Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_01 29 2007LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JANUARY 29, 2007 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being three (3) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the December 18, 2006 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Andrew Francis, Chairman Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman David Wilbourn Open Position Open Position Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA JANUARY 29, 2007 2:00 P.M. I. OLD BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: A. Z-8076 8223 Baseline Road B. Z-8125 5130 "P" Street C. Z-8145 9716 Woodford Drive D. Z-8150 21 Dellwood Drive II. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.:, LOCATION: 1. Z-7753 106 Fountain Drive 2. Z -8030-A 6704 Heather Lane 3. Z-8158 6605 Hawthorne 4. Z-8159 4817 Glen Valley Drive 5. Z-8160 4701 Sugar Maple Lane 6. Z-8161 1900 West 3rd Street 7. Z-8162 9401 Rodney Parham Road 8. Z-8166 2 Dorado Beach Drive 0)_ 0 ■ - 3NId 831zvda \' C V (D N yJ d� I n i W e y Q U � 8pN0 NVW830 o � � NIV _ VMMao H98tl NOlryp S3H) = S3H0 ONIN lW - a3N3aA �� \Rp��ON Y Z! MOa00oM =' 3NId 43j�1S = 3NId m a dtl0 NO!lIP1V 1100$ w °' S SJryA�dS y sr5, d Jj�� � A!IS83AINf1 NaVd a1V3 3: AlISa31W G J w o �- S9NI86 83A30 4 S3HOnH F- IddISS IW J y'rs G Q Aa3S3a Y MOaaVB NHor 3 • 26�i m 3AN13H -U Aaod3lN9vHs o oa 3l`.OV S LO SIOM p� WVHaVd A3NO08 des - _ 4-J � NV yoW oa � 11WI1 -_ HJbJ w w 3901a AWV� J3Jylso` ORe�1 1 dOp� poQ �' � ,T^ 1 co Q � 6vE� CR S�P�. V /// P� - o � J'1' V V NVAIIIOS QlaVM315 H,sdb`r I+- 0 0 S11WIl Ulo�==.� 0 SJ01nJ 3lVON633 0 CD JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-8076 Owner: R.S. Keathley, JR. Applicant: Regina Haralson, Kaplan, Brewer, Maxey and Haralson, P.A. Address: 8223 Baseline Road Description: South side of Baseline Road, between Production and Distribution Drives. Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested to determine that a nonconforming use/status of the property (mobile home park) is valid. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 8223 Baseline Road is currently vacant. For a number of years the site was used as a mobile home park. Evidence of its previous use still exists in the form of concrete/asphalt pads, utility stub -outs, etc. There are two (2) asphalt drives on the property. There is a main access drive from Baseline Road down the center of the property. This drive connects to a drive along the west property line which accesses Victoria Street to the west. There is one (1) unoccupied mobile home at the northeast corner of the property. This R-2 zoned property had a nonconforming R-7 status for many years during its use as a mobile home park. However, on July 20, 2004 the property JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) ceased being used as a mobile home park. Water to the property was cut-off on July 19, 2004. The City's Zoning Ordinance does not permit the operation of a mobile home park as a by right use in R-2 zoning. The mobile home park which previously existed on this property was in existence before the property became part of the City, and was allowed to continue as a nonconforming use. Such a use can continue as long as the use is not ceased for a period of one (1) year, according to the following Section 36-153( c) of the City's Zoning Ordinance: "( c) Abandonment or discontinuance. When a nonconforming use has been discontinued or abandoned, and the appearance of which [such use] does not depict the identity of an ongoing use, and further if said situation exists for a period of one (1) year, such use shall not thereafter be reestablished or resumed. Any subsequent use or occupancy of such land or structure shall comply with the regulations of the zoning district in which such land or structure is located." Shortly before July 20, 2005 the mobile home which exists near the northeast corner of the property was placed on the site. There was no evidence that the mobile home was inhabited by July 20, 2005. Therefore, the City determined that the nonconforming status of the property has been lost. According to a letter dated February 8, 2006 from City Attorney Tom Carpenter to Phillip Kaplan, the property owner's attorney: "The City considers this property abandoned as a mobile home park and will not permit any owner to engage in such a use. The ordinance clearly notes that abandonment or discontinued use includes situations in which "the appearance... does not depict the identity of an ongoing use." Little Rock, Ark., Rev. Code §36-153( c) (1988). Arkansas law does not require the City to prove an intent to abandon a use, merely that there has been a discontinuance of such use." The property owner is appealing the City's determination that the nonconforming status of the property has been lost. The property owner is asking the Board to determine that he has not abandoned the nonconforming mobile home park use of the property and that he be allowed to continue said use. A separate packet of information, including letters from the City Attorney's office, has been provided by the applicant and will be given to the Board members for review. A member of the City Attorney's office will be present at the public hearing to provide additional information. JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the August 28, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the September 25, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the November 27, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the December 18, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 open position. JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 18, 2006) Philip Kaplan and R.S. Keathley, Jr. were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application. Philip Kaplan addressed the Board in support of the application. He provided the Board with a history of the property. He explained that Mr. Keathley had cleaned up the property and presented photos of the property and surrounding properties to the Board. He noted that the mobile home on the property was hooked up to utilities. He referred to Section 36-153( c) of the Code, noting that the appearance of the property had the identity of an ongoing use, in the placement of the one (1) mobile home. He discussed the condition of the surrounding properties. He noted that there were no other suitable uses for the property. He explained that Mr. Keathley would provide a unit on the property for a police sub -station. He noted that there would be on-site care takers and the property would be kept clean. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked if water and electricity were hooked -up to the mobile home. Mr. Kaplan noted that they were. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked if the mobile home was ever occupied. Mr. Kaplan responded that it had not been occupied. Chairman Francis referred to advertisements that were placed in the paper for the rental of the mobile home and asked if there was any response. Mr. Kaplan noted that there were several responses soon after the ad was placed. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked about requirements to tie down mobile homes in a mobile home park. Staff noted that the nature of a mobile home park, with units being moved in and out, does not require that units be tied down. Chairman Francis asked about the city's position regarding the appearance of an on- going use. Debra Weldon, City Attorney, explained that there was no appearance of an on-going use since there were no residents on the property. Chairman Francis noted that he seemed to agree with staff's position, but was concerned with the fact that the applicant had tried to rent the mobile home. Mr. Kaplan explained that Mr. Keathley had spent much money on cleaning up the property for use as a mobile home park. There was a brief discussion as to whether rental units within a mobile home park should be treated differently from owner -occupied units. