HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_02 28 2011^v
Hyl
L
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
FEBRUARY 28, 2011
2:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being four (4) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The Minutes of the January 31, 2011 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: Robert Winchester, Chairman
Scott Smith, Vice Chairman
Rajesh Mehta
Brad Wingfield
Open Position
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
FEBRUARY 28, 2011
2:00 P.M.
I. OLD BUSINESS:
No Old Business
II. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Variance Requests:
1.
Z -5978-B
5023 Baseline Road
2.
Z -8069-A
5241 Edgewood Road
3.
Z -8388-A
5805 Kavanaugh Blvd.
4.
Z-8635
1015 Wright Avenue
B. Administrative Appeal Requests:
5. Z -8603-A 2406 W. 13th Street
6. Z-8633 1707 Lilac Circle
7. Z-8634 808 Carywood Lane
.. o1SI
- N
K W
O � � W
N
Uy \
w <Iz� e > Z �•_•. as svwoHl Nva
0
s uF--
LL
�W1 V15
TERSTATE 531 – OES 31b1Sa31NI
,
• 20
. �_ 1S MO OaS Oa a3H3 0 O _
1S HOavS •�•'� b
3j o o NO1NOal
ai
,�, 3 • ARCH ST
t ��
N I o
z
\S NIadS oab'lIH
._. Qme Navd alvj>b� I W `
� N 1••1
y! nVAi)Sa3nINns
.._:OaS�JNIWSSa3ABO
1S IddISS
----
�/ U 1� m Oa lOOIHO
_-_--
,aa MOaatlB NHOQ
Oa 81On83S3a
tl15a3 3_�, _,i o Nl Oa SIOatlS 1__,
W I
11
Oa WMOB S ...—. � - _�� .-. - -- __ b1Sa31Nl m ¢ 1 m i • .
j 1 1 •� �. end° g pd, K Td 30012i),LA
rX
_ • i a
.. r.._....._.
/ tl Y6 d
: 77OyNy�N 0 Nd�
w / O 1` �•I q •` � Yy (IWl
oaNvmmns
O _
y., 1..1 � �.• 1..1 j 1 � � Hsavw.� / �
• w r i i .f • �
—II
■® / Q/ �.
OOE AVMHOIH� O /� �.. _.._. Q % r 0j
� U
•'S �/ I Oa SNabdS
1
yl
z� M0
y4 W
FEBRUARY 28, 2011
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: Z -5978-B
Owner: Felton Mattingly
Applicant: Daniel Bartlett
Address: 5023 Baseline Road
Description: Southeast Corner of Baseline Road and Sunset Lane
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-
502 to allow construction of a new retail building with reduced parking.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Vacant Retail Building
Proposed Use of Property: Vacant Retail Building
STAFF NOTE:
Staff has determined that the proposed building is located too close to the floodway
which runs through the east end of the property. The applicant has not requested a
variance for the reduced floodway setback. Public Works has noted concern with the
proposed setback. The applicant needs to meet with Public Works officials to discuss
how this situation should be resolved. Therefore, staff requests the application be
deferred to the March 28, 2011 agenda for resolution of this issue.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(FEBRUARY 28, 2011)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the March 28,
2011 agenda so that floodway setback and driveway location issues could be resolved.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 28, 2011
agenda with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position.
( ( �-�e4-,
-0 '13
BARTLETT ARCHITECTURE, inc®
Architects * Planners + Designers 603 Hwy, #5 North
Benton, AR 72015
501-794-4448
February 1, 2011
City of Little Rock
Department Planning and Development
Attn: Monty Moore
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Request for Variance - Proposed Dollar General, 5023 Baseline Road
Dear Monty Moore,
Please accept this letter to serve as our request for variance on the Proposed Dollar
General at 5023 Baseline Road, Little Rock, AR 72209.
Owner:PB General Holdings, LLC Agent: Daniel Bartlett,
P.O. Box 22407 Bartlett Architecture
Little Rock, AR 72221 603 Highway 5 North
Benton, AR 72019
1. Request for a parking variance from the required thirty (30) parking spaces
to (twenty-seven) 26 parking spaces.
- Reason, the floodway reduces usable area for parking.
Thank you for your time and consideration. If you should need any additional
information in this matter, feel free to reach me at (501)794-4448.
Sincerely,
Daniel Bartlett, AIA
FEBRUARY 28, 2011
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.: Z -8069-A
Owner: Rod and Carrie Ford
Applicant: Jim Yeary
Address: 5241 Edgewood Road
Description: Lot 50-R, Prospect Terrace Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 to allow a building addition with reduced side and rear setbacks.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Driveway must be five (5) feet off the property line within the City Right -of -Way
extending to the street. A five (5) foot radial turn out shall be provided at the
driveway apron. Please refer to Public Works Standard Detail PW -30 for
reference.
