HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_03 26 2007LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
MARCH 26, 2007
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being five (5) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The Minutes of the February 26, 2007 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: Andrew Francis, Chairman
Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman
James Van Dover
David Wilbourn
Robert Winchester
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
MARCH 26, 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-8173
11220 Rodney Parham Road
II. NEW BUSINESS:
ITEM NO.:
FILE NO.:
LOCATION:
1.
Z -7903-A
316 E. 11 th Street/1020 Rock Street
2.
Z-8180
3320 Buckhorn Trail
3.
Z-8181
5120 "F" Street
4.
Z-8182
1605 N. Tyler Street
5.
Z-8183
2003 E. Roosevelt Road
6.
Z-8184
17846 Colonel Glenn Road
7.
Z-8185
11001 Hermitage Road
8.
Z-8186
3 Wellington Colony Drive
9.
Z-8187
1602 S. Buchanan Street
10.
Z-8188
Southeast and Southwest Corners of
David O. Dodd Road and Woodbridge Drive
11.
Z-8189
Northeast and Northwest Corners of
David O. Dodd Road and Waters Edge Drive
12.
Z-8190
73 Aberdeen Drive
13.
Z-8191
1224 N. Polk Street
0
O
N
�
�
■ �
�-
v
3NId
631ZVa3
�, 1
11ntleIH1
N
rn
—
�yJ
d�
M
fr
�y
U
BpNp La®rol)
NVWa30
C
0
NIVN
AVMOVobsaB
Nol/yp
HOatl
� pr3
a MHO
0NIN 1W
83H3a0
–
z
MOa000M o
Ad 13
3NId
m
aV030 N0111WV 11005
N
s Jhfhds
I
C/) AlIWAINn
d 8IV3
F– AllSa3nlNn
y N4
SOMadS a3A30
(� 53HJnH
r=
o
IddlSS IN
N
��% alona3s3a
M08 WE NHor 3
6
�Q
3ANl3H
U as
O
a8o331NovHs
o sl0ays
o� WVHaVd A3N0021
NVW OB o
m
–
�J
�f
u–
— 11WI1
x N
g\1
3001a AWv,
JbIS o
W
o �a
Nvnnlns
I M31S
SS�d`Y
4-
0 O
S11W11 Allo�2�y
70
�d01v 3lVONa33
I
O
m
MARCH 26, 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
MARCH 26, 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.
MARCH 26, 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.
MARCH 26, 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.
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM 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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2007)
Philip Kaplan was present, representing the application. There was one (1) objector
present. Staff presented the application.
Philip Kaplan addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that the
manufactured home had been removed from the property because of vandalism and
not an attempt to vacate the use. He gave a brief history of the property. He
explained that the property owner had advertised the property for sale and the
manufactured for rent. He explained that the issue was that there was never an
intent to abandon the mobile home park use.
There was a discussion of the Board of Adjustment's review of this type issue.
Chairman Francis explained why he voted for the appeal previously. He noted that a
substantial evidence rule made the decision more difficult. The issue of how the
appeal should be reviewed was discussed further.
Tom Carpenter, City Attorney, addressed the Board. He referred to case law in
explaining the City's position of why the nonconforming use had been lost. He
briefly discussed the history of the property. He explained that the steps taken by
the property owner to re-establish the mobile home park were not substantial. He
referred to and quoted from Section 36-153( c) of the code.
Pat Gee, of the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association and SWLR UP, spoke in
opposition to the issue of re-establishing the mobile home park use. She noted that
the mobile home was still on the property and in a state of disrepair.
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.)
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, noted that the issue of having a police sub-
station on the property was not an issue to be considered by the Board.
Robert Winchester asked about the property being developed as something other
than a mobile home park. Mr. Kaplan explained that single family lots could be
platted, but the condition of the property made it a problem.
There was a motion to approve the requested appeal. The motion failed by a vote of
0 ayes, 5 nays and 0 absent. The appeal was denied.
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 pkaptan@kbmlaw.net
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 did, and was assured
that Mr. Thompson would move the worst of the homes out of the park and repair and
restore 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 offon 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 September2005, 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 CityAttorney responded and opined that since no one had rented the
mobile home, the .City would consider the property abandoned as a mobile home park.
Attached as Exhibit G are copies of those letters for your convenience. Mr. Keathley
disp:utes.this finding.
Mr. Keathley understands, however, that the property must meet the code requirements,
and,he 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 I is a newspaper article printed recently lauding its success.
Mr. Keathley had no problems with the property during. his previous ownership. He they.
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 property and give
him an opportunity to realize that vision.
Sincerely,
Philip E. Kaplan
PEK:nm
cc: Client
MARCH 26, 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
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 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.
MARCH 26, 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.
MARCH 26, 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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 26, 2007)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant contacted staff on February 23, 2007 and
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 5 ayes and o
nays.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2007)
Todd George was present, representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Staff noted
that the property owners to the west had submitted a written agreement to grant a
maintenance easement for the carport structure.
Todd George addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that the
property at 5124 had a similar variance granted for a carport structure.
There was a brief discussion of the new construction on the rear of the house.
The issue of the maintenance easement was discussed.
The proximity of the house immediately to the west was discussed. Chairman Francis
requested the application be deferred to obtain information on the separation of the
structures.
There was a motion to defer the application to the April 30, 2007 agenda. The motion
passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was deferred.
13/ 200S 17:32 871-468634 APTC PAGE 02
Todd George
5130 P Street
Little Rock, AR. 72207
November 13, 2006
Mr. Monty Moore
Little Rock Planning & Development
Board of Adjuspmcnts
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Ali.., 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-sid,-d carport
within tha boundaries previously established, As mentioned, this open -sided carport
would have guttering and no sides within the boundary. The neighbors to the rest,
Michael & Dina. Yates have given their consent to this project. Should you require any
additional information please :eel free to contact me at 501-425-2340.
Sincerely,
'C—
Todd Geor c
TG:jh
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: C
File No.: Z-8173
Owner: Pleasant Valley Plaza, LLC.
Applicant: Daryl Peeples, Flake & Kelley
Address: 11220 Rodney Parham Road
Description: Lot 1-D, Pleasant Valley Place Commercial Subdivision
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-
555 to allow an off -premise sign.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Commercial
Proposed Use of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned property at 11220 Rodney Parham Road is occupied by a
commercial shopping center development (Pleasant Valley Plaza). A large
commercial building is located along the rear (north) property line, with paved
parking on the south side of the commercial structure. There are access
drives (within easements) from Rodney Parham Road and Arkansas Valley
Drive which serve the property. The C-3 zoned lot was part of a larger
commercial subdivision which included the lots immediately south and east.