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked how many mobile homes had been on the property in the past. Mr. Kaplan stated that there had been as many as 60. Vice -Chairman Burruss explained that his opinion was that placement of one (1) mobile home on the property did not re-establish the mobile home park. JANUARY 29, 2007 EM NO.: A (CON'T. Staff asked Mr. Kaplan questions related to the time the property was cleaned up and the time the mobile home was moved onto the property. There was a motion to uphold the City's position that the nonconforming use of the property as a mobile home park has been lost/discontinued. The vote was 2 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent and 1 open position. Based on the fact the item failed to receive three (3) votes for or against, the application was automatically deferred to the January 29, 2007 Agenda. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the March 26, 2007 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 2 open positions. KAPLAN, BREWER, MAXEY & HARALSON, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW PHILIP E. KAPLAN JOANN C. MAXEY REGINA HARALSON OF COUNSEL' SILAS H. BREWER June 7, 2006 City of Little Rock Board of Adjustment 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: 8223 Baseline Road Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: 415 MAIN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 372-0400 FAX (501) 376-3612 SENDER'S E-MAIL pkaplan Qkbmlaw.net =1 4-,,- � HAND DELIVERY Mr. Raymond Keathley owned and operated a mobile home park on the property at issue from .the early ;1990s until he sold it in 2000. Under Mr. ,Keathley's ownership, the park was :clean and maintained; it contained nice homes and housed decent tenants. Attached and :marked as Exhibit A are pictures showing the condition of the park under Mr. Keathley's ownership. Steve and Lisa Thompson entered into a real estate contract to purchase the property from Mr. Keathley on October 17, 2000 and took possession at that time. Mr. Keathley financed the purchase; the Thompsons made monthly payments. The Thompsons, however, did not maintain the park, and it eventually deteriorated to the point that the City became involved. Mr. Keathley was not aware at the time and is not currently aware of communication between the City and the Thompsons. Mr. Keathley first became aware of the issues when Ms. Barbara Hyatt contacted him as lien holder and notified him of problems. Mr. Keathley agreed to talk with Mr. Thompson, which he dial, and was assured that Mr. Thompson would move the worst of the homes out of the park and repair and resiore the ones remaining. Mr. Keathley offered to assist further and advised Ms. Hyatt to contact him if needed. When he had no further contact from Ms. Hyatt, Mr. Keathley assumed the problems were resolved. Unbeknownst to Mr. Keathley, water to the facility was cut off on July 19, 2004, and the City shut the park down on July 20, 2004. By this time, *the park was in deplorable condition, as tenants abandoned the homes, vandals stripped all the metal from the mobile homes, and four loads of tires were dumped in the park. Attached and marked as Exhibit B are pictures showing the mess. Thompson became delinquent.on his payments to Mr. Keathley and deeded the property back to Mr. Keathley on September 24, 2004. Although he believed some homes were salvageable, Mr. Keathley cleared everything from the property, expending between $40,000 and $50,000 to do so. Attached as Exhibit C are pictures of the park after the cleanup. - . Parties contacted Mr. Keathley about purchasing the property from him, but reported that they were told by the City that the property could no longer be used for a mobile home park. Mr. Keathley, through this office, inquired about the zoning status of the property. The City Attorney responded and advised that the property could continue its use as a mobile home park if it renewed operation prior to July 20, 2005. Attached as Exhibit D is a copy of the letter for your convenience. Mr. Keathley placed a new sign at the entrance. He obtained water and sewer service on June 23, 2005, purchased a new mobile home for the property on July 8, 2005, had it transported and set up at the park on July 11, 2005, and began advertising it and spaces for rent on July 13, 2005. Attached as Exhibit E are receipts from Central Arkansas Water, Arkansas Liquidators, and Henley Mobile Home Service, and a copy of Mr. Keathley's record with copy of advertising as evidence of these efforts. Attached as Exhibit F are pictures of the mobile home. In September 2005, the City determined that the property's use as a mobile home park had been abandoned and advised him to --remove the "abandoned" mobile home unit from the premises. Mr. Keathley, through this office, responded and advised that operations had resumed timely. The City Attorney responded and opined that.since no one had rented the mobile home, the .City would consider the property abandoned as a mobile home park. Attad'�.hed as Exhibit G are copies of those letters for your convenience. Mr. Keathley disputes.this finding. Mr. Keathley understands, however, that the property must meet the code requirements, and -,h, e is committed to ensuring that it does. Moreover, he is committed to improving the entirearea, as the elements surrounding the mobile home park are less than ideal. Attached as Exhibit H are pictures showing property that joins the park on the east, the west, across Baseline, and as you enter the park from Baseline. As you can see, the surrounding conditions are less than desirable. A similar situation existed in Conway at Mr: Keathley's Brookside Village Mobile Home Park until Mr. Keathley donated a mobile home for a Conway Police Department substation. As a result, undesirables moved away, speeders slowed down, and the police department has a visible .presence, which has resulted in developing relationships with nearby families and businesses. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a newspaper article printed recently lauding its success. Mr. Keathley had no problems with the property during. his previous ownership. He then went to great expense to clean the property when it was abandoned by the Thompsons. He purchased a new home, installed it, obtained utility services, and advertised it and spaces for rent. He offers to provide the Little Rock Police Department with a mobile home and. space if it would like to open a substation there, as he'did at the Brookside Village Mobile Home Park in Conway. This can be a positive space for the neighborhood, the surrounding area, and the City. Mr. Keathley would like to see the park with nice homes, nice families, maintained, with a police presence, and a. welcome addition to the area. He 2 asks that the Board of Adjustment find that he has not abandoned the p>'operty and give him an opportunity to realize that vision. Sincerely, Philip E. Kaplan PEK:nm cc: Client JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Owner: Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-8125 Todd Wilson George Todd Wilson George 5130 "P" Street Lot 17, Block 3, McGehee's Addition FIN Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a carport addition with a reduced side setback. 