2. Retaining wall greater than two (2) feet tall must be certified by a Professional
Engineer. Contact Nathan Charles (501-918-5348) for explanation of the
certification.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5241 Edgewood Road is occupied by a two-story rock
and stucco single family residence. The property is located on the southeast
corner of Edgewood Road and N. Harrison Street. There is a two -car wide
driveway from N. Harrison Street which serves as access. A tennis court is located
within the east half of the property. There is a swimming pool at the southeast
corner of the residence. There is also a 30 foot platted building line running along
the north (Edgewood) and west (Harrison) property lines. On June 26, 2006 the
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 (
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
Board of Adjustment approved rear setback and side platted building line variances
associated with an addition to the rear (south) of the residence. The property is
comprised of two (2) large platted lots (approximately 20,300 square feet).
The applicant is proposing to construct a new two-story addition to the east side
(over existing tennis court) of the existing residence, as noted on the attached site
plan. The bottom level of the addition will include a three -car garage and covered
porch area. The second level will be additional living space. The addition will
provide approximately 8,600 square feet of total floor area (including garage), with
a footprint of approximately 4,500 square feet. The proposed addition will be
located five (5) feet back from the east side property line and 14.25 feet back from
the rear (south) property line. It will be located approximately 36 feet back from the
front (north) property line. A new circular driveway from Edgewood Road will
access the proposed garage addition. The addition will be constructed to match
the existing residence.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
setback of eight (8) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a
minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances
form these ordinance requirements to allow the proposed building addition with
reduced east side and rear setbacks.
Staff is supportive of the requested side and rear setback variances. Staff views
the request as reasonable, given the overall lot coverage and massing for other
properties in this neighborhood. As noted previously, this lot has over 20,000
square feet of area. The existing house with proposed addition will occupy
approximately 42.5 percent of the lot area. This will be compatible with other lots
in this residential area. The proposed addition will be located approximately 36
feet back from the front (north) property line in order to align with the existing
house. This pushes the addition further back on the lot, creating a reduced rear
setback. The side setback of five (5) feet as proposed should allow ample
separation between the addition and existing house to the east. Staff believes the
proposed addition to the existing residence will have no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances associated with
the building addition, subject to the following conditions:
1. The addition must be constructed to match the existing residence (similar
style and color).
2. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A,
of the staff report.
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 (
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2011)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested the application be deferred to
the March 28, 2011 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 28, 2011
agenda with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position.
Yeary Lindsey Architects
January 31, 2011
Dana Carney
Little Rock Board of Adjustments
Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR
Re: Rod and Caroline Ford - Variance Request
5241 Edgewood Road
Little Rock, AR
Dana,
14_e. --47-
-E 0
—
E0 -A
Please find attached our submittal to the Little Rock Board of Adjustments requesting two
variances with regard to the property at 5241 Edgewood Road.
The new property Owners wish to make improvements which include a new addition to the
current structure. The new two story construction will include a new 3 car garage, shop area,
playroom and a multi-purpose recreation area. The design provides a second level enclosed
connection to the original house, while a covered porch area links the two structures together at
the ground level.
In an effort to blend the addition into its surroundings, similar materials and architectural
features have been incorporated in the design. Additionally, the new structure is located south of
the north building line in order to align with the existing north face (front) of the residence. This
placement has an added benefit of allowing a mature tree to remain in place. This tree, along
with the extension of low stone planter walls, will enhance the addition by providing a buffer to
the street. To achieve this, a variance is required to allow for the encroachment upon the 25'
rear yard setback by a little over 10.
A second variance is requested to allow for adequate clearance from the east side of the
existing swimming pool. A minimum of 6' is required. This will require that the new addition
encroach upon the east side yard setback by approximately 3'. The impact of this encroachment
is reduced due to an existing stone wall located along the property line, which is approximately
9' in height.
If you have any questions or need further information Please feel free to contact me.
We appreciate your consideration of our request.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Jim Yeary, AIA
3416 Old Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72202 501-372-5940 FX: 501-663-0043
FEBRUARY 28, 2011
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.: Z -8388-A
Owner: Roy Bullard
Applicant: Stephen C. Davis
Address: 5805 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Description: Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 7, Mountain Park Addition
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-555
to allow a ground sign with reduced setback from property line.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Vacant Restaurant Building
Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned property at 5805 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by a one-story
commercial building which previously housed a restaurant use (Brownings). The
property is located on the south side of Kavanaugh Blvd., between N. Grant and N.
Pierce Streets. There was a drive-thru window on the east side of the building.
There are a total of eleven (11) off-street, striped parking spaces on the south and
east sides of the building. There is also on -street parking in the area. The building
is approximately 4,500 square feet in area. On September 29, 2008 the Board of
Adjustment approved variances (awning setback and parking) associated with an
outdoor seating area along the front (north) of the building. The building is
currently being remodeled for revival of the Brownings restaurant use.