In 1996 a sign easement agreement was recorded between Pleasant Valley
Plaza and the owner of one of the adjacent lots to the south, currently
occupied by Bank of the Ozarks. The agreement allowed Pleasant Valley
Plaza to place a monument sign within the easement at the southeast corner
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.)
of the bank's lot. Since that time, the shopping center has maintained a sign
with the wording "Pleasant Valley Plaza".
The applicant is now proposing to remove the existing sign and replace it with
a new monument -type sign which would contain the names of the individual
tenants. The proposed sign will have a height of seven (7) feet and an overall
area of 105 square feet. According to the applicant, Bank of the Ozarks has
approved the proposed sign.
Section 36-555(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows on -premise
ground -mounted signs in commercial zones with maximum heights of 36 feet
and maximum areas of 160 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
a variance to allow the new tenant sign to be off -premise, on an adjacent lot.
The height and area of the proposed sign conforms to ordinance standards.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as
reasonable. The proposed sign is only approximately three (3) feet taller than
the existing sign, with about the same depth. Given the fact that the sign
placement was worked out with the subdivision plat, staff feels the proposed
sign with tenant names is reasonable and will be fairly unobtrusive. Staff
believes the proposed sign 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 the
following conditions:
1. A sign permit must be obtained for the new sign.
2. A letter of approval from Bank of the Ozarks must be submitted prior to
a sign permit being issued.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(FEBRUARY 26, 2007)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter to staff on February 13,
2007 requesting 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 5 ayes and o
nays.
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 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 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent.
1� C
FLAK & KELLEY -2 -X173
COMMERCIAL
Specialists in Brokerage, Development and Property Management
www.flake-kelley.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Adjustrant
FROM: Daryl Peeples OD
DATE: January 25, 2007
RE: Pleasant Valley Plaza Sign Upgrade
I represent the owners of Pleasant Valley Plaza which is a 32,000 square foot strip retail center
located on Rodney Parham Road in West Little Rock. The shopping center was built in the
1980's. Our current tenant mix includes The Toggery, Reflections, Delicious Temptations and
other soft good retailers. The retail center is located on Lot 1D and does not have frontage on
Rodney Parham Road. I have included an aerial with the shopping center outlined in yellow.
In September of 1996 we executed sign easement agreement with the owner of the lot currently
occupied by the Bank of Ozarks (Lot 113). This easement agreement allowed us to place a
monument sign on Rodney Parham Road. A photo of the sign is attached for your review.
Because of the lack of visibility on Rodney Parham and lack of sign exposure the tenants of
Pleasant Valley Plaza desire to modify the monument sign. We are requesting a modification of
the monument sign to a marquee sign which will allow the tenants to put sign panels on sign to
identify their business and increase their exposure to the traffic on Rodney Parham. We also
desire a modification of the sign to enhance the marketability of the vacant space in the shopping
center. We currently have four 2,000 foot bays that are vacant (25% vacancy). Please review
the information included and if you have any questions or need additional items please let me
know. Included is the following:
Exhibit "A"
— Aerial photo of property
Exhibit "B"
— Plat plan
Exhibit "C"
— Photo of current monument sign
Exhibit "D"
— Sketch of proposed new sign
Exhibit "E"
— Photos of shopping center
Exhibit "F"
— Sign easement agreement
Thanks for your consideration of this request.
Enclosures
a A ®� 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 300 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
' AChain LinVISORS pany (501) 375-3200 • (501) 374-9537
'•HENT OPG��.• RETAIL ADVISORS
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: Z -7903-A
Owner: Barbara G. Core
Applicant: Barbara G. Core
Address: 316 E. 11th Street/1020 Rock Street
Description: Lot 7, Block 45, Original City of Little Rock
Zoned: R -4A
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: No cover letter at This time.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
Staff Update:
The application for the proposed fence was deferred from the March Little
Rock Historic District Commission meeting to their April 9, 2007 agenda.
There are issues which need to be resolved, and a Little Rock Historic District
Commission recommendation is needed prior to Board of Adjustment action.
Therefore, staff requests this application be deferred to the April 30, 2007
Board of Adjustment agenda.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 2007)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the April 30,
2007 Agenda, based on the fact that the application is still pending before the Little
Rock Historic District commission and is on their April 19, 2007 agenda.
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 30, 2007
agenda by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent.
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.:
File No.:
Owner:
Applicant:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
:l
Geoffrey M. Curran
Paul F. Jones, III
3320 Buckhorn Trail
Lot 10, Block 9, Woodland's Edge Addition
WE
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section
36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a residence with a
reduced front setback 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 3320 Buckhorn Trail is occupied by a newly
constructed one-story brick single family residence. There is a two -car wide
driveway from Buckhorn Trail which serves as access. The property slopes
downward from front to back (north to south). There is a 25 foot platted front
building line along the north property line.
When the residence was constructed, a mistake was made in placing the
structure on the lot, resulting in the garage portion of the residence extending
two (2) to three (3) feet across the front platted building line. The front setback
for the garage portion of the structure is 23 feet at its northeast corner and 22
feet at its northwest corner. The northwest corner of the residence is
approximately 27 feet back from the front property line.
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
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 residence with a reduced front setback and
which crosses the front platted building line.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the encroachment
across the front platted building line as very minimal. The placement of the
garage portion of the house represents only an eight (8) to twelve (12) percent
encroachment across the platted building line, into the minimum required 25
foot front setback. The slight curvature of Buckhorn Trail in front of this lot aids
in the visual appearance of the homes on either side with the one in question
lining up. Staff believes the existing residential structure, with building line and
front setback encroachments, will continue to have no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties or the neighborhood.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the
completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building
line as approved by the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 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 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent.
Feb 20 07 01:06p Paul Jones 501-45F X147 p.l
February 20, 2007
Board of Adjustments
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter to ask for a variance of
the front building setback line, The garage was
accidentally built over the front building
setback lines, which is a minor encroachment.
We would appreciate any assistance you can
give us in awarding tis a variance regarding this
minor encroachment.
Thank you.
t�jnce
Paul F. Jones, III
PFJIlj
FROM ,Rocket Properties
(FRI)JAN 19 2007 12�-'ST.12:16/No,6840119877 P 2
January 19, 2007
Mr. Dana Carney, Manager
Zoning & Subdivision
Department of Plaming & Development
City of Little Rack
723 West Markham
Re., Lot 10, dock 9 Woodlands Edge
3320 Buckhorn Trail
WTIN-Ilr
We have reviewed the plot plan for the above referenced property
which reflects a minor encroachment over the front setback line. We accept
this encroachment and have no problem with this intrusion.
Please feel free to contact us if you shoWd meed additional information.
sincere,
R OPERTES, LLC
Ronald C. Tyne
cc: Paul Jones. Jones Brothm Builders
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.: Z-8181
Owner: Peggy Davis Pryor
Applicant: Carolyn Llndsey
Address: 5120 "F" Street
Description: Lot 7, Block 41, Pulaski Heights Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested regarding use of an
accessory building.