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: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located at 5130 "P" Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one car wide driveway from "P" Street at the southwest corner of the property. The driveway extends along the west side of the house. There is a small accessory storage building in the rear yard, with an alley running along the north (rear) property line. The applicant proposes to construct a 10 foot by 25 foot carport structure on the west side of the existing residence, over the existing driveway. The proposed carport addition will be unenclosed on its south, west and a portion of the north sides. The carport structure is proposed to be located one (1) foot from the west side property line, and 42 feet back from the front (south) property line. JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of five (5) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the reduced side setback. The applicant is also proposing room and deck additions to the rear of the residence. These proposed additions conform to ordinance standards and are in the process of being constructed. Staff does not support the requested side setback variance. It has been staff's past policy to support setbacks of no less than 18 inches for this type of unenclosed structure. Staff views an 18 inch side setback as a minimum area needed to construct and maintain the carport structure without encroaching onto the adjacent property to the est. If the applicant were willing to provide an 18 inch side setback, including overhang, staff could support the application. The application would have to install guttering to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the west. The guttering could be within the 18 inch side setback. With these changes, staff would view the carport structure as having no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested side setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the December 18, 2006 Agenda due to the fact that the applicant failed to complete the required notification to surrounding property owners as required. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 18, 2006 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 18, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the January 29, 2007 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the February 26, 2007 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 2 open positions. 11/13/2906 17:32 �` '68634 APTC / PAGE 02 Todd George 5130 P Street Little Rock, AR. 72207 November 13, 2006 -2- - 7-,-5 Mr. Monty Moore Little Rock Planning & Development Board of Adjustments 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR, 72201 Re: Request for variance at 5130 P Street, Little Rock, AR.. 72207 Dear Members of the Board: This letter is to respectfully request a variance in order to place an open -sided carport within the boundaries previously established. As mentioned, this open -sided carport would have guttering and no sides within the boundary. The neighbors to the West, Michael & Dina Yates have given their consent to this project. Should you require any additional information please feel free to contact me at 501-425-2340. Sincerely, Todd George TG.jh JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: C File No.: Z-8145 Owner/Applicant: William Torres Address: 9716 Woodford Drive Description: Lot 120, Merrivale Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a carport addition with a reduced side setback. 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: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 9716 Woodford Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Woodford Drive which serves as access. The lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line. The applicant is in the process of constructing new front porch and carport additions to the existing residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The new carport addition is unenclosed on its north, south and west sides and was constructed to match the existing residential structure. According to the survey submitted by the applicant, the carport addition is located three (3) feet from the west side property line at its northwest corner. The southwest corner of the carport is approximately 12 feet from the west side property line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of 5.14 feet from this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is JANUARY 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) requesting a variance to allow the reduced side setback for the new carport addition. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Staff's inspection of the property revealed that the northwest corner of the carport structure is located no more than one (1) foot from the west property line, with the overhang appearing to cross the property line onto the adjacent property to the west. Staff feels this type of encroachment should not be allowed. Staff believes a minimum side setback of 1.5 feet should be required with the overhang not crossing the side property line. If the applicant can supply an as -built survey of the property reflecting the carport structure with at least an 18 inch side setback, staff could possibly support a variance. Staff believes the proposed structure, as it appears to cross the side property line, will have an adverse impact on the adjacent property. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested side setback variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 18, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to allow the applicant time to submit additional information to staff (as -built survey) to determine the exact location of the building addition. Staff recommended deferral to the January 29, 2007 Agenda. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 29, 2007 Agenda by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item. The applicant submitted an as -built survey to staff on January 24, 2007. The survey shows the facia of the carport addition being on the west side property line, with the overhang being two (2) feet over the property line. The applicant has noted that the property owner immediately west is a relative and is willing to deed the piece of the lot where the overhang is located. Staff recommended approval of the requested side setback variance, subject to the deed instrument being recorded within 30 days. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as revised and recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 2 open positions. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, A MORE ATTRACTIVE SOLUTION AND PROPERTY VALUE INCREASE. CARPORT ADDITION TIES INTO HOUSE STRUCTURE APPEARING TO BE PART OF ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. LEFT CORNER OF CARPORT DRIVEWAY CONTACTS ONE POINT FO PROPERTY LINE IN BACK YARD. THERE ARE NO UTILITIES IN BACK OF HOUSE. THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE ADJACENT HOME.DOES NOT ENCROACH ON THEIR PROPERTY. MY NEIGHBOR IS MY SISTER - IN- LAW. SHE IS IN AGREEMENT WITH US ON THE ADDITION. JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: D File No.: Z-8150 Owner/Applicant: Eddie Smith Address: 21 Dellwood Drive Description: Lot 43, Eastwood Heights Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow an accessory building with reduced setbacks and which crosses a platted building line. 