As part of the remodeling project, the applicant proposes to attach a new sign to an
existing sign pole on the west side of the front entry area. The proposed sign will
replace a sign which was removed from the sign pole for the remodeling project.
The proposed sign will be approximately the same size as the recently removed
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 (
ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.)
sign. The proposed sign will be approximately 15 square feet in area and have a
height of approximately 18 to 20 feet.
The proposed sign will have a design which will resemble the original sign which
was located on the property during the 1940's -1960's. The front edge of the sign
will be near, or just over, the front (north) property line.
Section 36-555(b) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum sign setback
of five (5) feet from property lines. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the sign with no setback from the front (north) property line.
Staff is supportive of the requested sign setback variance. Staff views the request
as reasonable. The new sign will replace a sign which was recently removed from
an existing sign pole. The sign has existed as a component of this commercial
building for a number of years. It will have more than adequate clearance above
the outdoor dining/sidewalk area. Staff believes the proposed sign will have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign setback variance, subject to a
sign permit being obtained.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2011)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval, with conditions. The item was placed
on the Consent Agenda and approved, as recommended by staff with a vote of 4 ayes,
0 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position.
To: Board of Adjustments
RE: Sign Variance Request
Browning's Mexican Grill
5805 Kavanaugh
Little Rock, AR 72207
Date: 1/31/2011
Applicant requests that they be allowed to replace the sign located at the current
premises (which has been temporarily removed for remodeling and pending
approval of this request).
This sign will be in the same location and same general size of the current sign. The
proposed sign is identical to the sign that occupied this Iocation during the 1940's -
1960's.
The sign is being constructed to replicate the original sign that was a part of this
Little Rock landmark.
The location of the sign will be on the same pole structure that is in the same
location as the current sign.
Please see the attached drawings for specific details of the proposed "new" sign, and
a sketch of how it would appear with the newly remodeled building.
FEBRUARY 28, 2011
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z-8635
Owner: Dr. Archie Hearne
Applicant: Jeff Horton
Address: 1015 Wright Avenue
Description: Part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 25, Wright's Addition
Zoned: R-4
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
256 and the parking provisions of Section 36-502 to allow construction of a new residence
with reduced setbacks and reduced off-street parking.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Vacant lot
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Parking is not allowed on Wright Avenue.
2. Garbage pick up is not allowed on Wright Avenue.
B. Building Codes Comments:
The required fire separation distance (building to property line) prescribed by the
building code terminates at five (5) feet. Buildings are allowed to be closer than
five (5) feet if they have properly constructed fire walls which provide the requisite
one (1) hour fire resistance rating. When buildings are five (5) feet or more from
the property line, the requirement no longer applies to the wall itself, only the
projections such as eaves or overhangs.
Openings such as doors and windows are limited when the exterior wall is three (3)
feet from the property line, and are prohibited when the exterior wall is less than
three (3) feet from the line. There is no restriction on openings when the exterior
wall is more than three (3) feet from the property line.
Contact the City of Little Rock Building Codes at 371-4832 for additional details.
FEBRUARY 28, 2011
ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.)
C. Staff Analysis:
The R-4 zoned property located at 1015 Wright Avenue is currently a vacant lot
which is mostly gravel covered. The property is located on the south side of Wright
Avenue, between Chester and Ringo Streets. The lot is comprised of part of Lots
1 and 2, Block 25, Wright's Addition. The lot is 2,640 square feet in area and is a
legal lot of record, as it has existed in this configuration for a number of years. A
house which previously occupied the lot has been removed. An existing overhead
power line runs through the east portion of the property.
The applicant proposes to construct a new two-story single family residence, as
noted on the attached site plan. The proposed residence will have approximately
4,000 square feet of floor area, with a footprint of 2,000 square feet. The proposed
residence will have a front (north) setback of 2.7 feet, rear setback of 2.3 feet, east
side setback of 4.2 to 4.5 feet, and a west side setback of 3.5 to 4.1 feet. The
proposed residence will occupy approximately 76 percent of the overall lot.
Section 36-256(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front
setback of 25 feet for this R-4 zoned lot. Section 36-256(d)(2) requires minimum
side setbacks (east and west) of 4.8 feet. Section 36-256(d)(3) requires a
minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Section 36-502(b)(1) requires at least one (1)
off-street parking space for the proposed residence. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting variances from these ordinance requirements to allow the proposed
residence with reduce setbacks form all property lines and no off-street parking.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variances associated with the proposed
residence. Although staff recognizes the fact that the lot of record has a very small
substandard size, staff feels the proposed 76 percent lot coverage is too much in
this instance. The proposed east and west side setbacks are within reason.