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 5120 "F" Street is occupied by a one-story frame
single family residence. The property is located on the north side of "F" Street,
between Van Buren and Clarkson Streets. There is a paved alley along the
north (rear) property line, with parking off the alley for two (2) to three (3)
vehicles. There is a one-story frame accessory structure in the rear yard, at
the northeast corner of the lot. The accessory building is in the process of
being remodeled.
At the time the owner's representative obtained the building permit for the
accessory structure, the structure's proposed use was discussed with staff.
The applicant informed staff that the property owner, Peggy Pryor, lives out of
town and rents the principal residential structure. The applicant noted that the
renovations to the accessory building were being done in order for Ms. Pryor to
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 3 ICON'T.
use the structure for storage and an art studio when she was in town. It was
noted that the use would be private use only, with no business activity. Staff
informed the applicant that the proposed use of the accessory building would
be a violation of City code, based on the fact that the accessory building must
serve the occupants of the principal structure on the property. Section 36-2 of
the City's Zoning Ordinance sets forth the following as definition and use
requirements for an accessory building:
Accessory building use means a building or use which:
(1) Is located on the same zoning lot as the principal building or
principal use;
(2) Serves the principal building or principal use;
(3) In other than a residentially -zoned district, is subordinate in area,
extent or purpose to the principal building or principal use served.
Accessory structures in residentially -zoned districts shall be
subordinate in area, extent and purpose to the principal building
and residential use; and
(4) Contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of
occupants of the principal building or principal use.
The property owner is appealing staff's determination that the accessory
building cannot be for the use/benefit of someone who does not reside on the
property. The property owner is asking the Board of Adjustment to determine
that the proposed use of the accessory building is acceptable; that an off-site
property owner be allowed to use an accessory building for their own private
use.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 2007)
Peggy Davis Pryor was present, representing the application. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the application.
Peggy Davis Pryor addressed the Board in support of the application. She
explained that the home (principal structure) is rented so the house can be occupied.
She noted that she planned to reside on the property some time in the future.
Robert Winchester asked about the use of the accessory building if Ms. Pryor were
to move into the principal structure. Ms. Pryor explained that it would be used for
storage and an art studio.
The issue of the use of the accessory building was discussed further. The issue of
occupancy was also discussed.
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.)
There was a motion to approve the appeal. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 5
nays and 0 absent. The appeal was denied.
T
eary Lindsey
February 7, 2007
- IS
Mr. Monte Moore
Department of Neighborhoods and Planning
723 West Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Appeals of Administrative Action
Pryor Art Studio, 5120 F Street
Dear Monte,
We are requesting an appeal of staff's interpretation of the ordinance that requires
accessory buildings for use by main house occupants only.
My client, Peggy Pryor owns 5120 F Street. She currently lives out of state and rents out
the main house. She is renovating and adding on to the existing storage building to make
an art studio with storage for her use only. Therefore, we are asking that an off-site property
owner be allowed to use the accessory building for her own private use.
We would like to note that the building with the addition complies with the maximum
coverage in rear setback rule of 30% and although the existing building is 1 ft. from the east
property line, the addition complies with all the required setbacks.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Lind ey, AIA
319 President Clinton Ave., Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-5940 FX: 501-707-0118
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z-8182
Owner: David and Lenna Hopkins
Applicant: David Hopkins
Address: 1605 N. Tyler Street
Description: Lot 21, Block 3, Englewood Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
156 to allow an accessory building with increased rear yard coverage.
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 1605 N. Tyler Street is occupied by a two-story
brick and frame single family residence. There is a paved alley along the rear
(east) property line. There is a small metal storage building located within the
rear yard, at the southeast corner of the lot.
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing metal storage building and
construct a new accessory carport or garage structure, as noted on the
attached site plan. The proposed carport/garage will be located three (3) feet
from the side (south) property line and on the rear (east) property line. The
proposed accessory structure will occupy approximately 44 percent of the
required rear yard (rear 25 feet of the lot).
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 4
Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows accessory
structures in R-2 zoning to occupy a maximum of 30 percent of the required
rear yard. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the
accessory structure with a 44 percent rear yard coverage. The proposed
accessory structure conforms to all other setback requirements (3 foot side
and 0 foot rear setbacks).
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as
reasonable. The size of the proposed accessory carport/garage structure is
compatible and not out of character with other accessory structures within this
block and surrounding neighborhood. Given the 50 foot lot width, it would be
very difficult to fit a two -vehicle carport/garage structure on the property
adhering to all ordinance requirements and maintaining a maximum rear yard
area. The residential property immediately south recently received variances
for an accessory structure associated with a new home construction. Staff
believes the proposed accessory carport/garage structure with increased rear
yard coverage will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or
general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard coverage variance,
subject to the accessory structure being constructed to match the principal
structure.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 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 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent.
David & Lenna Hopkins
February 20, 2007
Department of Planning & Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
RE: 1605 North Tyler Street
Residential Zoning Variance
Dear LRDP&D:
F Y / S 2—
As owners in residence at 1605 North Tyler Street, we hereby request consideration of
our application for a residential zoning variance to permit construction of a 2 -car carport
or garage at the rear of our property.
It is our understanding that the proposed location and dimensions of the carport as
necessary to permit the parking of two passenger vehicles will require a variance.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact David during business hours at
224-1000, ext. 106 or by email at d.hopkins.pres@sbcglobal.net.
David Hopkins
1605 North Tyler Street, Little Rock, AR 72207
(501) 666-5071
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.: Z-8183
Owner: Ben and Diane Davis
Applicant: Roger Tucker
Address: 2003 E. Roosevelt Road
Description: South side of E. Roosevelt Road, at Dugan Street
Zoned: 1-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the paving provisions of Section
36-508 to allow an unpaved vehicular use area.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Industrial
Proposed Use of Property: Industrial
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
At time of permit issuance, a dedication of right-of-way 30 ft. from
centerline will be required on Dugan Street.
2. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the
right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis
Herbner).
3. Since the property has already been cleared, a grading permit in
accordance with section 29-186 (c ) & (d) will be required prior to any
installation of gravel, drainage improvements, and driveways at the site.
Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved
prior to the start of construction.
4. At the time of permit issuance, boundary street improvements do not
apply unless construction is proposed beyond the installation of a gravel
parking lot.
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.)
5. Erosion controls must be installed to reduce discharge of polluted
stormwater.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
1. The expansion of vehicular use area requires compliance with the City's
Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
2. The Zoning Ordinance requires a street buffer of 37.5 feet in depth on
the Roosevelt Road frontage. Plantings of trees and shrubs within the
street buffer are to be as required by Section 15-96 of the Code.
3. The Zoning Ordinance requires a street buffer of 31.5 feet in depth on
the Dugan Street frontage. Plantings of trees and shrubs within the
street buffer are to be as required by Section 15-96 of the Code.
