Mr. McGetrick said they could commit to "not increasing CFS downstream." Mr. McGetrick stated that the proposed improvements to "C" Street would also help to address drainage concerns in the area and that the applicant would have to make improvements to assure that adjacent property is not damaged. Dottie Wahlgreen, of 5917 Lee Street, spoke in opposition to the item. She also expressed concerns about drainage problems in the area. Fred Gray asked if this applicant was responsible for taking care of existing drainage problems in the area. Tad Borkowski responded that the applicant was responsible for addressing drainage issues created by his development. There was further discussion of drainage issues. Jim Irvin briefly addressed the Board in support of the item. Ken Shepard reiterated his opposition. In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Mr. Tabor committed to placing directional lighting on the parking lot. A motion was made to approve the amended application, with the 30 foot landscaped area east of the parking lot, 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 6� Si-etember 25, 2000 Item No.: A (Cont.) 3. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 4. The parking lot is to be lit with low-level, directional lighting aimed away from adjacent residential properties. 5. Screening, in the form of a privacy fence, is to be located on the north and east perimeters of the parking lot. The screening fence is to be located within 6 feet of the back of the curb of the parking lot. 6. Public Works approval of a stormwater detention plan to assure that there is no increase in CFS downstream. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 1 noe and 0 absent. M IR«IV&SAUIERS COMPANY A Real Estate Brokerage, Detelopment &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 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 U= MCGETRICK & MCGETRICK, INC. PLANNING - ENGINEEPJNG - 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. McGetrick, P.E. PMM: rm 319 East Markham Street, Suite 202 - Little Rock, AR 72201 - (501) 223-9904 - FAX (501) 223-9293 St rcember 25, 2000 Item No.: 1 File No.: Z -3638-C Owner: Don Kirkpatrick Address: 10800 Financial Centre Parkway Description: Part of Tracts 15, 16 and 18, West Highlands Zoned: 0-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the wall sign provisions of Section 36- 557 to permit a wall sign without direct street frontage. Justification: The building is laid out in such a manner in which any advertising of the office building for traffic bearing southbound from Markham is virtually impossible unless you display signage up on the building. The top of the building is visible all the way back to Markham. Present Use of Property: Office Building Proposed Use of Property: Office Building Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No comments associated with this sign variance. B. Staff Analysis: The 0-2 zoned property located at 10800 Financial Centre Parkway is occupied by a five -story, office building and a parking deck. The building has street frontage on Shackleford Road and Financial Centre Parkway. The property has recently been purchased by the applicant who is now in the process of updating and improving the property and the building. The applicant proposes to place a wall sign on the north wall of the building which would be visible to 4etember 25, 2000 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) traffic southbound on Shackleford Road from Markham Street. Although visible from the street, the proposed wall sign would not face either of the property's street frontages. Section 36-557 of the code requires wall signs to face street frontages. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The proposed sign consists of individual, internally illuminated channel letters. The letters are 314" in height and extend a total of 4719" along the upper face of the five -story building. There is no external illumination of the sign. The building itself is 240 feet in length and the proposed sign is to be located on the far east end of the fagade, nearest Shackleford Road. Several mature trees are located in the landscape area between the building and the property line and in the rear yards of the adjacent residential properties. The lack of external illumination and the presence of the trees, reduces the visual impact of the sign on the nearby residential properties. There is little signage on the 4.5± acre site and the proposed wall sign will help identify the building from Shackleford Road and the I-430 exit. The sign does not advertise any business occupying the building, only "Kirkpatrick Plaza". C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested building identification wall sign without direct street frontage subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. The sign is to be constructed of individual, internally illuminated channel letters, as proposed. 2. There is to be no external illumination of the sign. 3. The sign is to be located on the eastern of the north wall, closest to Shackleford Road. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 2000) Frank Withrow, Gayle Corley and Don Kirkpatrick were present representing the application. There were two objectors present representing the Birchwood Neighborhood Association. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. Ka Sf-;- , cember 25, 2000 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) Gayle Corley described the proposed signage. She stated that the letters were internally illuminated and that the sign was only to provide building identification. Ken Davis, of the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, questioned the need for the sign and stated that it would be an intrusion into the neighborhood. Gary Langlais asked how many of the abutting property owners had voiced objections to staff. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that he had received no calls or letters of opposition from abutting property owners. Ken Davis stated that he and Mr. Boyd, as association officers, were empowered to speak for the neighborhood. He acknowledged that he had not heard from the abutting property owners. Floyd Boyd, also of the neighborhood association, spoke in opposition. He urged the applicant to place signage on the east side of the building, facing Shackleford Road. In response to a question from the Board, Frank Withrow stated that placing the sign on the north fagade of the building was the best way to reach traffic at the Markham/Shackleford intersection and the exit off of southbound I-430. Mr. Withrow described the lighting of the proposed sign as being less intensive than the lighting of the offices in the building. He stated that the neon fixtures within the stainless steel channel letters would cast a light off of the building and reflect the lettering in the indirect glow. He stated that the lights could be placed on a timer and shut-off at night. Floyd Boyd asked that the lettering not be lighted at all. He stated that any lighting, indirect or not, would affect adjacent residences. Gayle Corley reiterated that there was no objection from the adjacent residents. Norm Floyd asked if the Board could impose a condition that the lighting be turned off at a specific hour. Staff responded that such a condition could be imposed by the Board. There was further discussion of visibility of the site from adjacent streets and the perceived need for building identification. 3 S''ttember 25, 2000 Item No.: 1 (Cont. A motion was made to approve the requested variance subject to compliance with the conditions proposed by staff. The vote was 2 ayes, 3 noes and 0 absent. The motion failed. 4 Sf-;r,cember 25, 2000 Item No.: 2 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: .T„ -=f-; f; r= * 4 ^" - Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: With Building Permit: Z -6390-A Frito-Lay, Inc. #4 Production Drive Lots 31 and 32, Triangle Properties I-2 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-320 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12. The conversion of a mezzanine level into second floor office space has generated a building code requirement to build a rated fire exit from the second floor on the front of the structure. Distribution Facility Distribution Facility 1. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Se,,cember 25, 2000 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) B. Staff Analysis: The I-2 zoned property located at #4 Production Drive is occupied by a 13,000+ square foot warehouse housing the Frito Lay Distribution Center. Within the building, are 2,300 square feet of office space. Frito Lay is converting a mezzanine level into an additional 2,300 square feet of office area. The creation of this second floor of office space has generated a building code requirement to construct a rated fire exit onto the front of the building. The enclosed stairwell will extend 12 feet out from the face of the building and will cross a 40 foot platted building line, resulting in a front yard setback of 36.6 feet. The I-2 district front yard setback requirement of 50 feet is superceded by the platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. This minor, 3.5 foot intrusion across the building line should have no effect on other properties in the area. There is a parking lot located between the building and Production Drive. The property has 460+ feet of street frontage and the proposed stairwell is only 38 feet in width, less than 10% of the overall property width. This minor reduction in setback should not be readily visible to the naked eye and will address a building code/fire safety issue. 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 variance subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as approved by the Board. 2. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any variance or waiver of these requirements as may be granted by the Director of Public Works or the Board of Directors. 2 S ,tember 25, 2000 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 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 September 25, 2000 � Item No.: 3 File No.: Z -6578-A Owner: Mary Lee McHenry Address: 5525 Scenic Drive Description: Lot 15 and part of Lot 16, Grandview Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the accessory structure area regulations of Section 36-156. Justification: I have a business at home called Fresh Herbs for Gourmets which supplies herbs to local restaurants and grocery stores. My home at present has no greenhouse, which I badly need in the winter so that I can keep some of my plants out of the winter weather. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located at 5525 Scenic Drive is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame single family residence. On October 26, 1998, the Board approved setback and building line variances to allow for substantial expansion of the home. The property is located at the corner of Scenic Drive and North Taylor Street and has a platted building line varying from 20 feet to 30 feet in width on both street frontages. The applicant now proposes to place a 9 foot X 11 foot accessory building between the home and Scenic Drive. The accessory building is to be September 25, 2000 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) placed across a platted building line and will have a street side yard setback of 1.5 - 2 feet. Although the house faces Scenic Drive, the lot fronts onto Taylor Street and the required setbacks are based on that lot orientation. The code requires accessory buildings to have a minimum setback on the street side line of 15 feet. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Although it can be argued that allowing a reduced side yard setback on this dead-end street is reasonable, there are other issues which must be considered. Other homes east of the applicant's property front onto Scenic Drive. Although the applicant's lot fronts to Taylor Street, her home faces Scenic Drive. Placement of an accessory building of this nature in the front yard is out of character with the neighborhood and could have a detrimental effect on neighboring properties. A 10 foot wide sewer easement extends through the applicant's property, parallel to Scenic Drive. The proposed building is located over that sewer easement. The Little Rock Wastewater Utility has recommended denial of the request based on the structure's proposed placement over the sewer easement. Through its previous action, the Board allowed a substantial expansion of the house. Allowing the accessory structure to be placed on the property will create the visual appearance of the site being overdeveloped. Finally, on November 29, 1999, the Board approved the applicant's home occupation which involves the growing, packaging, sales and delivery of culinary herbs and flowers. She was approved to have 3 part-time employees, working an aggregate total of 54 hours per week. The applicant has indicated that the proposed accessory building is to be a greenhouse for the purpose of growing herbs. Section 36-253(b)(6) of the Code prohibits the use of accessory buildings in relation to a home occupation. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 2000) Mary Lee McHenry and Bill Sneed were present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had discussed the issue with the Wastewater Utility and that it was possible that the sewer line 2 SeL,cember 25, 2000 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) was in the street, not in the easement. As such, Wastewater might not be opposed to the item but, no written or verbal statement had been received from the utility. Ms. McHenry addressed the Board. She stated that it was her intent to build a small, attractive greenhouse and that there was no where else on the property to place the structure. She stated that most of the homes along Scenic Drive actually face to the south and have access off of South Scenic Drive. As such, most of the homes have a rear yard relationship to Scenic Drive. Gary Langlais asked Ms. McHenry if she had considered attaching the greenhouse to the home. Ms. McHenry responded that she had not. Norm Floyd commented that there were a lot of mature trees around the property and asked if they would not block sun from reaching the greenhouse. Ms. McHenry responded that the greenhouse would not get as much sun as she would like but that there was no where else on the site to place the structure. In response to a question from Gary Langlais, Ms. McHenry stated that the greenhouse was for her personal use only and would not be used in conjunction with her home occupation. Mr. Langlais noted that the Board was down to four members present and offered Ms. McHenry the opportunity to defer. She asked that the Board vote on the item. A motion was made to approve the variances subject to approval by the Wastewater Utility. The vote was 2 ayes, 2 noes and 1 absent. Due to a lack of 3 votes, either for or against the item, it was deferred to the October 30, 2000 meeting. 3 l { Little Ronk 221 E. Capitol Wastewater ® Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Utility 501/376-2903 1 Fax: 501/376-3541 or 501/688-1463 August 31, 2000 Mr. Dana Carney Zoning Administrator City of Little Rock Department of Planning 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas ECF,IVF SEP 8 1000 and Development 1BY: 72201-1334 Re: Board of Adjustment Request - 5525 Scenic Drive Dear Dana: The Little Rock Wastewater Utility has reviewed the request for a zoning variance to place a small accessory structure over an existing sewer easement at the address referenced above. The Utility cannot approve the variance requested. The Utility has a sewer main located within the easement and cannot allow the construction of any permanent structure within the easement. The Utility will allow the easement to be used as a driveway, walkway or parking area as long as no permanent structures are built within the easement. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please let me know. Sincerely, LITTLE ROCK WASTEWATER UTILITY James Boyd, P.E. Engineering Supervisor Detailed Design and Construction cc Permit Desk r SE=.cember 25, 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 issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z-6914 John and Maria Dermott #1 Wildwood Road Lot 231, Prospect Terrace Addition No. 3 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 #1 Wildwood Road is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single-family residence with a full basement. The applicant proposes to construct a 24 foot by 25 foot addition onto the front of the house. The addition would create a new front entry and would contain a large family room. It is the applicant's contention that, due to the internal configuration of the home, the addition must be placed onto the front of the house. The addition will extend across a platted 20 foot building line and will result in a front yard setback of 9.5 feet. The code requires a 25 foot front yard setback in R-2. The addition will set back 16.5 feet from the curb of Wildwood Road. The lot slopes down from the street so f SE=. cember 25, 2000 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) that the house has the appearance of one story from the front and two -stories from the rear. Staff has concerns about the proposed variance. The property has a platted 20 foot front building line, less than the 25 foot front yard normally required in the R-2 district. Allowing this amount of structure to extend to a point 9.5 feet from the front property line appears to be out of character with the neighborhood. Wildwood has only a 40 foot right-of-way, 10 feet less than the Master Street Plan requires. The proposed addition is to come to within 4.5 feet of the Master Street Plan right-of-way. Wildwood is a through -street providing access to several other streets in the neighborhood. An elementary school is located directly northeast of this site. Wildwood no doubt carries additional traffic due to its proximity to the school. Cars exiting the applicant's driveway will be in the public right-of-way before the drivers are able to determine if traffic is in the street. The curve in the street seems to compound this concern. It should be noted that Public Works did not note any traffic concerns. The property across Wildwood to the east contains a home that fronts onto Centerwood and has a side yard relationship to Wildwood. It appears that there is room to place the addition on the north side of the home, in an area that was the former right-of-way for "O" Street. When the right-of-way was abandoned in 1956, an easement was retained in the north 1� of the former street for the Municipal Water Works. It has not been confirmed with all of the utilities but it seems that there are no easements in that portion of "O" Street which is now included in the applicant's property. It may be that reducing the depth of the proposed addition or relocating it to the north side of the house does not meet the applicant's needs or is not feasible due to the internal configuration of the existing home. Staff does feel obligated to mention those possibilities. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend approval of the application as filed. Vj i 1 Se..cember 25, 2000 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 2000) The applicant, John Dermott, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Gary Langlais noted that only 4 board members were present and offered the applicant an opportunity to defer. Mr. Dermott chose to pursue the issue. Mr. Dermott discussed the traffic pattern in the area and stated that he felt his proposed addition would not impact traffic. He stated that the traffic pattern around the nearby school utilized one-way streets and not much school traffic came southbound on Wildwood Road. He presented photographs showing approximations of the addition and visibility of vehicles exiting his driveway. Mr. Dermott stated that he did not feel that the addition would create a sight -distance problem. He noted that Public Works did not note any traffic concerns. Mr. Dermott stated that there was no objection from any of his neighbors. Mr. Dermott then discussed the interior lay -out of the house, which was originally built with in-law quarters. He stated that it was not possible to place the addition anywhere else and have good traffic flow within the house. Mr. Dermott stated that, in addition to the limitations created by the internal configuration of the house, putting the addition on the north side would not be aesthetically pleasing. Gary Langlais noted that Wildwood Road was a narrow street in a reduced right-of-way. He asked if there were ever traffic problems in the street. Mr. Dermott responded that it sometimes became congested for a short time at school drop-off time in the mornings. Mr. Dermott stated that the proposed addition created no more sight distance problem than the trees on the adjacent lot. Norm Floyd suggested putting the addition elsewhere. Mr. Dermott reiterated his belief that putting the addition elsewhere would disrupt the flow through the home. In response to a question from Gary Langlais, Mr. Dermott described the exterior of the addition as matching the existing house, with windows on the north and east sides and a hip roof. Gary Langlais noted the reduced right-of-way for Wildwood Road. He asked if there was a possibility of the street being widened. Tad Borkowski, of Public Works, responded that all improvements were in place and Traffic Engineering did not object to the proposed addition. 3 S(=etember 25, 2000 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) Scott Richburg voiced his concern about the impact this proposed addition might have on other properties in the area. He commented that the addition would stick out like a "sore thumb" and asked Mr. Dermott if he had considered consulting with an architect to review other options. Mr. Dermott responded that he had not contacted an architect. Norm Floyd stated that he concurred with Mr. Richburg; that there appeared to be other options and that this application proposed too much building too close to the street. Gary Langlais also voiced his concerns about the closeness of the addition to the street. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted. The motion failed with a vote of 0 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent. 4 Umem Jewell, Moser, Fletcher & Holleman BARRY J. JEWELL* A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W KEITH MOSER O • A Professional Association SCOTT D. FLETCHER JOHN T. HOLLEMAN, rV ■ SHARROCK DERMOTTo,L PAUL PFEIFER O ARKANSAS BOARD RECOCNiZm SPECIALIST IN TAX LAW ♦ CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT ■MASTFROFLAWS IN FNVAugust 14, 2000 IItONMENTAL LAW 0 MASTER OF LAWS IN TAXATION ♦ ALSO LICENSED IN TE7GS Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: 1 Wildwood Road Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Sir or Madam: ADDRESS 111 Center Street, Suite 1250 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TELEPHONE (501)376-8250 FACSIMILE (501)376-8471 INTERNET hnp://www.JNdFH.com Enclosed is an Application for Zoning Variance which we are filing in connection with the above -referenced property. Also enclosed are three (3) copies of a recent survey prepared by Marlar Engineering Company, Inc., which shows all existing and proposed improvements to the property dimensioned and labeled. Also enclosed is a skeleton of the internal configuration of the house for your convenience in reviewing the application. Based upon the information set forth below, we request a zoning variance due to the internal structural configurations of our house as well as the unusual lot configurations. Specifically, we propose to add a family room to the front of our home which would extend twenty-four (24) feet out from the front of the house and span twenty-four (24) feet nine (9) inches across the width of the house. As such, the proposed addition would create a new room measuring twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-four (24) feet nine (9) inches. The proposed addition would contain a new front entry to the residence as well as a family room. Our residence faces east and sits approximately thirty-seven feet from the curb of Wildwood Road. The front of the house has two (2) entrances facing each other on opposite ends of the front porch. The reason for this unique configuration is that when the residence was originally constructed in 1951, two (2) front entrances were necessary to accommodate two (2) separate living spaces. The family residence occupied three-quarters of the house and the second entry provided service to an "in-law quarters" which occupied the north end of the house. The in-law quarters is no longer an independent living space and the common wall which originally separated the two spaces has been opened for many years. The area contains a bedroom, bathroom and laundry area. The front door previously used to enter the in-law quarters is infrequently used and confuses first-time visitors to the residence. Entry into the residence is made into a living room which measures twelve (12) feet nine (9) Hot Springs Village Office: 101 Plaza Carmona Place, Suite D, Hot Springs Village, Arkansas 71909 Telephone: (501) 922-1300 Facsimile: (501) 922-2008 UIMUM Jewell, Moser, Fletcher & Holleman A T T O R N H Y S A T L A W A Professional Association Department of Planning & Development August 14, 2000 Page 2 inches by approximately twenty (20) feet. However, the actual living space is substantially smaller (approximately ten (10) feet by twelve (12) feet) due to the fact that a substantial portion of the living room must serve as an entry through the front door and approximately three (3) feet on both ends of the room must be dedicated to traffic into a connecting sun porch situated just beyond the living room. Aside from the small living room and the attached sun porch, the rest of the residence (including the in-law quarters) is dedicated to four (4) bedrooms, three (3) bathrooms, a small laundry closet and a kitchen. The residence does not contain a dining room. Due to the internal structural configurations as well as the usual lot configurations, an addition to the residence can only be placed on the front or the rear of the house. If the proposed addition were placed on the rear of the house, the entire internal configuration would have to be changed since the rear of the house is presently dedicated to bedrooms. The