However, the front and rear setbacks as proposed are somewhat less than
desirable to provide even minimal yard areas. There is excess right-of-way along
the south side of Wright Avenue adjacent to this lot, which will aid in the issue of
reduced front setback, which staff feels should be more than 2.7 feet. The Building
Codes regulations will allow no window or door openings on the front or rear walls,
at the proposed setbacks. Staff also has concerns related to where the residents
of the house will park and how garbage pick-up for the residence will be achieved.
Additionally, the relocation of utilities which utilize the overhead power lines within
the east portion of the property must be resolved. With additional front and rear
setbacks, and resolution of the other concerns as stated, staff could possibly
support construction of a new residence on this lot.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested setback and parking variances, as filed.
FEBRUARY 28, 2011
ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2011)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested the application be deferred to
the March 28, 2011 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 28, 2011
agenda with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position.
February 1, 2011 2— 9�_� 315
Mr. Monte Moore
City of Little Rock
Dept. of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Monte:
On behalf of our client, Dr. Archie Hearne, we are asking for a variance on the existing setbacks
of the property located at 1015 Wright Avenue. This 48'-0" x 55'-0" lot is zoned R4 and has
front and rear setbacks of 25'-0" with side setbacks of 4.8'. Our client desires to build a two-
story single-family residence approximately 4,000 square feet with 2,000 square feet located on
the first floor. In order to accommodate this request, we proposed a new residence located 2.7
feet from the front (north) property line, 2.3' from the rear (south) property line, 4.1' from the
west property line and 4.2' on the east property line.
The have enclosed 6 copies of a recent survey showing the proposed building location. We are
currently working with the utility companies ie. Entergy, AT&T and Comcast to have the
existing overhead services relocated. These utilities are located approximately 11'-0" from the
east property line and it would help to relocate the existing utilities. If this can not be done, we
will modify the proposed plan to accommodate the requirements.
Please call us if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeff Horton, AIA, LEED AP
herron horton _..... : ;
1219 South Spring St.
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone 501.975.0052
Fax 501.372.7931
hh-architeus.com
FEBRUARY 28, 2011
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.: Z -8603-A
Owner/Applicant: Ruthie West
Address: 2406 W. 13th Street
Description: North side of W. 13th Street, two (2) lots west of Rice Street
Zoned: R-3
Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested of the Planning staff's
determination that the front porch of the residence was enclosed after the adoption of the
Central High Design Overlay District Ordinance.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
The R-3 zoned property at 2406 W. 13th Street is occupied by a two-story frame single
family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway at the southeast corner of the
property leading to a small garage structure at the northeast corner of the residence.
There is a second accessory building at the northwest corner of the property. The
property owner, Ruthie West, recently enclosed the front porch of the residence. The
enclosure is wood construction with vertical sheet siding. Three (3) windows and a
front door were located on the front fagade of the enclosure. As of this writing, the
enclosed front porch has not been painted. The property is located within the Central
High Neighborhood Design Overlay District.
On July 27, 2010 the City's Zoning Enforcement staff issued a Courtesy Notice to
Ruthie West for the front porch enclosure, as a result of a complaint being filed. The
courtesy Notice granted seven (7) days to comply by removing the porch enclosure.
Enclosing an existing front porch on a residential structure is a violation of the Central
High Neighborhood Design Overlay District Ordinance. The applicant contacted staff
and expressed interest in filing a PD -R rezoning for the property to allow the porch
enclosure. On August 23, 2010 a court citation was issued to Ruthie West, as no PD -R
application had been filed. The applicant then filed a PD -R application for the
December 16, 2010 Planning Commission Agenda. The court case was suspended
pending outcome of the PD -R application. At the December 16, 2010 Planning
Commission meeting there was discussion of when Ms. West started the front porch
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 (
ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.)
enclosure construction in relation to when the Central High Neighborhood Design
Overlay District Ordinance took effect. The Planning Commission deferred the PD -R
application to March 10, 2011 so that this issue can be resolved. Therefore, Ruthie
West is appealing staff's enforcement of the front porch enclosure to the Board of
Adjustment, contending that the construction began prior to adoption of the Central High
Neighborhood Design Overlay District Ordinance.
The Central High Neighborhood Design Overlay District Ordinance No. 20,180 was
adopted by the City Board of Directors on October 20, 2009. The Design Overlay
District provides criteria for new construction and additions/modifications to existing
structures within the district. Section 36-EEE(i) of the Ordinance is as follows:
"(i) Porches: Residential structures must have a front porch that is a
passageway from the street to the front door of the unit(s) on new residential
construction and additions/modifications to the front fagade of existing residential
structures."
The applicant, Ruthie West, has submitted documents such as building material
receipts and petition from neighbors in support of her case. Again, Ms. West contends
that she began construction of the porch enclosure prior to the passage of the Design
Overlay District Ordinance.