4. A perimeter landscape strip of 9 feet in width is required on the
perimeters of the site for a distance of 50 feet from the front (Roosevelt
Road) property line.
5. Landscape areas are to be irrigated.
C. Staff Analysis:
The 1-2 zoned property at 2003 E. Roosevelt Road is occupied by a one-story
warehouse building. The property has street frontage along E. Roosevelt
Road and Dugan Street. There is truck access (overhead doors) on the north
(front) and west sides of the building. There is gravel parking on the north and
a portion of the west sides of the building. The rear (south) portion of the
property has recently been cleared of trees. There is a railroad right-of-way
located along the rear property line.
The applicant proposes to gravel the remainder of the property with an SB -2
road base, as noted on the attached site plan. The new SB -2 road base will
be located on the south and west sides of the building for truck access and
parking. As part of the project, the applicant proposes a new access drive
from Dugan Street. The applicant is also proposing future overhead door and
a concrete pad on the south side of the building for truck access. The
applicant has been working with the Public Works Department on the new
driveway location and specifications. The applicant is proposing the SB -2 road
base instead of paving given the fact that the areas around the building will be
used for heavy truck traffic.
Section 36-508 of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that areas subject to
wheeled traffic be paved with asphalt or concrete. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the non -paved
vehicular use area.
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance to allow the non -paved vehicular
use area. Given the proposed use of the property as a trucking facility, staff
views the proposed use of SB -2 road base instead of asphalt as a reasonable
alternative. The proposed non -paved parking area will not be out of character
with the general area. There are gravel parking areas immediately to the east
along both sides of Dugan Street, as well as other industrial areas such as the
port industrial area to the southeast. Staff believes the proposed non -paved
vehicular use area will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or
this industrial area.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a non -paved
vehicular use area, subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in
paragraphs A. and B. of the agenda staff report.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 2007)
Ben Davis and Roger Tucker were present, representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation
of approval.
Ben Davis addressed the Board in support of the application. In response to a
question from the Board, he explained that his intent for the property was use as a
trucking facility. He stated that he had no intent to sell the property at this time. He
explained that the improvements would enhance the appearance of the property.
James Van Dover asked if there was any hard surface in the rear yard area. Mr.
Davis stated that there was none at this time. Mr. Van Dover asked about the type
of trucks and the number of trucks which would be on the property. Mr. Davis noted
that there would be approximately 25 semi trucks and trailers. Mr. Van Dover asked
if it would be a 24 hour use. Mr. Davis stated that it would not. Mr. Van Dover
asked why SB -2 base was being considered over asphalt. Mr. Davis explained that
the asphalt would not hold up as well under the truck traffic. He also noted that the
SB -2 was easier to maintain.
The Cal -Ark Trucking facility onl-30 was referenced and briefly discussed.
The issue of landscaping and buffers was discussed. Dana Carney, of the Planning
Staff, explained where landscaping would need to be installed. The issue of the
adjacent restaurant parking was briefly discussed.
Vice -Chair Burruss noted that the proposed SB -2 base was an appropriate approach
for the truck traffic. The issue of gravel parking along E. Roosevelt was discussed.
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.
Ronnie Brown, adjacent property owner to the east, addressed the Board in support
of the application. He supported the applicant's request to use SB -2 as a parking lot
base.
There was a motion to approve the requested variance to allow a non -paved
vehicular use area, as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4
ayes, 1 nay and 0 absent. The variance was approved.
2/13/07
To; City of Little Rock
This letter is to propose land improvements that will be done in two phases, phase 1 and
phase 2 and provide justification for requesting a zoning variance for a parking lot with a
base of SB -2 instead of asphalt. This 5 -acre undeveloped properly is located at 2003
Roosevelt Rd Little Rock Ar, 72206
The reason for using SB -2 instead of asphalt is that simi trucks and trailers will utilize the
parking lot and the weight of the trucks and trailers will damage the asphalt in a short
period of time. The SB -2 will hold up to the daily wear and tear of the trucks and trailers
and will be more cost effective to repair.
Phase 1
A.
Burn brush and tree piles.
B.
Level and grade ground.
C.
Install culvert for driveway.
D.
Install a 36'x 20' concrete driveway.
E.
Install a SB -2 gravel base for parking lot.
Phase 2
A. Install a fence around property.
B. Install a 40'x 150' concrete pad located on the south side of building.
C. Install 2 -10'x 10' overhead doors located on the south side of building.
If you have any question please call me at 501-371-9975.
Thank You,
Ben Davis
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.: Z-8184
Owner: Hector and Laura Hortelano
Applicant: Hector and Laura Hortelano
Address: 17846 Colonel Glenn Road
Description: North side of Colonel Glenn Road, approximately 1,000 feet west of
Rocky Lane
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
156 to allow an accessory building which exceeds the size of the principal 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-2 zoned property at 17846 Colonel Glenn Road is occupied by a 16 foot
by 56 foot manufactured home. The property is located at the northwest
corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Winsome Drive. The property consists of
two (2) separate parcels (real estate records), but is considered one (1) zoning
lot as per the City's Zoning Ordinance definition. There is a gravel driveway
from Colonel Glenn Road which serves as access to the residence. The
property is located out of the Little Rock City Limits, but within the City's
extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction.
The applicants are proposing to construct a 40 foot by 50 foot metal accessory
building on the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed
building will be located 70 feet back from the front (south) property line and 47
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.)
feet back from the east side property line. The accessory building is proposed
to serve as storage for the existing residence and will aid in storing materials
and tools when the applicants construct a new home on the site in the future.
Section 36-156(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory
buildings of structures be subordinate to the principal structure on the lot and
contain less gross floor area. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance
to allow the 2,000 square foot accessory structure on the lot with an 896
square foot principal structure. The proposed accessory structure
meets/exceeds all other setback requirements.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as
reasonable, as the proposed metal storage building/garage will not be out of
character with the general area. There are numerous large storage buildings,
barns, etc. in this general area along Colonel Glenn Road. The proposed
structure and residence represent a very minimal coverage of this two (2) acre
property. As noted in the applicants' letter, there are plans to construct a
larger single family home in the future. Staff believes the proposed accessory
structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general
area.
Staff does propose one (1) minor change to the proposed building placement.
Colonel Glenn Road will require an additional 30 feet of right-of-way dedication
some time in the future. Therefore, the proposed storage/garage structure
should be moved back an additional 20 feet from the front (south) property line
to accommodate the future right -or -way and maintain the required 60 foot front
setback.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested accessory structure variance,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The accessory structure will be for the use of persons residing in the
principal structure only. It cannot be rented out, or used as a dwelling or
in conjunction with a business.
2. The accessory structure must be moved back an additional 20 feet (90
feet back from the south property line) from the front (south) property line
to allow for future right-of-way dedication.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 2007)
Hector and Laura Hortelano were present, representing the application. There were
two (2) persons present in opposition. Staff presented the application with a
recommendation of approval.