proposed addition on the front of the house would allow for a more traditional single entry into the residence and provide a single room where more than six (6) people could comfortably gather. This would also allow the present living room to be converted into a dining room. We are requesting a zoning variance because the proposed addition would extend into the twenty (20) foot building line. Based upon the configuration of the lot, the proposed addition would extend no more than ten and one-half (10%2) feet over the present setback. However, the proposed addition would remain sixteen (16) feet seven (7) inches from the curb of Wildwood Road at its closest point since the building line is measured seven (7) feet two (2) inches from the curb. We also propose widening the current driveway by one (1) car width (approximately ten and one-half (10%z ) feet in order to allow for additional parking at the residence and to relieve some street congestion resulting from the present parking situation. If the homeowners elect to proceed with widening the driveway, it would be widened north within the configuration of the residence rather than closer to the property line of the neighbors to the south. Thank you for your consideration in connection with this matter. Sincerely JSD:rnm:JSD6022 Enclosures Dermott Sertember 25, 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: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z-6916 Keith W. Cooper, M.D. 205 Colonial Court Lot 17 and North 9 feet of Lot 18, Block 2, Colonial Court Addition R-3 A variance is requested from the fence height provisions of Section 36-516. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family The R-3 zoned property located at 205 Colonial Court is occupied by a two-story, brick and frame, single-family residence. The home owner has recently enclosed the rear yard of the property with a wood privacy fence. The majority of the fence conforms to the ordinance fence height requirement of 6 feet. Due to the slope of the yard, portions of the fence exceed 6 feet, varying in height from 616" to 81. No permits were issued for the fence. The owner assumed the fence company had obtained the required building permit. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. At the points where the fence is at its tallest, it is adjacent to the rear yards of the abutting properties. There are places where the yard slopes and, in an effort to maintain a level St-etember 25, 2000 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) appearance at the top of the fence, it was necessary to make the fence taller than 6 feet. Where the applicant's fence is tallest along the north property line, it is adjacent to an 8 foot tall chain link fence on the neighboring property. At the point the fence is adjacent to the neighbor's house on the north, it tapers down from 8 feet to just over 6 feet. It appears that the fence is below the height of the neighbor's windows and does not completely block those windows. Allowing the fence to remain should have a minimal impact on adjoining properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 2000) The applicant, Keith Cooper, was present. There were two objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Mr. Cooper addressed the Board and stated that he had tried to be sensitive to the neighbors when designing the fence. Mrs. Chrystal Hart, of 211 Colonial Court, spoke in opposition. She asked that the portion of the fence closest to her house be reduced to 6 feet in height. She urged the Board to conform to city code. Mr. Cooper responded that the average height of the portion of the fence that Mrs. Hart was concerned about was 6 feet 6 inches. Norm Floyd asked Mrs. Hart if she did not have an 8 foot tall fence in her own rear yard. Mr. Hart responded that it was not quite 8 feet in height. After a brief discussion, Mr. Cooper agreed to reduce the height of that portion of fence indicated as Section "A" on the drawing, that portion closest to Mrs. Hart's house, to 6 feet. A motion was made to approve the variance, as amended, by the applicant. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. K KEITH W. COOPER M.D. 205 COLONIAL COURT LITTLE ROCK, AR 72205 August 16, 2000 City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 City of Little Rock — Board of Adjustments: This letter is to accompany my application requesting a variance for a privacy fence in my backyard. The fence was erected in early August 2000 by Ingle Fence Company as part of an ongoing landscaping project in our yard. For the most part, this is a six-foot fence but it does exceed this limit in a few areas around the yard due to Some special circumstances that I hope to illustrate in this letter. Please see corresponding survey/map and photos. The reason for our fence height variance request is two -fold: First to accommodate steep slopes in the yard and along the property lines and keep an even appearing cosmetic line to the top of the fence. Secondly to attempt to provide some privacy from the views of an uphill neighbor's windows (this goal was not able to be fully achieved because we did not expect to obtain a variance for an 8-10 foot fence). Furthermore, the landscaping plan includes building up the edges of the yard by back -filling and placing beds, which will actually raise the ground elevation a few more inches at the property lines, thus making the fence appear shorter. To begin, the yard is on a hillside, which has some rather steep areas that require some height adjustments in order to maintain an even appearing "line" to the fence. We explored numerous options with the fence builder and felt that we designed a fence that would best compliment our landscaping in light of an extremely uneven grade, all the while keeping our neighbors in mind. The first area of variance is along the southwest comer of the fence (noted as section D on survey). This particular area of the yard has a very steep slope (4' drop in 10'), which requires the fence to angle downhill for 12' going from a height of 6' to 8' at the comer post. On the other side of the post the fence resumes its 6' height. (See picture #1). The other area that exceeds the six-foot limitation is along the north property line (noted as section B on survey). A neighbor's existing chain link fence borders the majority of this line and measures 81". After a discussion with this neighbor, we felt that it would be reasonable to match the height of their pre-existing fence, so that their chain-link fence would not be so obviously visible above our fence. So our fence was built to follow the line of their fence (and is actually a few inches