The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine if construction of the porch enclosure
began prior to the October 20, 2009 adoption of the Central High Neighborhood Design
Overlay District ordinance. Additional/supplemental information (ordinance, letters and
photos) will be provided to the Board members for review of this issue.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2011)
Ruthie West was present, representing the application. Staff presented the appeal
request to the Board. There were several persons present in support of Ms. West's
appeal.
Ruthie West addressed the Board in support of the appeal request. She explained that
construction of the front porch enclosure began prior to the Central High Neighborhood
DOD. She stated that she was unaware that she needed a building permit for the porch
enclosure. She noted that several surrounding property owners had signed a petition
stating that the construction began prior to the DOD.
Frankie Gaines and Dorothy Patton spoke in support of Ms. West's appeal. They stated
that the construction on the porch enclosure began in August, 2009.
Vice -Chair Smith noted that a building permit was not obtained for the porch enclosure.
He asked about the sequence of events leading to the porch construction. Ms. West
explained that she began thinking about the enclosure in April, 2009, and started
FEBRUARY 28, 2011
ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.)
purchasing building materials in August, 2009. She noted that the porch enclosure was
completed in late September, 2009.
In response to a question from Vice -Chair Smith, Ms. West noted that none of the work
was hired out. She stated that family members did all the work.
There was discussion of when enforcement began with respect to when the
construction started. In response to a question from Vice -Chair Smith, Ms. West noted
that the porch enclosure was completed in two (2) weeks. There was discussion of the
petition submitted by Ms. West.
Eric Simmons, Ms. West's son, spoke in support of the appeal. He discussed the porch
enclosure. The DOD guidelines were discussed.
Minnie Sanford, Ms. West's sister, explained that they began thinking about enclosing
the front porch in April, 2009.
Rajesh Mehta noted that Ms. West had presented good information regarding when the
porch was enclosed. Brad Wingfield noted that the sequence of invoices for building
materials ended with house numbers and a mailbox purchased in September, 2009.
There was a motion to approve the requested appeal, determining that construction on
the front porch enclosure at 2406 W. 13th Street began prior to the October 20, 2009
adoption of the Central High Neighborhood Design Overlay District Ordinance. The
motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position. The appeal
was approved.
I
FEBRUARY 28, 2011
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.: Z-8633
Owner/Applicant: Greer H. Lile, Jr.
Address: 1707 Lilac Circle
Description: East side of Lilac Circle, South of Lilac Terrace
Zoned: R-3
Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested of the Planning staff's
determination that driveways as constructed within the front yard area of the residential
property exceed the maximum width allowed by Section 36-513.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
The R-3 zoned property at 1707 Lilac Circle is occupied by a one-story frame single
family residence. There is a one -car wide carport located on the north end of the
residence, accessed by a 10 foot wide concrete driveway (original) at the northwest
corner of the property. The applicant recently constructed two (2) additional driveways
from Lilac Circle for vehicular parking. Approximately 2.5 feet south of the original 10
foot wide driveway is a new 23.5 foot wide drive, with parking for three (3) vehicles.
Approximately 9 feet south of that drive is a new driveway with a width of 16.75 feet and
parking for two (2) vehicles. The original (northernmost) 10 foot wide drive allows the
parking of three (3) vehicles in conjunction with the carport. The applicant has noted
that the two (2) new driveways were constructed between February and May 15, 2010.
Ordinance No. 20,231 which regulates the parking of motor vehicles in the front yards of
residences was passed by the City Board of Directors on March 2, 2010 and went into
effect on June 1, 2010. The ordinance allows a maximum driveway width of 20 feet in
addition to a 20 foot by 20 foot "flagpole" area for vehicular parking or maneuvering.
The ordinance, as noted in paragraph (f), creates no nonconforming situations.
On November 17, 2010 the City's Housing and Neighborhood Programs department
issued a notice to comply to the property owner, based on the fact that an excessive
amount of the front yard area had been paved/concreted for motor vehicular parking.
The notice granted seven (7) days to comply or file an administrative appeal.
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 (
ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.)
On November 23, 2010 Greer H. Lile, Jr. submitted an administrative appeal request to
staff. The letter was submitted to Tony Bozynski, Director of Planning and
Development. After thorough review, a letter was sent to Mr. Lile on December 14,
2010 denying the administrative appeal, requiring Mr. Lile to remove the center/widest
driveway/parking pad on the site. During a site visit for the appeal request staff
observed eight (8) vehicles parked in the front yard and carport of the residence. The
administrative appeal was denied for the following reasons:
The number and width of driveways/parking pads on the site exceeds the
intent of the ordinance.
■ The number of vehicles parked on the site exceeds the intent of the
ordinance.
There is ample space on the site to park five (5) vehicles without utilizing
the center/widest driveway/parking pad. Five (5) parking spaces is ample
to serve any single family residence.
Mr. Lile is now appealing staff's denial of his administrative appeal to the Board of
Adjustment.