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: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 21 Dellwood Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Dellwood Drive which serves as access. There is a small metal storage building in the rear yard area. The lot contains a 25 foot front and street side platted building line along Dellwood Drive. The applicant proposes to construct an 8 foot by 16 foot accessory storage building near the southeast corner of the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The accessory building will be located approximately seven (7) feet to 10 feet from the street side property line. The structure will be located approximately 7.5 feet from the east (rear) property line and 9.8 feet from the south side property line. All but a very small sliver of the building will be located between the 25 foot side platted building line and the street side property line. JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.) Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory buildings in R-2 zoning have a minimum street side setback of 15 feet. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the new accessory building with a reduced street side setback and which crosses the side platted building line. Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels the proposed accessory building will be out of character with neighborhood. All of the structures along Dellwood Drive maintain similar setbacks behind the platted building lines as established by the original plat of the subdivision. The proposed accessory building will have the appearance of being in the front yard of the property immediately to the south. Additionally, staff believes there is adequate space in the rear yard, near the existing accessory building where the new proposed building could be placed without variances. Although the owner of the property immediately to the south agrees with the placement of the proposed accessory building, staff believes the placement will have an adverse visual impact on the adjacent property and the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted side building line for the new accessory building. 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 denial of the requested setback and building line variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 18, 2006) Eddie Smith was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Eddie Smith addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that the proposed accessory building would be constructed to match the existing residence. He noted that there were fruit trees in the rear yard which he was trying to preserve. Chairman Francis noted that the shape of the lot was unique. He explained that the proposed location of the accessory building would have an adverse visual impact on the property next door, and that the current owner may not always occupy that residence. JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.) There was discussion of moving the structure to another location within the rear yard. Mr. Smith noted that an overhead power line dictated the placement of the structure within the rear yard. Staff noted that if the item were deferred, staff could make a site visit and locate the overhead power line and trees on the survey. Mr. Smith indicated that he did not want a deferral. There was a lengthy discussion between the Board, Mr. Smith and staff. During the discussion several alternate locations for the accessory building were discussed. The issue of private utility lines with respect to the placement of the accessory structure was also discussed. Chairman Francis and Chris Wilbourn indicated that they did not support the application as filed. There was additional discussion of deferring the application. A motion was made to defer the application to the January 29, 2007 Agenda to allow time for staff to meet with Mr. Smith on the property and discuss alternate locations for the accessory structure. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the February 26, 2007 Agenda, as the applicant had placed a new accessory building on the property and staff needed time to verify it meeting setback requirements. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 2 open positions. To whom it may concern, My name is Eddie Smith owner and resident of 21 Dellwood drive I am submitting this paperwork in order to permit me to place a storage shelter on my property. In order to place this storage building, I come before the board of adjustment in hopes that I can place a storage 5 feet off the back fence line south side, 13 feet from the curb" fence line east side, and16 feet in from the fence on the Westside. It will place my storage approximately in the area shown in the diagram below. By placing the storage in this area it will save my pecan tree from being cut down and be an asset to the beautification of the property. fJ 11/22/06 LVED 15:38 F9%( 257 3152 November 20, 2004 City of Little Rock Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 To Whom Jt May Concern: This letter is to inform the Board of Adjustment that Mr. Eddie C. Smith, owner ofthe property at 21 Dellwood Drive; has tallied to me about the placement of a. storage building on his propsrty. He has made me aware of the location, and 1 agree that the location is not an issue. This statement is in lieu of me signing the petition of agreeme',et that Mr. Smith sent before the Board. Sincerely, l��ll(041'77 JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z-7753 Owner: Jeff and Kathy Watson Applicant: Cory Whalin, Clements and Associates Address: 106 Fountain Drive Description: Lot 1, Block 3, Young's Park Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A time extension is requested for previously approved variances for a deck addition and accessory structure. 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: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 106 Fountain Drive is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a platted alley along the south and west property lines which serves as access. There is a one-story frame garage structure along the west property line which extends slightly into the alley right-of-way along the south and west property lines. On December 20, 2004, the Board of Adjustment approved variances associated with proposed deck additions along the west (rear) and north sides of the existing residence, and a new detached garage along the rear (west) property line. Variances were granted from Section 36-156 and 36-255 of the JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) City's Zoning Ordinance to allow the accessory garage with an increased rear yard coverage and the deck addition with a reduced side yard setback. A copy of the December 20, 2004 Board of Adjustment minute record and approved site plan are attached for Board review. As of this date, the property owners have been unable to construct the proposed improvements to the property. On November 30, 2006, the applicant submitted a letter to staff requesting a two (2) year time extension for the previously approved variances, as they expired on December 20, 2006. Staff is supportive of the requested time extension. Staff feels the request is reasonable. There have been no changes in this property or the adjacent property since the variances were approved in 2004. Staff believes that extending the time for construction of the improvements to the property will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a two-year time extension for the previously approved variances, subject to compliance with the conditions of the previous approval. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 2 open positions. CLEMENTS SSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, INC. .r A, 2 - -77 i�;3 November 30, 2006 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Departmerit of Planrd �g and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Case Number Z-7753 Dear Mr. Moore: On behalf of the owners of 106 Fountain Drive, Lot 1, Block3, Young's Park Addition; I would like to request a two year extension to the zoning variance granted on December 20, 2004. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter and feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, CLEMENTS & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTURE, INC. Cory Whalin CIV q GCC 5 2006 507 Main Street • North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone (501) 375-3380 • Facsimile (501) 375-8231 • Website: www.clementsarchitects.com JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Owner: Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Z -8030-A Demetria Manning Demetria Manning 6704 Heather Lane Lot 19, Block 9, Richard Subdivision Section B R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. 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: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 6704 Heather Lane is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Heather Lane which serves as access. There are one-story frame and one-story metal storage buildings in the rear yard. The one-story frame accessory building was recently granted a street side setback variance from the Board of Adjustment. The overall property is comprised of two (2) lots, as noted on the attached site plan. 6704 Heather Lane is located at the northwest corner of Heather Lane and Loma Drive. The second lot is located immediately to the north at the southwest corner of Dove Lane and Loma Drive, and will serve as a rear yard area for the residence. A residential structure which previously existed on the second lot has been removed. JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) The applicant is proposing to construct a six (6) foot high wood fence around a portion of the property. The fence will run form near the northeast corner of the house to the east (side) property line, then north along the east property line to appoint 25 feet back from the north property line of the second lot. The fence would then run along the 25 foot platted building line of the second lot to the west (side) property line, then south along the west property line back to the house. The fence will be located 24 feet back from the curb of Loma Drive. The applicant has noted that the City's Traffic Engineering Department has approved the fence location. Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between building setback lines and street rights-of-way. Other fences may be constructed to a height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot wood fence to be located between the required eight (8) foot side building setback line and the Loma Drive right-of-way. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The area to be fenced would essentially be the same if there was a house on the second lot with both rear yards fenced. As noted earlier, the Traffic Engineer apparently approved the fence to be at least 12 feet back from the curb line of Loma Drive. According to the survey of the property, there is approximately 24 feet between the curb line of Loma Drive and the east property line. Therefore, the fence will have to be located on the east property line and not in the Loma Drive right-of-way. Staff believes the proposed fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to the fence being located on the east property line and out of the Loma Drive right-of-way. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 2 open positions. December 26, 2006 Department of Planning and Development Building Codes Division Dear Sir or Madam; This letter comes as a formal request for the following property adjustments: I Demetria J. Manning am requesting approval to build a six-foot privacy fence to surround my property at Lot 19, Block 9, Richland Subdivision. In my efforts to remain a responsible dog owner, as well as good neighbor I feel it is necessary to construct new fencing at this time. I recently purchased the lot connected to my property in order for my large breed dogs to have more yard space to run about. For the protection of the many young children in my neighborhood I feel it's my responsibility to ensure their safety by installing sturdier fencing. I have met with my neighbors to discuss my plans for the new fencing, and have acquired the requested signatures which you will find on the application. As has been approved by the City of Little Rock Traffic Engineering Department, it is my intention to install the fence 12 feet back from the curb along Loma Drive and the alley way. If more information is needed concerning this construction please do not hesitate to contact me at the numbers provided. I appreciate greatly the time taken to review this application. Sincerely, Demetria J. Manning Property Owner t- JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-8158 Owner: Samantha Cunningham Applicant: Tracee Miller Address: 6605 Hawthorne Road Description: South side of Hawthorne Road, west of N. McKinley Street Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested to allow use of an accessory building in conjunction with a home occupation. 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 with Home Occupation STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The property at 6605 Hawthorne Road is zoned R-2 and contains a one-story frame single family residence. There is a single car wide driveway from Hawthorne Road which serves as access. The driveway leads to a one-story frame accessory structure (single car garage) in the rear yard, at the southwest corner of the house. On December 7, 2006 the applicant, Tracee Miller, submitted an application for a home occupation permit to staff. Ms. Miller proposes to locate her art studio in the accessory garage structure. Ms. Miller has noted that she will only produce paintings in the studio, and have no employees or customer traffic. She has noted that her paintings are sold off-site in galleries, restaurants, etc. Staff could not approve the home occupation application based on the fact that an accessory building would be utilized for the home-based business. JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-253(b)(6): "a. Home occupations shall be permitted that will not: 1. Change the outside appearance of the dwelling or provide product display visible from the street. 2. Generate traffic, parking, sewage or water use in excess of what is normal in the residential neighborhood. 3. Create a hazard to persons or property, result in electric interference or become a nuisance. 4. Result in outside storage or display of any material or product. 5. Involve accessory buildings. 6. Result in signage beyond that which may be required by other government agencies. 7. Limited to five hundred (500) square feet in area, but in no case more than forty-nine (49) percent of the floor area in a dwelling. 8. Stock in trade shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the floor area of the accessory use. 9. Require the construction of, or the addition to, the residence of duplicate kitchens. 10. Requirement or cause the use or consumption on the premises of any food product produced thereon. 