shorter — see picture #2). After the point at which the neighbor's chain link fence ends our fence tapers down to 6'6" (noted as section A on survey). We felt that the extra six inches of height help to prevent an excessively steep angle during the drop off in this short section from 8' to 6'. (See picture #3) Prior to construction this neighbor expressed concern that this remaining segment of our fence would block their view of our backyard from the southwest windows of their house, and although we would have preferred much more privacy, we compromised by building the fence at a height that would not block such a view. (See picture #4) In summary, I feel that our fence does not create an eyesore or inconvenience for our neighbors. It was designed to comply with city zoning regulations as closely as possible nevertheless I hope I have effectively demonstrated why the above-mentioned sections of the fence require minor variances. Sin cer0y,/ Keith W. Cooper Set,cember 25, 2000 Item No.: 6 File No.: Z-6917 Owner: Caroline Stevenson Address: 5125 Stonewall Road Description: Lot 7, Block 26, Newton's Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254. Justification: Applicant's Statement: Originally the house faced Stonewall Road and as you can see I still have a Stonewall address. Some years ago the owners added a room on the west side of the house and made the front door face Newton Street. They also enclosed the original front door. This has resulted in confusion about where the entrance to the house is. It also has left the front yard inaccessible from inside. I want to add a front porch and front door back to the Stonewall side of the house (the north side) making the house again face Stonewall Street. This will not only clarify where the entrance is, but will improve the looks of the house from the street. It will also allow me to improve the landscaping of this part of the property. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family S%--etember 25, 2000 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located at 5125 Stonewall Road is occupied by a two-story, frame, single-family residence, a detached garage structure and a swimming pool. Previous owners moved the front entrance to the Newton Street side and eliminated the Stonewall Drive entrance. This has lead to some confusion since the property has a Stonewall address. The applicant proposes to build a porch and front door on the north side of the house, making the home again face Stonewall Road. The proposed porch will extend 12 feet out from the front of the house and will result in a front yard setback of 8.5 feet. The code requires a front yard setback of 25 feet for this lot. Staff has concerns about the amount of construction proposed within the front yard setback. Additionally, the lot is virtually covered with structures. Appearances are deceiving because of the amount of right-of-way between the property line and the curb of the abutting streets. Even that portion of the rear yard which is not covered by garage or pool is paved over. The house is built to the property line on the Newton Street side and extends over the front setback on the Stonewall perimeter. If it is the applicant's intent to create a front entrance and porch on the north side of the house, that can be accomplished by something much less than the 12 foot deep porch proposed through this application. A 4-6 foot deep porch would serve the same purpose and would keep the front of the house more in line with the other homes along Stonewall. A 6 foot deep porch would result in a front yard setback of 14 feet. The porch would be set back from the curb of Stonewall Road approximately 41 feet due to the excess right-of-way. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the application as filed. K { S��tember 25, 2000 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) Staff can support a variance to allow a porch addition not to exceed 6 feet subject to the porch not being enclosed on any side other than at the point it adjoins the house. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had agreed to cut the depth of the porch from 12 feet to 6 feet. As such, staff recommended approval of the requested variance, as amended, subject to the porch not being enclosed on any side other than at the point it adjoins the house. The applicant, Bill Sneed, confirmed that he had agreed with staff and would cut the porch depth back to 6 feet. The amended application was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. S,-ptember 25, 2000 Item No.: 7 File No.: Z-6918 Owner: Address: David Pickering, Sr. 24 Old Delmonte Drive Description: Lot 29, Carmel Valley Staff Update: It has been determined that no variance is required. The item was included in the legal ad and must be withdrawn by a formal vote. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends withdrawal of the item. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 2000) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that no variance was needed and the item should be withdrawn. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for withdrawal. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. September 25, 2000 Item No.: 8 File No.: Owner: Address: Z-6919 Bert Parke Valley Falls Estates, South Katillius Road Description: Long Legal description of property preliminary platted as Valley Falls Estates Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: R-2 A variance is requested from the fence height provisions of Section 36-516. Applicant's Statement: We are requesting a variance for the above referenced project to construct an 8 foot brick wall with 10 foot columns. This wall would be placed on the South Katillius right-of-way line the entire frontage of the project. I have visited with Bob Turner regarding this issue. He has no problem supporting the variance. This wall will tie into the gated entrance to the subdivision and be similar to the walls at Chenal Circle, Hickory Creek and Hickory Hills. Undeveloped 87 lot single family residential subdivision Fence and columns must be located on the private property. S-- ,tember 25, 2000 Item No.: 8 (Cont.) B. Staff Analysis: Valley Falls Estates is a recently approved, 87 lot, single family subdivision to be located south and west of South Katillius Road, south of Cantrell Road. The majority of the proposed subdivision is not currently in the city limits but is within an island that is involved in a lawsuit that came out of the City annexing 11 islands some months ago. The property is zoned R-2. Access to the subdivision is from a gated entrance off of S. Katillius Road. The applicant proposes to