The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine if Mr. Lile's parking arrangement
(driveways, parking pads, number of vehicles, etc.) meets the intent of Ordinance No.
20,231 and can continue. Additional/supplemental information (copy of ordinance,
photos and letters) will be provided to the Board members for review of this issue.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2011)
Greer H. Lile, Jr. was present, representing the application. Staff presented the appeal
request to the Board.
Greer H. Lile, Jr. addressed the Board in support of the appeal request. He discussed
when the driveways were constructed with respect to the parking in yards ordinance.
He noted that a city inspector had been to the property prior to adoption of the
ordinance. He noted that he had no idea of how the ordinance was going to work. He
stated that he should be able to keep the driveways because they were constructed
prior to the ordinance.
There was discussion of the parking in yards ordinance with respect to non -conforming
situations. The issue was discussed. Staff noted that the center driveway needed to be
removed. Mr. Lile stated that many properties in the city did not conform with the
ordinance with respect to driveway width and pavement in front yard areas. The issue
was discussed.
Vice -Chair Smith discussed the ordinance allowance for driveway width and parking
area. There was discussion of the intent of the ordinance and what needed to be done
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 (
ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.)
to make Mr. Lile's property comply. Mr. Lile noted that the City required the center
driveway be removed. Staff explained that a strip of concrete (approximately four (4)
feet wide) along the street, within the right-of-way, could be removed, with the remaining
concrete pad used as a patio and not for parking cars. This issue was discussed
further.
There was a motion to approve the requested appeal, determining that the construction
of driveways at 1707 Lilac Circle meets the intent of Ordinance No. 20,231 (parking in
yards ordinance). The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays, 0 absent and 1 open
position. The appeal was denied.
Greer H. "Skip" Lile, Jr. 12/22/2010
1707 Lilac Circle
Little Rock, AR 72202
501-666-5823 -5-1-94 3-3
To whom it may concern: (3
I am 62 years old and I have owned and lived at the above address since
1973. On the evening of 11/18/2010, 1 arrived home from work to find an
"Official Notice to Comply" from the City of Little Rock. After reading the
"notice", I realized that I was being informed that I was in violation of a
code forbidding parking on a concrete pad wider than 20 feet. I did measure
the width of my concrete and found it to be 26 feet wide. I had never heard
of this code, so I did some research on the web. I read several articles about
the passage of the "parking on grass ban". I read as many of the articles that
I could and nowhere in any of them was a mention of a width limitation. The
main emphasis was that the parking area be "mud free and dustless". I also
noticed that the ban went into effect on June 2, 2010.
The birth of my parking pad started in February of 2010. After many years
of parking cars in my front yard, I decided that I was tired of moving the
cars to mow the grass. I had also gotten stuck in the icy snow shortly before
that and I felt a concrete pad would help both situations. I called the building
permit office by telephone about my intentions. I asked them what I needed
to do to *install the concrete pad. I was told that a building pen -nit was not
necessary. I contacted several concrete driveway companies for estimates
through the month of February and March. In early April, I made an
agreement with Reggie McCoy of TQS Construction to install the concrete
pad. Due to other existing jobs, Reggie couldn't start the work until early
May. The *initial work of grading, laying forms, pouring concrete, and
leveling was finished on May 15, 2010. During this time frame, a City of
Little Rock employee stopped by my parking pad project while it was in
progress. My concrete contractor and his employees told me that while
concrete was being poured into the forms, the City of Little Rock employee
parked across the street for about 20 minutes. During this time he made
photographs and talked on his cell phone. If I was doing something wrong,
that was the perfect opportunity for the City of Little Rock employee to step
out of his vehicle and stop the project. The employee just drove off without
saying a word. That day I wrote Reggie a check for $2,000 for the work
done to date. A subsequent check of $1,000 was written on May 19, 2010 for
the clean up work, which consisted of removing the forms and leveling the
ground around the pad. Copies of both checks along with Reggie's business
card are enclosed. I couldn't find the original receipt. If I had known that it
would be needed for confirmation of work, I would have been more
conscientious about where I put it. All of the cars are very nice modem
vehicles. I keep each one covered to protect them from the elements. All of
my vehicles are assessed, insured with full coverage and licensed in the State
of Arkansas.
Because of several incidents in the 1980's, I began parking my cars in the
front yard. In one *incident, a vehicle hit my car in while parked on the street.
A short time after that, another vehicle was stolen while parked on the street.
One day, during a storm, a limb from my neighbor's tree fell on my track
crushing the bed. The tree still overhangs almost to my yard and still poses a
threat if a car is parked on the street. I have asked the neighbor several times
if they would consider trimming the tree, but they have refused. There were
also several vehicle break-ins where personal property was stolen. After that,
I made the decision to start parking in my yard. Since starting this procedure
of parking in the front yard, I have not had these problems.