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.)
Hector and Laura Hortelano addressed the Board in support of the application. In
response to a question from the Board, Mr. Hortelano noted that the building height
would be approximately 10 feet.
Robert Winchester asked about the metal construction. The Hortelanos provided
photos to the Board of the structure to be constructed. They explained that the
structure was removed from another location.
James Van Dover asked about storing materials in the accessory building during the
construction of a new house on the property. Ms. Hortelano explained that they
would have to purchase the materials as they could afford them and that they would
be new materials.
The issue of enforcement was discussed. Staff explained that enforcement could be
initiated if the lots were sold separately after the accessory building were
constructed.
Edward Grubbs addressed the Board in opposition. He objected to the construction
of a metal building in the area. He noted that it would not enhance the
neighborhood. He noted that the applicants needed to rent off-site storage. He
asked about building inspections for the structure. Staff explained that there was no
building permit required outside the City limits.
Bobby Tinkle also addressed the Board in opposition. He objected to the condition
of the property and expressed concern with who would construct the accessory
building. Ms. Hortelano explained that building professionals would install the
building,. There was a brief discussion of the current condition of the property.
Vice -Chair Burruss asked if some type of screening would be appropriate along the
Winsome Drive property line. This issue was briefly discussed.
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Hortelano explained that the
foundation would be concrete slab and the future house would be 2,500 to 3,000
square feet in area.
Mr. Grubbs discussed the setback of the building form Winsome Drive. This issue
was briefly discussed.
There was a motion to approve the variance for the proposed accessory building, as
recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 2 nays and 0
absent. The application was approved.
-{-urn--7
j
-------.-.__. _.__.._.___
J-------------
�)"�� L.t���-_� ►_`2q___.._� V_r��'iC_t%t_C�._� _ ���_�s> ni_vt a �� r_�c�1�e ___i'�t�
-toc�Y_K�f�iI_,di_-----------
61L�Gt—.�_V�'tC—__
....----------------_._--.�
�i���r_�--� -1 h-�.---c�.�'�n���.i�.��—c�� � +s_��t��_c.c�cz�. fc���._Y_�rvt��►c� -----
----
I .I
u r o t t ld _ .. L-6LTC�-------
------
--r_Ylonc-6-61au�— c_an_
v �' UW6
'ee-+ I
-EEClo-
-_C n
�'� 1 �, 1 1 or tits v �.�_r�m ►. j ,
Pt -
t
UJ i ll IV
awJ Po_c_ A
- _len-ro..c-rt-j-c�rn - _ g3 , a
---- - -
-- �-�_� •-1-G��'�zi'tr_1_ _ cfi �aT. r� . _� �'� � J���� ►` �1�c ��� �cr_t�� z_ec.��—_Th_�s �� ccr_Ft�r
_
_r`_}�1�✓_c'_11� �_n_-1��s__.Cc{s�w�►`an�C_f k� z_o�i1g.�e.i_reren Fs
-------------�
�,-,f ioiIZ
V __ �e�
_ ,� ►y ---to 0 �r__�.rn i` � y�
-{-urn--7
to?
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.: Z-8185
Owner: TruService Community Federal Credit Union
Applicant: Bill Sims
Address: 11001 Hermitage Road
Description: Lot 1, Office Park West Subdivision
Zoned: O-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-
553 to allow a ground -mounted sign with increased height.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Office
Proposed Use of Property: Office
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The 0-3 zoned property located at 11001 Hermitage Road is occupied by a
one-story brick office building which houses the TruService Federal Credit
Union. The property is located on the southeast corner of Hermitage Road
and Office Park Drive. There is paved parking on the east side of the building
with access drives from Hermitage Road and Office Park Drive. There is a
drive through window on the south side of the building.
The applicant is proposing to place a new ground -mounted sign at the
northeast corner of the building, as noted on the attached site plan. The
proposed sign will have a height of 30 feet and an area of approximately 114
square feet.
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.)
Section 36-553(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows ground -mounted
signs in the 0-3 zoning district to have maximum heights of six (6) feet and
maximum areas of 64 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
variances to allow the ground -mounted sign with an increased height and area.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the proposed
sign with increased height and area as being out of character with the general
area. There are existing office zoned properties immediately north, south and
west of this site which have signage conforming to the ordinance requirements
of Section 36-553. Additionally, the properties to the north fall within the
Chenal/Financial Center Design Overlay District, which allows a maximum sign
height of eight (8) feet and a maximum area of 100 square feet. While there is
a taller ground -mounted sign on the restaurant property immediately to the
east, this sign is approximately 100 feet back from the street and was reviewed
under the PCD zoning of the property. Staff believes the proposed sign would
have an adverse impact on the surrounding office properties, and could create
a problem with future signage requests in this area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variances.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 2007)
Bill Sims was present, representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial.
Bill Sims addressed the Board in support of the application. He referenced the sign
on the restaurant property immediately to the east. He explained that the area was
becoming more commercial.
The issue of other pole -mounted signs in the area was discussed.
Chairman Francis noted agreement with staff regarding the sign being out of
character with the area.
There was a motion to approve the requested sign variances. The motion failed by
a vote of 0 ayes, 5 nays and 0 absent. The application was denied.
009��
Am�_
Atgnisystems
G
51GN5 of F)15TINCj IDN
February 02, 2007
Board of Adjustment — 5
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
501-371-4790
Fax: 371-6863
SignSystems, Inc. is requesting a zoning variance to Little Rock Code 36-553 (2) for property located at
11001 Hermitage Road, owned by TruService Community Federal Credit Union, currently being
renovated for occupancy as the owner's primary location. SignSystems, Inc. is seeking to erect a
double-faced pylon street sign on the property facing Hermitage Rd. This sign exceeds the ordinance's
allowance of 6 -foot maximum height for a sign in institutional and office zones. The sign is in
compliance of ordinances for commercial zones.
The primary reason for the variance request is the need for visibility of the sign from the adjacent major
traffic arteries Shackleford Rd., Financial Parkway and 1-430. This area is seeing a major influx of retail
and commercial businesses. One commercial business next door to this property, The Butcher Shop,
has a pylon street sign in excess of the 6 -foot height restriction.
Adhering to the ordinance's current stipulations would result in the loss of needed additional visibility of
applicant in question and would deny the applicant the business of drive-by, impulse customers. This
lack of visibility has the potential of not only creating undue hardship upon the applicant/property
owner, but also to create frustration to the customers and clients attempting to locate the business for
the first time.
SignSystems, Inc. respectfully extends its appreciation to the Board of Adjustment for their
consideration of this variance request.
