The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutboa_07 25 20051 LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JULY 25, 2005 Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Minutes of the June 27, 2005 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present LVA MMN 04 0T.119TI-Zi[i Andrew Francis, Chairman Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman Fletcher Hanson David Wilbourn Open Position City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA JULY 25, 2005 2:00 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum Approval of the Minutes of the JUNE 27, 2005 meeting of the Board of Adjustment III. Presentation of Consent Agenda IV. Presentation of Hearing Items LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA JULY 25, 2005 2:00 P.M. OLD BUSINESS: A. Z-7809 3010 Painted Valley Drive B. Z-7847 5425 Centerwood Road C. Z-4691 -A 8824 Fourche Dam Pike D. Z-7859 8610 Geyer Springs Road NEW BUSINESS: 1. Z-7731 -A 5 Cantrell Road 2. Z-7886 119 S. Izard Street 3. Z-7887 110 Vigne Drive 4. Z-7888 24 Greathouse Bend Drive 5. Z-7889 3219 Foxcroft Road 6. Z-7890 120 S. Izard Street 7. Z-7891 39 Lakeside Drive 8. Z-7892 9 Bent Tree Drive 9. Z-7893 4409 West 12th Street 10. Z-7894 8721 Ranch Blvd. V LO O ■ __ O — 3HId a31ztla3 C � V^ J nnvellu LO VJ�� C\j vd�y T Nvwa39 N � �■ NIVW J\ AtlMOV0a8 H06V NprNp a MHO 63H3a0 m z 0 I 1W - o � � � \RONSON rM0a000M _ � 3NId !33 3NId i z �S NJ�d n P030 0) NO1lIWtl 11005 0 - S°NiydS 0.,� • X6 alV3 rhl'�b N >eF Al156N T: Al ISUAM o SON18dS a3A39 S3HOnH IddiSS IIN _ 6 OOIHO Q alOna3S3a MOadVS NHOf alt 3NN13H Q6 31 OV S Oa0331ADVHS o 0 n S106VS y, cg' WVH8Vd A3N00a _ NV W 08 5 - S11WIl A110 39016 AWN H o� Jy°j3✓�1S '- Q'e o$ n lr �� O tiQ ORiStW- N'�Py ER NVnlllnS V 7 18VM315 J y Syd h •� � Q S111I1 Alllo � VPS e 4— P 2 O 2 S,{°1pJ 31VON63! �0 W JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-7809 Owner: Robert Tanner Applicant: Mark Thomas Meador Address: 3010 Painted Valley Drive Description: Lot 7, Block 30, Pleasant Valley 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 porte-cochere addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line, and a building addition with reduced side and rear setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 3010 Painted Valley Drive is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. There is a circular drive from Painted Valley Drive which serves as access. The driveway extends along the south side of the residence to an attached carport at the southwest corner of the structure. The single family lot has a 25 foot front platted building line. The applicant proposes to make two (2) additions to the single family structure. The first addition is a proposed 20 foot by 20 foot porte-cochere addition to the front of the house, over a portion of the circular driveway. The proposed porte- JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) cochere will extend across the front platted building line by approximately 15 feet, resulting in a 10 foot front setback. The second proposed addition is a 21 foot by 43 foot addition at the southwest corner of the structure. This addition will include a garage for boat and trailer storage and an exercise/pool room next to an existing swimming pool in the rear yard. This addition will be located six (6) to eight (8) feet from the side (south) property line and 10 feet from the rear (west) property line. There is a 10 foot wide utility easement along the rear property line. The addition is not proposed to extend into the easement. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned property. Section 36-254(d)(3) also requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Section 36-254(d)(2) requires minimum side setbacks of eight (8) feet for this 100 foot wide lot. In addition, 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 from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed porte-cochere addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses the front platted building line, and the proposed building addition at the southwest corner of the house with reduced side and rear setbacks. Staff does not support the variances, as requested. Staff does not oppose the proposed addition at the southwest corner of the residence, as the neighborhood contains large residential structures on lots which are above average in size. Staff feels that this addition will not be out of character with the neighborhood. Staff would require that the applicant obtain a letter of approval from the neighborhood property owners' association for the proposed addition. Staff does oppose the proposed porte-cochere addition. Staff feels this proposed addition will not be compatible with the neighborhood. On inspection of the general area, staff observed no other similar front encroachments in the neighborhood. 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 proposed porte-cochere addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. 2 JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the setback and building line variances, as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 28, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the April 25, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 25, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 25, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the May 23, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the May 23, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the June 27, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the July 25, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 25, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the August 29, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 29, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. The Board noted this fifth deferral was with prejudice, and that the application must be heard on August 29, 2005 or withdrawn and refiled at a later date. 0 JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z-7847 Owner/Applicant: James Phillip Jaros Address: 5425 Centerwood Road Description: Lot 114, Prospect Terrace No. 2 Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the easement provisions of Section 36-11 and the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an accessory structure with reduced setbacks and which encroaches into a utility easement. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Work Issues: No Comments. B. Utility Company Issues: Single Family Residential Little Rock Wastewater Utility: Little Rock Wastewater Utility agrees to the variance subject to the following conditions: That no permanent structure (Walls etc.) be built in place of the awning. 2. That the awning is supported by 4 X 4's and not any type of extensive foundation that may interfere with the existing sewer main. 3. That in the future if the Utility is required to perform maintenance on the existing sewer main you will remove and reinstall the awning at your expense allowing the Utility to perform any necessary work within the easement. JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) Entergy: Although we normally don't allow permanent structures within our easements, in this case we will not require removal or modification. Allowing this encroachment to remain, as currently placed and constructed, is contingent on the following conditions: 1. No additional encroachments are placed within the easement at the rear of your property. 2. The awning height is not modified such that the clearance to our conductors is reduced. 3. Entergy is not liable for any damage to the structure within the easement from falling material due to any reason including maintenance activities. Southwestern Bell: No objection to encroachment. Central Arkansas Water: No Comments received. Centerpoint Energy: No Comments received. C. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5425 Centerwood Road is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Centerwood Road which serves as access. A one-story frame garage structure is located at the southeast corner of the property. The garage structure was recently moved back approximately 15 feet on an existing slab, as approved by staff. There is a four (4) foot wide utility easement along the rear (south) property line. The applicant recently constructed an awning on the rear (south side) of the garage structure, as noted on the attached site plan. The awning is 7 feet by 18 feet, and 8 feet in height. It was constructed using three (3) 4 X 4 posts and a shed roof. The awning structure is currently unenclosed. The applicant has plans to screen in the structure. The awning structure is located one (1) foot from the side (east) and rear (south) property lines. Additionally, the accessory structure, with awning, occupies approximately 35 percent of the required rear yard (rear 25 feet of the lot). The awning structure also encroaches into the four (4) foot wide utility easement by approximately three (3) feet. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows an accessory structure to occupy a maximum of 30 percent of the required rear yard area. Section 36-156(a)(2)f. requires minimum three (3) foot side and rear setbacks for accessory buildings. Section 36-11(f) requires that encroachments into utility easements be reviewed and 2 JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements to allow the awning structure. Staff does not support the requested variances. Although the size of the entire accessory structure is not out of character with the neighborhood, staff has concerns with the structure occupying almost the entire width of the utility easement and with the reduced setbacks. Water run-off associated with the shed roof could adversely affect the adjacent property. Staff feels that the awning structure as proposed is inappropriate for the property. Staff suggests moving the awning structure to the west side of the garage structure. This would eliminate the need for any variances. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested setback and easement encroachment variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the June 27, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the July 25, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 25, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2005) James Phillip Jaros was present, representing the application. There were several persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) James Phillip Jaros addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented photos of the awning structure to the Board. He explained that he did not realize he needed a variance when he constructed the awning structure. He explained the drainage issues associated with the property. He described the area of the utility easement. He stated that he would cut off the overhang on the awning structure and install a gutter on its south side. There was a brief discussion of the foundation under the awning structure. Mr. Jaros explained that there was an existing slab under the structure. The comments received from utility companies were briefly discussed. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked about reducing the size of the awning structure to the existing slab. This issue was briefly discussed. Trudie Cromwell, of the Heights Neighborhood Association, addressed the Board in opposition. She expressed concerns with drainage, the structure being located within an easement and the close proximity of the awning structure to the adjacent accessory building to the south. She noted that several property owners in the area were against the application. Greg Lathrop, owner of the property immediately to the west, also addressed the Board in opposition. He expressed concerns with drainage in the easement area, water run-off and the possible fire hazard created by the structure. He stated that the neighbors were not aware of the awning construction. Stacy Hurst also addressed the Board in opposition. She explained that the neighborhood was typically not opposed to variances, but there was concerns with this particular request. She urged Mr. Jaros to work with the neighborhood on a possible compromise. Mr. Jaros explained that he talked to the neighbors to the east and south prior to construction of the awning structure. He noted that none of the neighbors had expressed any concerns to him. Mr. Lathrop described the properties to the south. He discussed the issue of fencing between the adjacent properties. Ellen Gray, property owner to the south, addressed the Board in opposition. She discussed the issue of fencing between the two (2) properties. Vice -Chairman Burruss noted that he could possibly support the awning structure being located only over the existing concrete slab. There was a brief discussion of the setback of the slab from the rear property line. Staff noted that the slab was located no more than two (2) feet from the rear property line. JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) Chairman Francis expressed concerns with the close proximity of the awning structure to the adjacent accessory structure to the south, and the location of the structure within the easement. Mr. Jaros amended the application to move the awning structure back to the existing concrete slab with an eight (8) inch overhang. Chris Wilbourn expressed concerns with the structures close proximity to existing power lines and explained. There was a brief discussion of the location of the structure with relation to the rear property line. There was a motion to approve the revised application. The motion was briefly discussed. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 open position. The revised application was denied. There was a brief discussion of allowing the applicant time to remove the awning structure. The Board informed staff and Mr. Jaros that the awning structure would need to be removed by the August 26, 2005 filing deadline, unless a new, significantly different, application was filed. April 22, 2005 Monte Moore Little Rock Zoning Board of Adjustment RE: Zoning Variance J. Phillip Jaros 5425 Centerwood Road Little Rock, A.R. 72207 Dear Sir, z-Wg 7 I am requesting a zoning variance for an addition of a shed type structure on the back (south side) of my garage. The footprint of this awning structure is 7 feet deep, 18 feet wide, 8 feet high, and is noted on the attached survey. It is supported by 3 piers with 4x4's, where an existing fence once stood. It is bordered to the south by a 10.5 feet high by 32 feet wide brick garage wall, To the east by a 8 feet high stone wall with wood fence. On the west side is my yard. I agree to sign any release of liability that you may want in this matter. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, J. Phillip Jaros JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: C File No.: Z-4691 -A Owner: Diamond State Oil, LLC Applicant: Eddie Martin Address: 8824 Fourche Dam Pike Description: Tract M (R ) Area 201, Little Rock Port Industrial Park Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variance are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-555 to allow a ground sign which exceeds the maximum height allowed and has a reduced separation. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Convenience store with gas pumps Proposed Use of Property: Convenience store with gas pumps STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No comments. B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property located at 8824 Fourche Dam Pike is occupied by a convenience store development. The property is located at the northwest corner of Fourche Dam Pike and Lindsey Road. The main store building is located near the center of the property, with covered gas pumps on the building's east and south sides. Existing drives from Fourche Dam Pike and Lindsey Road serve as access to the development. There is paved parking on the east and south sides of the building, with paved truck parking within the west half of the property. There are existing ground -mounted signs at the northeast and southeast corners of the property. There is also an existing sign JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) pole at the northeast corner, within a few feet of the existing ground -mounted sign. The existing pole is approximately 40 feet tall. The applicant proposes to place a fuel price sign on top of the existing pole. The sign will be 96 square feet in area, with an overall height of 48 feet. The sign pole is located approximately eight (8) feet from the existing sign. The existing sign has a height of 30 feet and an area of approximately 91 square feet. Section 36-555(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum sigh height of 36 feet in commercial zoning. Section 36-557(c ) requires a minimum separation of 150 feet between commercial signs on a property's street frontage when a minimum of 300 feet of street frontage exists. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow use of the existing sign pole. There is slightly over 300 feet of street frontage along Fourche Dam Pike. Staff is not supportive of the variances as requested. Although staff could support variances for increased sign height and area at this location, staff has serious concerns with allowing two (2) ground -mounted signs this close together. A number of years ago these two (2) signs were combined as a single sign, with the smaller sign attached to the side of the larger pole. Staff could support height and area variances associated with this type of arrangement, if the applicant were willing to revise the application accordingly. Otherwise, staff feels that the number of signs proposed for the property is in excess of what should be allowed for a development of this size. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the July 25, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 25, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the August 29, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 29, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. 3 �OULSON OIL GROUP %ROCK .HIEFSEAHAWK TRANSPORT i- fUEIMAn ■ Coulson Oil Company, Inc. ■ Superstop Stores, LLC ■ Port Cities Oil, LLC ■ Diamond State Oil, LLC ■ ChiefSeahawk Transport, LLC May 10, 2005 Department of Planning and Development Attn: Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Signage for Diamond State Oil, LLC located at 8824 Fourche Dam Pike, Little Rock Dear Board Members: T4 -,a.,-- 6 -7--4(11-A We are requesting variance to install a 48 foot pole mounted sign. The signage area will be 96 square feet. A copy of the proposed sign is attached. The reason for this variance is the location is approximately 570 feet from the centerline of I-440. It is my understanding that if the railroad right -of --way was not between our property and the Interstate right-of-way, no variance would be required. Best regards, Al Eddie Martin, for Diamond State Oil, LLC EM:mc Enclosures ■ P.O. Sox 68, North Little Rock, AR 72115-0068 ■ Phone: 501-376-4222 ■ FAX Corp: 501-376-7904 ■ FAX Acct 501-376-4707 JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: D File No.: Z-7859 Owner: Ken and Mike Cox Applicant: Terry Burruss Address: 8610 Geyer Springs Road Description: West side of Geyer Springs Road, North of Baseline Road Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the development provisions of Section 36-301 to allow outdoor storage/display. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Pawn Shop Proposed Use of Property: Pawn Shop with outdoor storage/display STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Because there is not a building expansion proposed, no upgrade in landscaping is required. In the C-4 open display district that allows outdoor storage, all outdoor storage must be screened by a permanent opaque screening fence or wall so that it cannot be seen from an adjoining lot. Automobile, truck, tractor, mobile home, boat or motorcycle sales areas are not required to screen fully assembled merchandise ready for sale. JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.) C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 8610 Geyer Springs Road is occupied by a one-story commercial building which houses a pawn shop business. The building was originally constructed as a McDonald's Restaurant. There are two (2) driveways from Geyer Springs Road which serves as access. There is paved parking on the north, south and east sides of the building. The building was recently remodeled for the new pawn shop use. With the remodeling, the rear portion of the parking lot (from the rear wall of the building to the rear property line) was fenced for the outdoor storage of large items (vehicular, etc.). When the City's Enforcement staff became aware of the outdoor storage area, a Courtesy Notice was issued to cease the outdoor use. Section 36-301(b) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that all commercial uses in the C-3 zoning district be restricted to closed buildings, except parking lots, seasonal and temporary sales per Section 36-298(4), and the normal pump island services of service station operations. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the area of outdoor storage of large items associated with the pawn shop use. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Although the applicant has done a very good job in rehabilitating the existing building and front parking area, staff feels that the outdoor storage area proposed is inappropriate for this area of enclosed commercial and office uses along Geyer Springs Road. Staff feels that the introduction of an outdoor commercial use could be a detriment to the future development and redevelopment of property in this area along Geyer Springs Road. Staff also has concerns with the upkeep of an outdoor storage area as the one proposed. Staff feels that this type of outdoor storage could quickly become an eye sore and provide difficulty in enforcement. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow outdoor storage. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 27, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the July 25, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. 2 JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.) The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 25, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2005) Ken Cox was present, representing the application. There were two (2) persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Ken Cox addressed the Board in support of the application. Mr. Cox briefly explained the redevelopment of the property. He submitted a list to the Board of items which would be stored in the rear fenced area and items which would not be located in that area (attached to a July 22, 2005 letter submitted by Terry Burruss). He explained that his pawn shop was a quality operation. He briefly discussed possible conditions included in a letter submitted by Pam Adcock dated July 25, 2005. These conditions were briefly discussed by the Board. Pam Adcock, of the Cloverdale Neighborhood Association, addressed the Board in opposition. She explained that the outdoor storage use would be detrimental to future development and redevelopment along Geyer Springs Road. She discussed possible conditions to be placed on the