I don't drink. I have always paid all of my taxes on time. I was the subject of
a random audit by the IRS in 2003. The result of the audit was that the IRS
wrote me a refund check for $90 for over payment. The last ticket I got was
over 35 years ago for going 32mph in a 25mph zone. I have never been
arrested. I have never filed for bankruptcy. I don't buy or sell vehicles from
this residence. I am not a used car dealer. Several of my cars, I have owned
for over 15 years. The last car I purchased was over two years ago.
I have attached 3 photos that show two houses within. 6 of a mile of my
house. The front yard of house 'B' is all asphalt. You can look at the photo
and use the cars to measure the width of his parking pad. The front and side
yard of house 'C' is concrete. You can use the vehicles on Cantrell road to
see the immensity of his parking pad.
I ask you to put yourself in my place. I contracted to have a parking pad on
my property. I called the City of Little Rock building permits before starting
an * d was told I did not need a permit. I spent $3000 to have the pad laid. At
the time the work was done, the code was not in effect. Now, several months
later, the City of Little Rock tells me I am in violation of a code put into
effect a month after my parking pad was finished. The City of Little Rock
has not only asked me to quit using the parking pad, but they also want me
to remove it at my expense. The expense, I'm sure, will probably be the
same or more than the initial install. I will have to break up the concrete, use
a cutting torch to cut through the rebar, and haul of it to the city landfill. I
will also have pay to haul in fill dirt to fill the 6" deep 26'x18' opening. I
currently pay personal property taxes on my nine vehicles. I have also paid
real estate taxes on my house since 1973. Yet, I can't park my personal
property on my real estate, All I am guilty of in this incident is not being
able to tell the future. I ask that you treat me the same way you would want
to be treated.
I am asking for a variance to keep my parking pad at a width of 26 feet
because the pad construction was finished May 19, 2010. The code went into
effect June 2, 2010.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Greer H. "Skip" Lile, Jr.
FEBRUARY 28, 2011
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.: Z-8634
Owner/Applicant: William S. Warren, Jr.
Address: 808 Carywood Lane
Description: Southwest Corner of Carywood Lane and "H" Street
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested of the Planning staff's
determination that vehicles parked at the residence are classified as commercial vehicles
and prohibited by Section 36-512.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
The R-2 zoned property at 808 Carywood Lane is occupied by a two-story brick and
frame single family residence, which is currently being remodeled. The property is
located at the southwest corner of Carywood Lane and "H" Street. The Hall High
School campus is located across "H" Street to the north. Single family residences are
located to the east (across Carywood Lane), west and south. There is a one (1) car
wide driveway from Carywood Lane at the southeast corner of the lot. The driveway
runs along the south side of the residence to a large parking pad area in the rear yard.
A large garage addition was recently constructed on the west end of the residence
within the rear yard area.
On December 10, 2010 the City's Zoning Enforcement staff received a complaint
alleging that two (2) commercial vehicles were being parked at a residence at 808
Carywood Lane. Inspection of the site revealed two (2) commercial box -type trucks
parked at the residence. As a result of the inspection, a Courtesy Notice was issued on
December 15, 2010 to William S. Warren, Jr. to cease parking/storing the two (2)
commercial trucks on the property at 808 Carywood Lane. On December 16, 2010 Mr.
Warren submitted a letter requesting an administrative appeal of the Courtesy Notice
issued by the enforcement staff. The letter was submitted to Tony Bozynski, Director of
Planning and Development. After thorough review, a letter was sent to Mr. Warren on
January 5, 2011 denying the requested administrative appeal. Mr. Warren is now
appealing that decision to the Board of Adjustment.
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 (
ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.)
Section 36-2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance defines a "commercial vehicle" as follows:
"Commercial vehicle means any bus, trailer, van, truck, tractor other vehicle and/or
trailer which has a current license and safety inspection, the purposes of which are
the transport of people, merchandise, the moving of furniture or other goods,
hauling or towing of equipment or other vehicles. This definition shall include
backhoes, bulldozers or other wheeled or tracked vehicles engaged in construction
or land development occurring off-site, whether or not properly licensed."
Section 36-512 of the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits the parking of commercial
vehicles in residential zonings as follows:
"Sec. 36-512. Commercial vehicle parking (prohibited).
(a) Except as provided herein, no portion of any lot, tract or parcel of land
zoned for residential usage, including districts "R-1" through "R -7a" and "MF -6:
through "MF -24", shall be utilized for the parking of commercial vehicles with a
load carrying capacity of one (1) ton or greater.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the following types of vehicles are
expressly prohibited at any time:
(1) All commercial tow vehicles or vehicle carriers.
(2) Dump trucks, trash haulers, bulldozers and other earth haulers or
excavation equipment.
(3) Flatbed or stake bed trucks.
(4) Trailers whose designed intent is storage or transport of material or
equipment.
(5) Trucks or buses used in inter- or intrastate commerce.