construct an 8 foot tall, decorative brick wall, with 10 -foot tall columns along the S. Katillius Road frontage. The wall will tie into the gated entrance, similar to several other "gated communities" in the City. No other fencing or walls are proposed at this time around the remaining perimeters of the plat. The code limits the height of fences erected within the required setbacks adjacent to streets to 4 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The proposed brick wall is not out of character with similar structures that have been erected on the perimeters of several newer residential subdivisions in the City. The wall itself will not exceed 8 feet in height and may, in some places, be less than that if there is a change in terrain. There will be approximately 20 feet between the columns. The wall will be horizontally level between the columns, not sloping up to match the height of the columns. The wall will set back 10+ feet from the new curb of the street once it is widened and improved by the developer. There are 4-5 single family homes located on the east side of S. Katillius Road. The appearance of the wall should not be that onerous and the visual impact should not be much different than the tree line that exists on the property now. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested wall height variance subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Public Works Comments 2. The wall shall not extend over the 20 foot auxiliary easement for emergency vehicle access located between lots 6 and 7 of Valley Falls Estates. E L tember 25, 2000 Item No.: 8 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 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 Sf_rcember 25, 2000 Item No.: 9 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z -5616-A Leroy and Josie Hamaker 15602 Mooser Lane Lot 4, Rummel Subdivision 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, Multisectional manufactured home Single Family, Multisectional manufactured home In November 1992, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit allowing the owners of the R-2 zoned property at 15602 Mooser Lane to replace an older, single - wide mobile home with a new, double -wide manufactured home. The approved plan showed the home conforming to the platted 25 foot building lines on both Mooser Lane and the side street, Rummel Road. Some months later, the new home was placed on the property. It was discovered by staff that the home had been placed so that it encroached upon both building lines. The home had a setback of 4 feet on the Mooser Lane perimeter and 8 feet on the Rummel Road side, both substantially less than the 25 foot building lines. SE„tember 25, 2000 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) The owners subsequently filed with the Board of Adjustment for setback and building line variances to allow the home to remain where it had been placed. The item was placed on the Board's November 29, 1993 agenda. Staff recommended denial of the variances, citing traffic concerns because of the home's proximity to the corner and fears that the placement of the home might have an adverse effect on the area's development potential. The Public Works staff did not object to the home remaining as it was placed. No issues were raised by the City's Traffic Engineer. One objector was present at the meeting. Jeff Eisenach, owner of property located across Mooser Lane, voiced objections stating that he planned to build a home on his property in about three years. The Board of Adjustment approved the building line variance for a period of three years and also deferred the required replat and amended Bill of Assurance. The three year period expired on November 29, 1996. There has been no change in the location of the home and no follow-up by staff until a complaint was recently made by a nearby property owner. The applicant is now asking that the previously approved "temporary” variance be made permanent. Staff is now supportive of the requested variance. There do not appear to be traffic concerns. Both Rummel Road and Mooser Lane dead-end not long after passing this site. Placement of the home has not affected the area's development potential. New homes have been constructed directly across both Mooser Lane and Rummel Road from this site. A new residential subdivision is under construction east of Rummel Road. Other new homes have been built or are under construction west of the site, along Mooser Lane. The manufactured home has been permanently placed on the site, with a block foundation. Relocating the home would be a difficult and expensive proposition. Staff believes it is appropriate to now make the variance permanent and to complete the required replat. 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. The replat is to be completed within 60 days of the Board's approval. E L.-tember 25, 2000 Item No.: 9 (Cont. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 2000) The applicants, Leroy and Josie Hamaker, were present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to a one -lot replat. Mr. Hamaker discussed the history of the site. He stated that a neighboring property owner has stated that he wants the Hamakers out of the area. Mr. Hamaker presented photographs of the house and stated that it was not financially possible for them to relocate the house. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, cited the concerns raised in the 1993 Board action. He noted that those concerns now seem to be unfounded based on the amount of new development in the area and the lack of concern raised by the traffic engineer. Gary Langlais commented that he didn't see where this home had any impact on growth in the area. During the ensuing discussion, the Board members stated that they did not want to impose the cost of relocating the home on the applicants but neither did they want to approve a permanent building line variance. A motion was made to approve the setback and building variances for a period of 10 years and to defer the required replat for a corresponding length of time. Ms. Hamaker asked that the approval be made permanent. The Board responded that making the variance permanent would require a replat. The Board stated that it was their intent that the issue be reviewed again in 10 years. The vote on the motion was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 8/8/2000 To: Board Of Adjustment: Subject: Building Line Variance Be made Permanent: Our names are Leroy and Josie Hamaker of 15602 Mooser Lane, Little Rock, Ar. We have lived at this address since September 1966. Our home is a double modular home. The street Rumell Rd dead ends