Sincerely,
Bill Sims
Executive Consultant
P.O. Box 6064 Jonesboro, AR 72403 870-931-1761 Fax 870-931-7920 800-416-4458 www.signsystemsl.com
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 8
File No.: Z-8186
Owner: Michael and Dorothea Wright
Applicant: Michael Wright
Address: 3 Wellington Colony Drive
Description: Lot 2, Block 13, The Villages of Wellington Addition
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 a residence with a
reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line.
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:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 3 Wellington Colony Drive is currently a vacant lot
with a few existing trees. The property is located on the south side of
Wellington Colony Drive, 100 feet east of Wellington Village Road. The
property slopes downward slightly from side to side (west to east) and back to
front (south to north). There is a 25 foot platted building line along the north
property line.
The applicant proposes to construct a one-story single family residence on the
lot, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed residence will cross the
front platted building line by approximately 10 feet at the northwest corner of
the structure and 7 feet at its northeast corner. The resulting front setback will
range from 15 to 18 feet. The applicant notes that the proposed house is
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.)
designed to accommodate a disabled person. The house is being pushed
toward the front property line as much as possible in order to have a garage
and vehicular maneuvering area at the rear of the structure for access to the
residence where no steps will exist.
Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum front
setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Section 31-12(c ) of the subdivision
ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and
approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
variances from these ordinance standards to allow the new residence with a
reduced front setback and to cross the front platted building line.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as
reasonable. In June, 2004 the Board of Adjustment granted front setback and
building line variances to the two (2) residential lots immediately east (#5 and
#7 Wellington Colony Road) for two (2) single family homes which were
inadvertently constructed across the front platted building line. These two (2)
homes are located 15 to 16 feet back from their front property lines.
Therefore, the proposed building line encroachment will not be out of character
with the immediate area. Additionally, the curvature of Wellington Colony
Drive in front of this property will give the visual appearance of the adjacent
structures not being out of alignment. Staff believes the proposed single family
home with reduced front setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent
properties or genera 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 front building line
for the new residence. The applicant should review the filing procedure with
the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and building line
variances, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the
front platted building line as approved by the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 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 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent.
February 21, 2007
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning & Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Sir:
Proposal: Reduce the Building Setback Line from 25ft. to 15ft.
3 Wellington Colony Drive
Lot 2, Block 13
The Villages of Wellington, addition to the City of Little Rock
We respectfully request a variance of the zoning ordinance in The Villages of
Wellington Phase 9A, Lot 2, Block 13 to build a house 15ft. from the building set back
line.
This house is designed to accommodate a wheel chair person. The driveway goes
to the rear of the house where no steps are necessary to enter the main living area. The
halls are wider and one bath is designed for the handicapped.
The lots in this area were proposed for patio homes. The subject lot is pie shaped
with a narrow rear lot line distance of 47ft. The side property lines are shorter than other
lots on Wellington Colony Drive, and the 25ft. building set back line takes up much of
the available building area on the subject lot.
The two houses to the East of lot 2 (lots 3 & 4) are set back 15ft. or less from the
building setback line. We didn't object to these houses being built over the set back line.
Since the distance between the street curb and the property line is between 1 lft. and 13ft.,
the house will be about 28ft for the street curb.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Wright
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 9
File No.: Z-8187
Owner: Mark and Ann Arouh
Applicant: Mark and Ann Arouh
Address: 1602 S. Buchanan Street
Description: West side of S. Buchanan Street, between West 16th and West 17th
Streets
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested regarding use of the
property as 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
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 1602 S. Buchanan Street is occupied by a one-
story frame single family residence. The �roperty is located on the west side
of S. Buchanan Street, between West 16t and West 17th Streets. There is a
two -car wide gravel drive at the southeast corner of the property, with parking
for four (4) vehicles. There is also on -street parking allowed on S. Buchanan
Street within this block.
Mark and Ann Arouh, the property owners, were recently denied a home
occupation permit for the property. The proposed home occupation was not
approved based on the fact that the proposed use is not a permitted home
occupation and that the use will generate customer traffic; traffic in excess of
what is normal for a residential neighborhood.
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.)
The Arouh's are seeking a home occupation permit to allow their combined
healthcare practice. Mrs. Arouh is a healthcare consultant, advising patients
about lifestyle and health maintenance issues. Mr. Arouh is a state licensed
acupuncturist, Chinese herbalist and state licensed massage therapist. The
Arouh's propose to see no more than four (4) patients per day, with each
patient session averaging 90 minutes. They note that there would only be one
(1) patient vehicle on the property at any time, and that there is ample space
on the driveway to park. The Arouh's also note that it is their intention to
obtain a commercial location as soon as possible, and that the home
occupation will only be temporary.
The following is from Section 36-253(b)(6) of the City's Zoning Ordinance
which regulates home occupations:
(6) Home Occupation.
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.
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.)
11. Provide medical treatment, therapeutic massage or similar
activities.
Mark and Ann Arouh are appealiing staff's denial of their proposed home
occupation, based on the above noted requirements. They are asking the
Board of Adjustment to determine that their proposed home occupation is an
acceptable use of the property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 2007)
Mark and Ann Arouh were present, representing the application. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the application.
Ann Arouh addressed the Board in support of the application. She explained the
proposed home occupation use. She noted that she only consulted patients and
administered no medical treatment. She noted that the massage therapy performed
by Mr. Arouh could be done at the client's location. She described nature pathic
medicine. She also explained that it was their intent to have the home occupation
on a temporary basis.
Mark Arouh addressed the Board in support of the application. He further explained
the proposed home occupation use.
There was a motion to approve the requested appeal. The motion failed by a vote of
0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent (Burruss). The appeal application was denied.
PETITION TO USE HOME AS BUSINESS OFFICE
PHOENIX INTEGRATIVE HEALTHCARE
1602 SOUTH BUCHANAN ST.
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204
(501) 280-9908
To Board of Adjustment:
This is a request to use our home to see patients in our combined healthcare practice. My
wife, Ann Arouh, is a healthcare consultant advising patients about lifestyle and health
maintenance issues. I, Mark Arouh, am an Arkansas licensed acupuncturist, Chinese
herbalist, and Arkansas licensed Massage therapist specializing in medical massage.
Because of our specialized approach in treating patients, we take a long time with each
patient, averaging a minimum of 90 minutes per session. This means that we would
never see more than four patients in any one day. There would never be more than one
patient vehicle at our house unless one patient arrived before the previous patient left.
We have ample off-street parking in our driveway so patient vehicles would not obstruct
street traffic. We have no `waiting room'. Patients would go directly to the office.
It is our intention to obtain business office space as soon as possible. We don't like the
prospect of having strangers in our home and want to have a proper office to see patients.
A home office would be only a temporary interim step to help build a sustainable
practice.