(6) Vans, of one (1) ton or greater in load -carrying capacity.
(7) School or church buses or vans of one (1) ton or greater in load -
carrying capacity.
(8) Street sweepers and vehicle -mounted vacuum devices intended for
the cleaning of streets or parking lots."
The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine if the two (2) vehicles in question should
be classified as "commercial vehicles" as per the City's Zoning Ordinance, and if the
City Enforcement staff's action in requiring the two (2) vehicles be removed from the
residential property is correct and appropriate. Additional/supplemental information
(letters and photos) will be provided to the Board members for review of this issue.
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 (
ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2011)
William Warren, Jr. and Jack Browne were present, representing the application. Staff
presented the appeal request to the Board.
Jack Browne addressed the Board in support of the application. He stated that Mr.
Warren's vehicles were not commercial vehicles. He explained that Mr. Warren did not
have a business which used the trucks. He noted that the State licensed the trucks for
private/personal use. He presented photos of other vehicles parked in the
neighborhood.
Chairman Winchester asked what the trucks were used for. Mr. Warren explained that
he trucks were for his personal use, and for use by family members.
Vice -Chair Smith asked about the carrying capacity of the trucks. Mr. Warren stated
that the trucks had a one (1) ton capacity.
Vice -Chair Smith discussed the ordinance definition of a commercial vehicle. He noted
that the issue was not how a vehicle is used, but how it is manufactured to be used.
Mr. Browne further discussed Mr. Warren's use of the trucks. The issue of the State's
licensing of vehicles was discussed. Mr. Warren noted that there were other
commercial vehicles parked in the neighborhood. Staff explained that the trailer on the
site was being used by Mr. Warren's contractor in conjunction with the current
remodeling project.
There was a motion to approve the requested appeal, determining that the two (2)
trucks owned by Mr. William S. Warren, Jr., and parked at 808 Carywood Lane, do not
meet the ordinance definition of commercial vehicle. The motion failed by a vote of 0
ayes, 4 nays, 0 absent and 1 open position. The appeal was denied.
willian, SA
808 Cal
Little Rocic,
Cell telephone and voi;
January 21, 2011
Monte Moore
Department of Planning and Developmat
723 West Markham Street, I" Floor
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
Dear Mr. Moore,
irren, 3r. jj
Rood
R 72205
mall- 501-231-1273
I am writing to inforrA you that I am appeab.Ag to the board on the issue of any
personal truck. I am requesting to appear bekore tht board. I have owned my truck
for massy years and have perked it on the same lot for years with no mention fram
neighbors or this zoning board, CerU"Iv, one ton chassis tracks are sold every day
for personal vehicles and advertised on i� a� such. I am currently considering
buying a one ton crew cab luxury truLk,,dther Cheyy/GMC, Ford, Dodge, or
International Ban -ester. I
Several "real commercialvehicles" used for c. imereWpurposesresideonmy
street even, might and day without problemsrnone commercial truck used for
business, i-�sacross the street, a van with ladder rack and ladder, parks all the dme.
Another commercial truck park-, three doom juga on my side Nvith logo of b miness
1UP
and used for businesq.
My next door neighbor, Mr. Chilcote, has a hea-v-y duty commercial truck, parked ins
his back -yard, he bought from, the State of Al, a6sas at auction. It is an older white
crew cab long wheel base trmck campletey* ladderrack, that he uses for personal
use like me, Mr ChOoote's truck was originally bought for conlultecial state use and
although bag a 2500 insignia, may well be opt oned as a one ton truck as trucks can
be bou ght with higher load chassis.
My truck, has a personal license plate issued b,'y the state becaa5e it didn't qualify as
a commercial track, has no logo and is my pe>"Soaal tru&- T ani notiu business with
Use truck,, my profession is a doctor. I certainly in the feature migh-t want to buy a
luy-un, vehicle truck which might he a one to I
chassis vehicle. I think I am Unfairly
being acted on in this case and wish topursuelthis issue. with the bmnid members.
Sincerely,
WiWam S. Warren, Jr,
TOTAL P.001
Ll
0
•
0
110.0O
U
W
w
W
1—
O
W
H
Q
U.
O
0
Q
O
m
ui
D
rJ
F --
z
w
U)
m
Q
w
Q
z
2
w
Q
o
m
0
►_
W��m
a
a
I
�
C)
cnww
z
<
_,L
E
w
00
0
z
F
=
m<
QoWo
ci�m
w
�cnww
a
=LL
LU
w
g
z
z
2
U)
rJ
F --
z
w
U)
m
Q
w
Q
z
2
w
Q
o
m
0
►_
W��m
a
I
�
C)
cnww
z
<
_,L
E
w
z
z
F
:�i
�i
rJ
F --
z
w
U)
m
Q
w
Q
z
2
w
Q
February 28, 2011
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
Date:
Chairman