outdoor storage area. Mr. Cox explained that redevelopment of the property was a quality development. There was additional discussion of the outdoor storage area. Troy Laha, of the Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, also addressed the Board in opposition. He explained that SWLR UP opposed businesses with outdoor storage in Geyer Springs area. He expressed concern with vehicles being left in the front parking lot overnight and with outdoor vendors/peddlers. He noted that the sidewalk in front of the business was not in good condition. There was a brief discussion of the type of lighting on the property. Mr. Cox explained that it was parking lot lighting that existed on the property when McDonalds occupied the building. Mr. Cox noted that the lighting could be shielded to direct the light to the parking/outdoor storage area and not onto the adjacent property. The issue of conditions which could be placed on the application was discussed at length. As a result of the discussion, a motion was made to approve the application, subject to the following conditions: 3 JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.) 1. An eight (8) foot high good neighbor privacy fence must be installed around the perimeter of the outdoor storage area. The fence must be located on the property line. The gates must be kept closed during business hours. 2. The parking lot lighting is to be shielded and directed downward and inward to the site. 3. There is to be no outdoor security alarm. 4. There is to be no installation or repair work done on the property. 5. Trash pick-up must be done during daylight hours only. 6. Compliance with the list of items to be stored in the outdoor storage area as presented with the letter from Terry Burruss dated July 22, 2005. 7. There is to be no outdoor vendors/peddlers on the property. This does not include charity car washes or similar events. 8. There is to be no overnight parking of vehicles in the front parking area. 9. All vehicular use areas must be paved. 10. The eight (8) foot high privacy fence along the west property line must be constructed within 30 days. All other improvements are to be completed within six (6) months. 11. The variance is approved for Boll Weevil Pawn Shop only. If this business vacates the property the approved variance will become null and void. Any future businesses would have to seek approval from the Board for outdoor storage/display use. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 recusal (Burruss) and 1 open position. The application was approved. 4 DESIGN PLAnI NTNG -d INTERIORS 1202 Main Suite 230 Little Rock Arkansas 72202 501-376-3676 Fax 376-3766 r c h i t e c t s May 27, 2005 Mr. Monte Moore Zoning and Code Enforcement Administrator Department of Planning & Development City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Boll Weevil Pawn Shop 8610 Geyer Springs Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 A/E # 0519 Dear Mr. Moore: T49-2- -2-"781`7 Attached please find 6 copies of a survey and Site Plan on the above referenced project. The site contains a structure that formally housed a McDonald's Restaurant. The building was remodeled to contain a pawn shop. The exterior area of the parking lot was fenced in and screened with landscaping to allow storage of large items. It was our feeling that since this was not outdoor display of merchandise, that it would be an acceptable utilization of the rear area. I would like to point out that this was discussed with City of LR Staff. It was much to our surprise when City of Little Rock Enforcement issued a courtesy notice regarding this issue. Due to the current interpretation, we are requesting a variance to allow storage in the rear area. As we have previously stated, this area is screen with landscaping to prevent display of these items. We appreciate your consideration on this request. If there are any questions or additional information is needed, please call. Yours very truly, Terry . Burruss, AIA JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z-7731 -A Owner/Applicant: Raymond and Kimberly Battle Address: 5 Cantrell Road Description: Lot 6, Pine View Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5 Cantrell Road is occupied by a two-story rock and frame single family residence which is currently being remodeled, including building additions. There is a circular drive from Cantrell Road which serves as access. The Board of Adjustment recently approved a variance to allow a six (6) foot high wood fence between the front building setback line and the front property line, along the east and west side property lines. There is an existing six (6) foot high wrought iron fence with vehicular gates along the front property line, approximately 11 to 14 feet back from the front property line. The applicants recently constructed a six (6) foot high wood fence to enclose the rear yard, as noted on the attached site plan. The JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) applicants are proposing to place two (2) feet of lattice on top of the new wood fence, for an overall fence height of eight (8) feet. Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet in residential zoning. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow the proposed eight (8) foot fence height. Staff is supportive of the requested eight (8) foot fence height. Staff views the request as reasonable. There are other similar fence/wall heights in this general area along Cantrell Road, therefore staff feels the proposed fence will not be out of character with the neighborhood. The additional two (2) feet of lattice, being non-opaque, should have no adverse visual impact on the adjacent properties to the east, west and south. Staff believes the proposed fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence variance, subject to a building permit being obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2005) 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. 