I would like to point out that there are numerous businesses like the one we propose
operating within the city limits; doctors, chiropractors, lawyers, etc., all seeing clients in
their homes, many for years. In our neighborhood we have people selling Avon products
in their house and I know of people running car repair businesses in their front yards. We
are not setting a precedent. We are only asking that we be allowed to get our business off
the ground so that we can reasonably expect to pay for office space. We estimate that if
all goes well we will be in a business office later this year. We have spoken with all our
neighbors and all have encouraged us to open an office. We will be happy to circulate a
petition for all of our neighbors to sign if that will help.
Sincerely,
Mark and Ann Arouh
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 10
File No.: Z-8188
Owner: H L Land Development, LLC
Applicant: Pat McGetrick
Address: Southeast and Southwest corners of David O. Dodd Road and
Woodridge Drive
Description: Lots, 1, 65-67, and Tract B, Woodridge Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section
36-516 to allow a fence with increased height.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residences and Vacant Lot
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 Zoned properties at the southeast and southwest corners of David O.
Dodd Road and Woodridge Drive are occupied by lots within the newly
developing Woodridge Addition single family subdivision. Lot 1 is at the
southeast corner and is currently vacant and grass covered. Tract B is at the
southwest corner, with Lots 65-67 immediately to the west backing up to David
O. Dodd Road. Tract B is an undeveloped tract set aside for stormwater
detention. There are new homes on Lots 65-67. Lot 1 slopes downward from
side to side (east to west). Lots 65-67 are relatively level.
The applicant proposes to construct a six (6) foot high wood fence along the
north property lines of Lot 1, Tract B and Lots 65-67. The proposed
subdivision fence would run along the entire David O. Dodd frontage for the
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 10 (CON'T.)
subdivision, as noted on the attached sketch. The applicant is proposing the
fence in order to help buffer the subdivision from David O. Dodd Road, a minor
arterial.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum
residential fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between building
setback lines and street rights-of-way. Six (6) foot high fences are allowed
elsewhere on the property. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to
allow the six (6) foot high fence to be located between the building setback
lines and the David O. Dodd right-of-way for Lot 1, Tract B and Lots 65-67,
Woodridge Subdivision.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the proposed fence
height as reasonable. Lots 65-67 back up to David O. Dodd Road and Lot 1
has a side yard relation to the street which is classified on the Master Street
Plan as a minor arterial. David O. Dodd will be carrying an increased volume
of traffic over the years as more properties/subdivisions develop in the area
and further to the west. Staff feels the proposed six (6) foot high fence will aid
in reducing the traffic noise for the adjacent subdivision. Staff believes the
proposed fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the
general area. A similar variance was recently granted for a six (6) foot
perimeter fence along David O. Dodd Road for the Kenwood Subdivision,
further to the west.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to
a permit being obtained for the fence construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 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 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent.
Mc.GETKIC % MCGETRMCK, INC.
ENGINEEK5 - PLA�NNEK5 - DEVELCPER5
February 23, 2007
Mr. Monte Moore
Zoning Administrator
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Fence Height Variance
Woodridge Subdivision
Dear Mr. Moore:
77 �= 0
We are herewith requesting a variance to allow a six foot wooden fence to be built along
David 0. Dodd Road. This fence would be constructed along the property line of Lots 1,
65, 66, 67 and Tract B of Woodridge Subdivision. Bordering David 0. Dodd Road, the
fence, located at the intersection, will have subdivision signs on both sides. We feel the
extra height is needed because of the traffic along David 0. Dodd, a minor arterial street.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
McGetrick & McGetrick
Patrick M. McGetrick, P.E.
10 Otter Greek Courts Suite A
Little Rock, AK 72210
501-455-8899 fax 501-455-8898
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.:
Owner:
Applicant:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
H L Land Development, LLC
Pat McGetrick
Northeast and Northwest corners of David O. Dodd Road and
Waters Edge Drive
Lots, 1 and 129, Waters Edge Addition Phase I
rtw
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section
36-516 to allow a fence with increased height.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residence and Undeveloped Lot
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned properties at the northeast and northwest corners of David O.
Dodd Road and Waters Edge Drive are occupied by lots within the newly
developing Waters Edge single family subdivision. Lot 1 is at the northeast
corner and is occupied by a new single family residence. Lot 129 is at the
northwest corner and is currently undeveloped and grass -covered. Lot 1 is
relatively flat and Lot 129 slightly slopes downward from west to east.
The applicant proposes to construct a six (6) foot high wood fence along the
south property lines of Lot 1 and Lot 129. The proposed subdivision fence
would run along the entire David O. Dodd frontage for the subdivision, as
noted on the attached sketch. The applicant is proposing the fence in order to
help buffer the subdivision from David O. Dodd Road, a minor arterial.
{
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 11 (CON'T.)
Section 36-516(e)(1)a of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum
residential fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between building
setback lines and street rights-of-way. Six (6) foot high fences are allowed
elsewhere on the property. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to
allow the six (6) foot high fence to be located between the building setback
lines and the David O. Dodd right-of-way for Lot 1 and Lot 129, Waters Edge
Subdivision.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the proposed fence
height as reasonable. Both Lots 1 and 129 have side yard relations to the
street which is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. David
O. Dodd will be carrying an increased volume of traffic over the years as more
properties/subdivisions develop in the area and further to the west. Staff feels
the proposed six (6) foot high fence will aid in reducing the traffic noise for the
adjacent subdivision. Staff believes the proposed fence will have no adverse
impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. A similar variance was
recently granted for a six (6) foot perimeter fence along David O. Dodd Road
for the Kenwood Subdivision, further to the west.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to
a permit being obtained for the fence construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 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 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent.
McGETKIC i,. McGETR1CK, INC.
ENGINEERS - PLANNERS - DEYELOPERS
February 23, 2007
Mr. Monte Moore
Zoning Administrator
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Fence Height Variance
Waters Edge Subdivision
Dear Mr. Moore:
We are herewith requesting a variance to allow a six foot wooden fence to be built along
David 0. Dodd Road fifteen feet from the property line into Lots 1 and 29, Waters Edge
Subdivision. The fence, located at the intersection, will have subdivision signs on both
sides. We feel that the extra height is needed because of the traffic along David 0. Dodd,
a minor arterial street.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
McGetrick & McGetrick
Patrick M. McGetrick, P.E.
10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock. AR 72210
501-455-8899 fax 501-455-8898
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 12
File No.: Z-8190
Owner: The Fulenwider Living Trust
Applicant: Barry Rush
Address: 73 Aberdeen Drive
Description: Lot 13, Block 18, Chenal Valley Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the building line provisions of
Section 36-12 to allow an addition which crosses a side 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 73 Aberdeen Drive is occupied by a one-story brick
single family residence. The property is located at the northwest corner of
Aberdeen Drive and Berney Way Drive. There is a three -car wide driveway
from Berney Way Drive which accesses a garage at the northwest corner of
the residential structure. There is a 25 foot platted building line which runs
along the front (east) and side (north) property lines. There is an open space
drainage area located on the tract immediately to the west.