11. Provide medical treatment, therapeutic massage or similar activities." Mrs. Miller is appealing staff's denial of the home occupation application. She asks that she be granted a home occupation permit to allow her painting/art studio use to be located within the existing accessory structure. To staff's knowledge, the issue related to use of the accessory structure is the only outstanding issue associated with the proposed home occupation. All other aspects of the proposed home occupation will conform to ordinance standards. The Board is asked to determine if the proposed home occupation, to be operated out of an accessory building, is an appropriate home occupation. JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2007) Tracee Miller was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application. Tracee Miller addressed the Board in support of the application. She explained that the accessory building would only be used to produce paintings to be sold at off-site commercial locations. She noted that she used water based paint, and that this use was very quiet. In response to a question from Chairman Francis, Ms. Miller noted that there would be no customer traffic to the property. There was a motion to approve the requested appeal and allow use of the accessory building in conjunction with the home occupation as a painting/art studio. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 2 open positions. The appeal was approved. Art by Tracee Tracee Gentry 1009 Pine Valley Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Board of Adjustment Zoning Ordinance Little Rock, Arkansas December 13, 2006 To Whom It May Concern: 4., 4� 3 Y/ 15 9 My name is Tracee Gentry Miller and I would like to obtain a Home Occupation Permit. I want to use an existing garage that is located on the property but separate from the house I am buying to be used to Paint in. I am a full time artist and I would like to use the building only to paint my paintings in. I don't have any traffic; customers, clients, or employee's coming or going to and from my residence. I create my paintings then I take them to a commercial location. I do not have any employees. I use only water based paints and varnishes. They do not have any harmful odors. Thank you, Tracee Gentry Miller JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-8159 Owner: Bosley Construction, Inc. Applicant: Civil Design, Inc. Address: 4817 Glen Valley Drive Description: Lot 23 RR, Stonecreek Subdivision, Phase I Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a residence with a reduced rear setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned lot at 4817 Glen Valley Drive is currently undeveloped and grass -covered. The property is located on the northeast corner of Glen Valley Drive and Clancy Court. The lot is relatively flat. There is a subdivision sign and rock planter at the southeast corner of the property. There is a 25 foot platted front building line along the west property line and a 15 foot platted street side building line along the southern boundary. The applicant proposes to construct a one-story brick single family residence on the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The residence will be located behind the 25 foot front and 15 foot street side platted building lines, with an 8.5 foot side setback from the north property line. The residence is proposed to have a rear yard setback ranging from 20.26 feet to 24.98 feet from the east (rear) property line. JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a rear setback ranging from 20.26 feet to 24.98 feet for the proposed residence. Staff is supportive of the requested rear setback variance. Staff views the requested rear setback ranging from 20.26 to 24.98 feet as a relatively minor issue. The applicant has noted that the variance is requested in order to comply with the subdivision's Bill of Assurance minimum building area requirements while attempting to construct a one (1) story structure. Additionally, the front corner of the house immediately to the east is approximately 10 feet from the rear property line of the lot in question. Therefore, more than adequate separation will exist between the two (2) houses. Staff believes the requested reduced rear yard setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 2 open positions. CIVIL DESIGN • INCORPORATED 15104 CANTRELL ROAD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72223 December 21, 2006 Mr. Monte Moore Zoning Administrator Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Board of Adjustment Application Lot 23RR Stonecreek Subdivision, Phase 1 Dear Donna: Submitted herewith are six (6) copies of the drawing for the above referenced Board of Adjustments application. This request is made on behalf of the property owner, Bosley Construction, Inc. The Owner is requesting this variance to allow reduction of the rear yard setback to accommodate a specific house design. The proposed house design will meet the required minimum house square footage of the developments bill of assurance while avoiding the need to construct a two-story house. If you have questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted, CIVIL DESIGN((, INC. k'o� �J_ James Dreher, E. I. Staff Engineer JHD/jd cc: Bill Bosley File 0 ENGINEERING & SURVEYING SERVICES — TEL (501) 868-7717 • FAX (501) 868-5099 JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-8160 Owner: Woodhaven Homes, Inc. Applicant: Jack Wilson, Woodhaven Homes Address: 4701 Sugar Maple Lane Description: Lot 530, Longlea Subdivision, Phase VIII Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow steps with a reduced front setback and which extend across a platted building line. 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: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 4701 Sugar Maple Lane is occupied by a newly constructed two-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two - car wide driveway from Sugar Maple Lane which serves as access. The property is located on the southwest corner of Sugar Maple Lane and Christopher Drive. The property slopes downward from east to west. There is a 25 foot platted building line along the north (front) and east (side) property line. When the residential structure was constructed, the front brick step structure was constructed across the front (north) 25 foot platted building line. Approximately eight (8) of the steps cross the platted building line by 7.4 feet, resulting in a 17.6 foot front setback. The front wall of the house (porch) is 28 JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) feet back from the front property line. The brick step structure is uncovered and unenclosed. The highest point of the portion of the step structure which crosses the platted building line is approximately four (4) feet above grade, with a three (3) foot side brick railing. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 31-12( c) of the subdivision ordinance requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the front steps with a reduced front setback and which cross the front platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. The unenclosed front porch of this structure is located 28 feet from the front (north) property line, with the main front wall of the house being setback approximately 36 feet from the front property line. The main front wall of the residence immediately to the west appears to be located on the 25 foot front platted building line. Therefore, the variation between the structure in question and the structure immediately to the east, as well as the structures further east and west along Sugar Maple Lane, has the appearance of being very minor. Additionally, the fact that the step structure is uncovered and unenclosed will also help lessen any possible visual impact on adjacent properties. Staff believes the step structure with reduced front setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The steps must remain uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 2 open positions. plaxibhafwn pmms-' ;ijnr- 8721 WARDEN ROAD 1%Erfnnnb, prhansas nin Jaa P- pilsun PRESIDENT December 19, 2006 Department of Planning and Development - Board of Adjustments 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72205 Subject: Request for Variance Dear Board of Adjustments, -y---1�1/ 6 0 This letter is to serve as a variance request for the property located at 4701 Sugar Maple, Little Rock, Arkansas. The variance request is for the 25'front building line, along Sugar Maple Lane, to be extended 8' for the sole purpose of including the steps leading up to the house. Due to the excessive slope in the yard and the height of the house, the steps are required to gain access the house. The tread width and riser height, which are determined by code, forced the steps to exceed the building line. Your consideration in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please find attached a copy of the revised plot and zoning variance application. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (501) 690-0244. Thank you, COO 4Le- Jack Wilson Woodhaven Homes JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-8161 Owner: Capital View Properties Applicant: Michael Waters, The Italian Couple Restaurant Address: 1900 West 3rd Street Description: North side of West 3rd Street, 200 feet east of South Battery Street Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from Sections 36-555 and 36-557 in conjunction with wall and ground signage placed on the property. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Restaurant Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 1900 W. 3rd Street is occupied by a one-story commercial building. The west half of the building is occupied by a liquor store. The Italian Couple Restaurant recently moved into the east portion of the building. There is paved parking on the south, east and west sides of the building, with access from West Td Street. There is an existing ground -mounted sign for the liquor store at the southwest corner of the commercial building. When the restaurant relocated to the property at 1900 W. 3rd Street, wall signs were placed on the south and east sides of the building. The wall signs are approximately 24 square feet in size (4 feet by 6 feet). Additionally, a 4 foot by 4 foot sign was placed on the flag pole at the southeast corner of the building, creating a second ground -mounted sign on the property. The new ground sign has slightly over 11 feet of clearance over the paved parking along the south side of the building. The two (2) ground -mounted signs have a separation of JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) approximately 82 feet. The property has approximately 150 linear feet of street frontage. Section 36-555(b) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that ground -mounted signs have a minimum clearance of 13 feet over vehicular use areas. Section 36- 557( c) requires a minimum of 300 linear feet of street frontage for two (2) ground - mounted signs on a single property, and that the signs be separated by at least 150 feet. Additionally, Section 36-557(a) requires that all on -premise wall signs face required street frontage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the second ground sign, to have a reduced clearance, and the wall sign on the east side of the building without street frontage. Staff is supportive of the variance to allow the wall sign on the east side of the building without direct street frontage. Staff feels the sign on the east wall will provide better visibility for west -bound traffic on W. 3rd Street, and aid in identifying the building. However, staff cannot support the variances associated with the second ground -mounted sign. Staff does not believe the site is large enough to warrant a second ground -mounted sign. The site has only approximately half of the street frontage typically required for a second ground -mounted sign on commercial property. Staff could support a projecting sign in -lieu of the second ground -mounted sign. The ordinance allows projecting signs of up to 15 square feet in commercial zones. Staff could support a variance to allow the 16 square foot sign to be removed from the flag pole and attached to the building as a projecting sign. If the applicant were willing to make this change, staff could support the application, subject to permits being obtained for the signage. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item. The applicant contacted staff on January 26, 2007 and amended the application as recommended by staff. The applicant will remove the sign from the flag pole and attach it to the building as a projecting sign. The sign is 16 square feet in area which is one (1) square foot over the maximum allowed by ordinance. Staff recommended approval of a variance to allow the additional square foot in area, as well as the variance to allow the wall sign without street frontage, subject to permits being obtained for both signs. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as revised and recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 2 open positions. To the City of Little Dock Department of Planning and Development The Italian Couple Restaurant moved to this property in August of 2006. We installed two signs. The first sign is 4 foot by 4 foot. The second sign in 6 foot by 4 foot. The reason for installing these signs is to give prospective customers better views of our restaurant from the east and west sides. We request the appropriate variances to allow us the additional signs. Respectfully, The Italian Couple 1900 West 3 Streel Little ]bock, AR 722 (501) 372-4448 -A"'C /aki JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-8162 Owner: Excel Commercial Properties Applicant: Tri -Sign, Inc. Coleman Alexander Address: 9401 Rodney Parham Road Description: West side of Rodney Parham Road, at Towne Oakes Drive Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 557 to allow a wall sign without street frontage. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Restaurant Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Anal The C-3 zoned property at 9401 Rodney Parham Road is occupied by a newly constructed one-story commercial building. The building is occupied by a Starbucks coffee shop/ restaurant. There are two (2) drives from Rodney Parham Road which serve as access. Paved parking is located on the north side of the building. A drive-thru window is located on the building's south side. As part of the signage plan for the restaurant, the applicant proposes to place a wall sign on the north side of the building. Currently there is a wall sign on the east side of the building, facing Rodney Parham Road, and a ground - mounted sign at the northeast corner of the property. The sign on the north wall of the building will have an area of approximately 28 square feet and no direct street frontage. JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.) Section 36-557(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires all on -premise wall signs to face required street frontage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the wall sign on the north side of the building with no direct street frontage. Staff is supportive of the requested sign variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. Given the fact that there is no commercial building immediately adjacent to this new building to the north, the wall sign on the north side of this structure will have very good visibility to the south bound traffic on Rodney Parham Road. It will aid in identifying the building to oncoming traffic. The requested wall sign without street frontage will be compatible with other fast food restaurant signage in this general area. Additionally, the proposed wall sign will face the property's parking lot and the parking lot for the commercial strip center to the north along Rodney Parham Road. Therefore, staff believes the proposed wall sign without direct street frontage will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to permits being obtained for all signage. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 2 open positions. TRI -SIGN, INC .............. ...................... ................... .-.......... -...................................... .......,....................... ........... ....................................................... ............................... P.O. 3ox123279 3a*-Ui-4; All 72923 --^ PI1,oi-t,e/ (4 79) 452 -4850 e1'� l Caletina n @iy v-�i. w COM - l '2i 10ecember 20, 2006 3ocw6lLMe*Jd Park Dear T -Ke n.d, I represent Star 3 u&k Co ffee Co-vnpawy at the, new laca mm.. Or4i4 uaUy, we were god to- tnOc L a, 16" set of chamn.eb l etterk onv the Not -Tv W est ele-vatu7w. At the t w' m e o f perwut tAW there w a4, not a frontai,e, road. an, the Kidz of the so- x wak dz vued& A one., would. rou*iL the curve, conn%n.W fro m I -43 0 the pylon, s�� caW be seen,' however, due., to- theLacarymofthe, k4tvLtapp ecwkthat Star3uc4Cou beivn,the, wia& strip m.a & O w the front of the buil d4Aq, there i% a Imo- &ut due, to- the, locarLo-v, of the bu Od 4,tW can a yn out of th& curve t34e4-e, ik no- rea b r d ntL ;cat -Lo , on, th& sides that woulaL Ldentf fy th& bumvnz�� : WMe,, tTu* ik not avv ex ce4�e, slope- X (,k easy to- see., that duet), -the, co n f 4 rat -u , of th& roa& that addtLona b sLc n e, �,k needecLto- properly id e i&,fy th& &ukC�. A goo -6D example, i,k the, Y FC d i rec y acro the street. 77 -Ley wouU have, theme sa.m e problew, �f one, lat vAu& i kthe� 21 d4.ra,:-r"La7, "YL, The," -wanly hak2sqftof verbagg a,L&die,r"-Lainder of the structure Lk for support- Kea4,& oov►&i allowCnq-th4k a4o-: Thank, alb the board, was, for the,;r co v,-Lcerat o -w of th.�,k matter ands we, Ioo l forward, to-wor4 ng,wOvth.evwto- full rewlutuyw. Sinc-ereLy, JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-8166 Owner: EvMark Development, LLC Applicant: Jim Markus and Bob Evans Address: 2 Dorado Beach Drive Description: North side of Dorado Beach Drive, at LaScala Court Zoned: PRD Variance Requested: a time extension is requested regarding the placement of a temporary sales trailer/office for a new subdivision. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Construction Trailer -Temporary Proposed Use of Property: Construction Trailer -Temporary STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The Hickory Grove Subdivision is located along the west side of Hinson Road, north of the Windsor Court Condominium development. Phases 1 and 2 of the subdivision have been final platted. Dorado Beach Drive is the main entry drive to the subdivision from Hinson Road. Dorado Beach Drive currently dead ends into LaScala Curt and Bella View Drive. There are several new homes in various stages of construction along Bella View Drive, south of Dorado Beach Drive. LaScala court, Verona Court and Loria Court have been constructed north of Dorado Beach Drive. There is one (1) house under construction within this phase of the subdivision. A future phase will extend Dorado Beach Drive to the northwest corner of the property and tie into the existing dead end of Dorado Beach Drive which extends to the west. JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) On November 19, 2004 staff approved a temporary construction trailer for the subdivision for one (1) year. The trailer is located at the northwest corner of Dorado Beach Drive and La Scala Court. The trailer is approximately 10 feet by 40 feet in size. There is a gravel drive and parking area leading to the trailer where the future street extension will be located. On December 15, 2005, staff approved the trailer for an additional year expiring on December 15, 2006. On December 20, 2006 the developer submitted a letter to staff requesting another time extension for use of the temporary trailer. The following is found in Section 36-202 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and provides for the placement of temporary buildings: "(a) The director of the city department having planning authority and responsibility may allow a temporary building, preregulation mobile home or manufactured home for commerce, or industry in any district where such building is used: 1. Incidental to construction on a site or development of a residential subdivision; or 2. As a temporary office, store, or other facility while the primary structure on the same site is being remodeled or constructed. (b) Such temporary building, mobile home, or manufactured home may be allowed for any period of time up to one (1) year, after which the board of zoning adjustment must rule on an extension of time. ( c) Appeals from the decision of the director or the city department having planning authority and responsibility shall be the board of adjustment. In making decisions, the director of the city department having planning authority and responsibility and the board of adjustment shall evaluate the need for such temporary uses, compatibility with neighboring properties, parking, traffic, safety, and other factors related to the public health, safety, and general welfare." Staff is supportive of another time extension for the temporary construction trailer. Staff views the request as reasonable as very little of the overall subdivision has been developed to this point. Additionally, the trailer as placed on the property is fairly unobtrusive. Staff will support the time extension for one (1) additional year. At the end of another year the developer will have to come back to the Board of Adjustment if the trailer is needed for a longer period of time. JANUARY 29, 2007 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a time extension to allow the temporary construction trailer for the Hickory Grove Subdivision for one (1) additional year to December 31, 2007. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 2 open positions. i EvMark Development, LLC Markus Evans Construction, LLC PO Box 241850 Little Rock, AR 72223 12/20/06 Monte Moore Little Rock Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Temporary Construction Trailer at Hickory Grove subdivision Dear Monte, As way of introduction, we are real estate developers and residential contractors. Hickory Grove is a PRD and we intend to construct the majority of homes in Phase 1 and 2 of the project. We do not intend to construct homes in Phase 3. We are requesting to extend the time that our temporary construction trailer is placed in Hickory Grove. Our agreement with the City of Little Rock is that as soon as we plat a lot adjacent to the planned city road, Dorado Beach Dr., we will begin construction of the road. After the road is constructed we intend to move the construction trailer. We would like to invite you to our job site in order for you to view our project. You may reach me at 247-5332 or Bob Evans at 960-6062. Sincerely, Jim Markus 9 VA I (0 0 w F- C) W < o z Z < Z < LO U) c/)0 D� G- Z C) 0 LLJ Z < G mLU Z �j LL co 0 9 VA I (0 January 29, 2007 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:12 p.m. Date: 2/ 2 WY) Chairman