just past our house with (1) house on the top of a hill. From our house to the end of Rumell Rd is in the flood plan, nothing can be built in this area. We have been flooded to a point that we might have to vacate until the water goes down. several times. Mooser Lane dead ends just past our house into a creek which is private property. There are (3) houses past our house on this street. As you can see there is not heavy traffic on either Street. (All homes are single family) We are up in age (66) now and live on a fixed income with very little money in the bank, and I have had several Heart Attacks, and can not do any heavy work. My wife also is disabled. and can not work either. The home is on a small hill on the corner of Rumell & Mooser, The ground level from the front to the back of the home drops approx. (4) feet, and this is where the water has been approx. (1.5 feet) in past years. Before moving the home in we put (18) loads of dirt to level out the hill so the home wouldn't flood. There is also a tree in front, a tree on the side, and a tree in back of the home. The trees are approx. (3) feet across, they are large trees. The home is placed between the trees with very little clearance. The home is behind the 25' on Mooser and 30' on Rumell. This was (7) years ago, and was O.K. at this time. It took all of our savings to do this. The bottom of the home is block that looks like brick, in which we were told (by the city( to make a solid foundation at the time. To move the home back would cost a lot of money, and put us in the flood plane also This is Money we haven't got. We are making payments on the home still, We request to leave the home as is. and make it permanent as it is now. We have not had one traffic problem in the past and see none in the future since it is all dead end streets. We pray you will make this decision in favor of us. Thank You eer 15602 Mooser Lane " Little Rock, Ar 72223 501-868-5608 S(C-- r,tember 25, 2000 Item No. 10 Name: Henson Enterprises/All About Fun Address: 9108 Rodney Parham, Suite 102 Type of Issue: Interpretative Request; is the outdoor display of flags, yard signs and windsocks an allowable use in C-3 as outlined in Section 36-301(b). Staff Report: "All About Fun", a retail gif suite 102 of the Ashley Squar Parham. The property is zone includes flags, windsocks and are displayed outside of the (seasonal and athletic teams) that are placed on the fagade (athletic team) are placed in store. The windsocks hang un None of these items advertise inside of the store. t and novelty store is located in e Shopping Center at 9108 Rodney d C-3. The store's merchandise yard signs. Several of these items store on a daily basis. The flags are mounted on small flag poles of the building. The yard signs a landscaped area in front of the der the porch in front of the store. the store or merchandise available The business owner has recently been cited for violating the City's sign ordinance. Section 36-543(6) prohibits temporary signs that do not meet the standards for freestanding permanent signs. Section 36-550(7) permits one company or organizational flag that can be displayed from a permanently mounted flag pole. It is the applicant's contention that these articles are merchandise that is permitted to be displayed outside on a daily basis. Section 36-301(b), the C-3 district development criteria, states "outdoor display of merchandise is allowed in an area equal to 1-� of the fagade area of the front of the building. In no case shall full time static open display be permitted." Section 36-298(7), the commercial general district restrictions, states "sidewalk sales and daily display that is stored inside the principal business building during closed business periods, shall be allowed. However, these activities shall not obstruct L.ptember 25, 2000 f Item No.: 10 (Cont.) pedestrian movement, fire lanes or areas designated for access by the physically impaired." The Board is asked to interpret if the applicant's display of flags, windsocks and yard signs is permitted daily outdoor display as defined by the code. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 2000) The applicant, Jerry Henson, was present. Staff presented the issue. Mr. Henson described the flags, windsocks and yard signs as being merchandise which he puts out and takes back in each business day. He questioned whether the items should be considered "signs" or "merchandise". Norm Floyd commented that he had no problem with the items being permitted outside display. He urged Mr. Henson to be careful that his sidewalk display doesn't block handicap access. A motion was made that the Board determine this applicant's display of flags, windsocks and yard signs to be permitted daily outdoor display as defined by the code. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 Henson Enterprises, Inc. 9108 Rodney Parham, Suite 102 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 501-225-5170 501-225-5102 Fax August 10, 20000 Darrell Holiday Department of Planning & Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Dear Mr. Holiday, As we discussed on the phone this morning, I feel the "courtesy notice" issued to me by Ms. O'Neal for non-compliance of Little Rock Code of Ordinances Sections 36-543 (2) (6), 36-550 (7) should be reconsidered. I do understand the reason for the ordinances, however I do not agree with it in this situation. We are a specialty store located in Ashley Square Shopping Center and we sell decorative flags & windsocks for your home. We display these flags & windsocks on our storefront. They are not there on a permanent basis, they are put out in the morning and brought in at closing, and on windy days they are not out at all. If these flags were not for sale, I would agree with your notice. The temporary signs mentioned in the notice are actually NCAA College Football signs for your yard to show support for your team. The ability to display this merchandise is crucial to our success and not being able to do so would be detrimental to our business. I would appreciate your reconsideration of this notice. If it is necessary I would like to file for a variance or an appeal if this is possible. I look forward to hearing from you on this matter. Sincerely, JiHenson enclosures i 0 0 w LU F- 0 W a U- Q m S :. co m Q m Z w co co 0 w Q z 11 w Q 1 EN 4.�'•s LAMEM on ONE a mom �E O no W mom EMS O o�0(D-Q < Z LL U) Lr z Q w QCD �Oo -<iE S :. co m Q m Z w co co 0 w Q z 11 w Q 4.�'•s O W O o�0(D-Q < Z LL U) Lr z Q w QCD �Oo -<iE S :. co m Q m Z w co co 0 w Q z 11 w Q September 25, 2000 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. Date: 3(9 4& -goo Chairma reta