The applicant is proposing to enclose the existing garage portion of the
residence for additional heated and cooled living space. The proposed project
includes the addition of a 24 foot by 26.5 foot garage at the northwest corner of
the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The northeast corner of the
proposed garage addition will extend across the 25 foot side platted building
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 12 (CON'T.)
line by approximately 11 feet. The northwest corner of the addition will be
located on the 25 foot building line. This will result in a side yard setback
ranging from 14 feet to 25 feet.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
setback of 8 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 31-12(c ) of the Subdivision
Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and
approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the garage addition to cross the side platted building line.
Staff does not support the requested building line variance. Staff views the
proposed encroachment as being out of character with the surrounding
properties. Upon surveying this newer neighborhood, staff found no similar
encroachments across platted building lines. Although there is an open space
tract immediately to the west, staff feels the proposed encroachment across
the side platted building line could have an adverse visual impact on the
surrounding properties. Additionally, the proposed 11 foot building line
encroachment is a fairly major encroachment for a newly established
neighborhood with consistent platted building lines throughout.
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 garage addition. The applilcant 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 building line variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 2007)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the April 30,
2007 agenda due to the fact that the applicant failed to complete the required
notification to surrounding property owners.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 30, 2007
agenda by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent.
Property Address: 73 Aberdeen Drive
Lot 13, Block 18 Chenal Valley Addition
Owner: The Fulenwider Living Trust
Contractor: Rush and Company, Inc. Lic # 014260
The owner is requesting a variance to the 25' building line on the side of the lot.
The house sits on a corner lot and the proposed addition would not be on the same street
that the house faces. Currently, the house has a bonus room above the garage that can
only be accessed through the garage. The owner would like to enclose the garage to
make it part of the heated and cooled square footage. This would allow access to the
bonus room without having to walk through an area that is not temperature controlled. In
order to accomplish this the owner would like to add a new garage. It would be built in a
fashion that would match the existing house using the same brick and roof material. A
gable would also be added to the roofline to compliment the house.
There is a greenbelt that is on the backside of the lot, so there would not be a
residence affected directly next to the proposed addition. We believe this would be an
improvement to the property from two perspectives. The interior would be easier to
access all areas of the home. The exterior would benefit from added windows and a gable
that would enhance the roofline.
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 13
File No.: Z-8191
Owner: Lucas and Megan Hargraves
Applicant: Lucas Hargraves
Address: 1224 N. Polk Street
Description: Part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Hollenberg Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 31-
254 to allow an addition with a reduced front 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 1224 N. Polk Street is occupied by a one-story
frame single family residence. The property is located at the southwest corner
of N. Polk and "L" Streets. There is a two car wide drive from "L" Street which
serves as access. The drive leads to a one -car wide detached carport
structure within the rear yard of the lot. The residence is located 14.3 feet
back from the front (east) property line.
The applicant proposes to construct an eight (8) foot wide porch addition on
the front (east) of the existing residence. The porch will be covered and
unenclosed. The addition will be located 6.3 feet back from the front (east)
property line. There will be approximately three (3) steps leading from the
porch addition to a front walkway. The steps will be approximately four (4) feet
from the front property line. The proposed porch will run the entire width (28.6
MARCH 26, 2007
ITEM NO.: 13 (CON'T.)
feet) of the residence and be located 8.7 feet back from the north street side
property line.
Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front
building 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance from this ordinance standard to allow the porch addition with a
reduced front setback.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. There appears to be one (1)
minor porch structure at 1206 N. Polk Street which extends closer to the street
than the fronts of the homes in this half block. There is also the residence
immediately east across N. Polk Street which has a side relationship to N. Polk
Street and a side setback which is similar to the front setback proposed.
Additionally, there is very little consistency in this general area with respect to
front setbacks for residential structures. The front setback can vary greatly
from block to block, with some being greater than 25 feet and some being
much less, as with the houses immediately west and east along "L" Street.
Staff believes the proposed porch addition adds to the character of the
neighborhood and will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or
the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested front setback variance, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The porch addition must be constructed to match the existing residential
structure.
2. The porch must remain unenclosed.
3. The steps must remain uncovered and unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 2007)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to
the April 30, 2007 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 5 ayes, 0
nays and 0 absent.
February 23, 2007 _�--
In regards to: Hargraves Application for Zoning Variance /
Tony Bozynski
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Mr. Bozynski,
We respectfully request that the Little Rock Board of Adjustments consider our application for a zoning
variance so that we can build a small open porch, never to be enclosed, on the front of our Hillcrest home.
City ordinance requires that all homes be set back at least 25 feet from the street. We hope to add a modest,
eight foot deep porch, which requires a zoning variance.
While we appreciate and support the purpose of the ordinance, our project is deserving of a variance for
some important reasons. First, we do not have a neighbor to the North of us because we are located on a
corner lot. The houses across L St., to the north, are in the Prospect Terrace Subdivision and face
Southwood street. The homes have large backyards creating substantial distance between our house and
those homes. Additionally, there is a lot between our house and the neighbors to the South because we each
share '/2 of that lot. Therefore, the difference between the setback on our house and our neighbors will not
be as noticeable. Furthermore, the house across the street from us faces north; it is oriented at a 90 degree
angle to our front door. In light of the placement of our home and our neighbors we believe that a variance
is fair because the disparity in set back will not be evident.
Secondly, if we are able to add a front porch to our home, it will bring the house in keeping with its original
design. Our home was built in 1920 in a traditional craftsman style. Originally the house included a half
porch; however, prior owners closed it in. It is rare for a Craftsman style home to be without a front porch;
they usually have a full or partial porch with square, tapered columns.' According to a study by the
Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, "the craftsman influence is by far the most common building style
found" in Hillcrest.2 We hope to add a porch in the traditional Craftsman style and respect Hillcrest's
history and tradition.
Thank you for your time in considering this request. We look forward to coming before the board to
address any remaining questions.
Sincerely,
L
fl WiLl
/ '�
Lucas Hargraves
Enclosures (7)
4Megan Hargraves
I www.architecture.about.com and www.architecturalhouseplans.com
2 Hillcrest. The Historic and Architectural Heritage of Little Rock. Streetcar Suburb, by Cheryl Griffith Nichols and
Sandra Taylor Smith, page 16.
1224 N. POLK ST,
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72205
Im
O
U
W
w
uj
F-
O
Z
W
U)
LL
O
Q
m
D
v
w
a
0
5
m
F.
L.
c
LIW
F -
z
w
U)
m
Q
w
z
I
W
v
J
F-
D
0
WWaf
F
00
_
>
m
o0�'r)W
Q�;�>r,W
Q
Zz100
UJ
�
z
m
z
e►=LLm>
�
5
m
F.
L.
c
LIW
F -
z
w
U)
m
Q
w
z
I
W
March 26, 2007
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:18 p.m.
Date: Zl/ 3) l!7
Chairman