2 June 16, 2005 2- -2-231 --A Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1344 Gentlemen: On or about October 25, 2004, you approved a zoning variance for proposed six foot wooden fences between the properties located at #3, #5 and #7 Cantrell Road. See attachment. Currently, the fences are being built and should be finished no later than June 22. At this time, we are requesting that you approve an addition of two feet of lattice to be placed on top of the six foot wooden privacy fences. The lattice addition would run from the southern -most part of the fences and stop at the north end of each house. Please note that the lattice addition would be built only between the respective houses and would not extend in a northerly direction past any of the houses. The proposed lattice addition would enhance the six foot fences and would be more aesthetically pleasing. Moreover, the privacy and security for the homeowners will be enhanced by this addition. This additional lattice would run perpendicular to Cantrell Road and would not be an obstruction to traffic visibility for anyone. All of the surrounding' neighbors agree with this proposal and encourage the Board's approval of this variance. Sincerely, ?g,66e �6--I)JJL Martha and French Hill #7 Cantrell Road Kim and Raymond Battle #5 Cantrell Road Caroline and Ray Bell #3 Cantrell Road JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z-7886 Owner: Alan Nussbaum Applicant: Tim Yelvington Address: 119 S. Izard Street Description: Northeast corner of West 2nd and Izard Streets Zoned: UU Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the development provisions of Section 36-342.1 to allow a ground sign. 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 U zoned property at 119 South Izard Street is occupied by a one-story office building which was recently constructed. The property is located at the northeast corner of West 2nd and Izard Streets. There is a paved alley along the north property line. A paved parking area is located on the east side of the building, with access drives from West 2nd Street and the alley. As part of the property's development, a ground -mounted sign was constructed at the southwest corner of the property. The sign is located 6-8" from the south property line and 13'-6" from the west property line. The sign is a monument -style sign with a height of four (4) feet and an area of 32 square feet. JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) Section 36-342.1( c)(11) of the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits ground - mounted signs in the Urban Use Zoning District. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the existing ground -mounted sign. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels it is reasonable to allow the ground -mounted sign. The property is located in an area of Downtown Little Rock where the existing buildings are set back from the front property lines and front yards exist. Many of the structures are old single family homes which have been converted to offices. Most of these properties have small ground -mounted signs. Therefore, the proposed sign would not be out of character with the general area. Additionally, the over all size of the proposed sign is well under the maximum height (6feet) and area (64 square feet) typically allowed for ground -mounted signs in office zoning districts. Staff believes the proposed ground sign will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a ground - mounted sign in the UU Zoning District, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance is approved for this specific business (Nussbaum, Hendrix, Trussell & Cockrill, P.A.) only. If this business vacates the building, the sign must be removed from the property. 2. A sign permit must be obtained for the sign (double fee). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2005) 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. ROARK • PERKINS - PERRY • YELVINGTON 713 WEST SECOND STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-2287 June 20, 2005 Mr. Monty Moore City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: 119 South Izard - Sign Variance Dear Mr. Moore: 0 501372-0272 FAX 501372-3645 - 7Xg� As required, we are asking for a sign variance for the above-mentioned project. As you know, that project was completed in 2004. During the construction, a monument sign was added without proper authorization. We are extremely apologetic for our oversight of not receiving the variance required before it was constructed. It is not our policy to have anything constructed that is not approved by all governing bodies. Please accept our apologies. We will not allow this to happen again. We are asking for the variance because we feel it fits within the neighborhood because other adjacent properties have a similar monument sign. We also want the monument sign because the U.U. District requires the building to be placed on the setback line and be 60% glass and this limited our ability to place the signage on the building. By having the monument sign, we are able to only construct one sign to cover all streets leading to the building. It also enables the other tenant to share the sign. This helps keep the building free from multiple signs. I have attached a photograph of the sign in question, and I believe you will agree that it does not impede visibility or take away from the U.U. District's goals. Thank you for your consideration and again we apologize for our oversight of making sure the property approvals were in place before the sign was erected. Sincerely, ROARK-PE,WS-PERY-YELV fNGTON c Fimothy S. elvi gton, A TS Ylbp cc: Todd Cockrill, Nussbaum, Hendrix, Trussell, Cockrill JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-7887 Owner: Michael L. Ronnel Applicant: Eugene P. Levy Address: 110 Vigne Drive Description: Lot 74, Block 83, Chenal Valley Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a reduced rear setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned lot at 110 Vigne Drive is currently undeveloped and tree covered. The lot is relatively flat. The property backs up to the Chenal Country Club facilities (tennis courts and parking area). The applicant proposes to construct a two-story stucco and frame single family residence on the property, as noted on the attached site plan. As part of the new construction, the applicant proposes to construct a 17 foot by 17 foot pavilion covering a portion of the patio adjacent to a pool. The pavilion will be attached to the home and be unenclosed. The pavilion will be located approximately three (3) feet from the rear (west) property line. JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 25 foot rear setback for R-2 zoned property. The approved plat for this subdivision included a variance to allow 20 foot rear setbacks. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the pavilion addition with a reduced rear setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels the request is reasonable, based on the fact that the lot backs up to a 15 foot wide open space tract (platted) and the Chenal Country Club facilities. Staff feels this unenclosed structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The applicant has submitted a letter from the Chenal Valley Architectual Control Committee approving the preliminary plans for the proposed residential construction. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to the pavilion addition remaining unenclosed on the north, south and west sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2005) 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. CROMWELL ARCiIITECTS ENGINEERS r1 7e97 7 June 21, 2005 Mr. Monte Moore Zoning and Enforcement Administrator Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Re: Board of Adjustment: Lot 74, Block 83, Chenal Valley Addition Little Rock, Arkansas A/E Project No. 2005-016 Dear Mr. Moore: We are requesting permission from the Board of Adjustment to construct a roofed pavilion in the rear yard setback of the new house to be constructed on Lot 74, Block 83, Chenal Valley Addition to the City of Little Rock. A site plan, subdivision plan, floor plan, six copies of the survey, and a west elevation of the house are enclosed. We propose the pavilion to be three feet from the western rear property line, and its roof is to be connected to the covered arcade roof shown on the plan. This design is requested to allow the owner access to the pavilion under cover in inclement weather. This variance and its design have been approved by the Chenal Valley Design Review Committee; a letterwill be forwarded to you indicating this approval. We also will contact all neighbors within 200 feet to be sure that there are no objections from any neighbors. The proposed pavilion will have no visual impact on the neighborhood since most of the pavilion will be hidden from view from the outside world, as on the west side of this proposed pavilion along the property line there will be a six-foot high solid stucco wall. Immediately west of this property line is a green belt, a proposed future parking lot, and beyond the parking lot are the tennis courts of the Chenal Country Club. The tennis court fences have green canvas sides, are 10 feet high, and are located about 100 feet plus from Lot 74. C*R';M\Va` LL ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS, INC. 101 S. SPRING STREET UT?'LE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-2490 (501) 372-2900 FAX (501) 372-0482 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Planning and Development June 21, 2005 Page 2 An elevation of the west side of the house is enclosed for your information so you can see the scale of the pavilion roof in relation to the house mass. Please contact me at 372.2900 if you have any questions regarding this. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Eugene . Levy, FAIA Agent for Owner — Michael L. Ronnel EPL/dm Enclosures: 6 copies of Survey 1 copy each of Site Plan, Floor Plan, West Elevation and Subdivision Plan UOMWELL ARGUTEMS ENGINEERS -7FF 7 July 8, 2005 Mr. Monte Moore Zoning and Enforcement Administrator Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Re: Board of Adjustment: Lot 74, Block 83, Chenal Valley Addition Little Rock, Arkansas A/E Project No. 2005-016 Dear Monte: Enclosed please find copy of letter from Deltic Timber Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee whereby the Committee has approved the preliminary site plan and exterior design for the Ronnel House on lot 74, Block 83 Chenal Valley, The Arbors Addition to City of Little Rock. This approval included approval of the pavilion, which was shown on the site plan and discussed in detail with Deltic. This Pavilion is the item for which we are seeking a variance approval from the BOA. Please add this document to your file on the Application for Residential Zoning Variance as it pertains to this item. The BOA, Hearing for this is scheduled for July 25th. Thanks for your help on this. Cordially, Eugene P. Levy, FAIA Agent for Owner — Michael L. Ronnel EPL/dm,..: Enclosure CROMWELL ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS, INC. 101 S. SPRING STREET LITTLE RUCK, ARKANSAS 72201-2490 (501) 372-2900 FAX (501) 372-0482 -> Mike 001/001 REAL ESTATE DIVISION 7 CHENAL CLUB BOULEVARD LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 Thursday, June 15, 2005 Mike Ronnel 49 Windsor Court Little Rock, AR 72212 RE: Lot 74, Block 83 - The Arbors Mike: -.4- 4�3 - �- 7J'9'2 The preliminary plan by Gene Levy Cromwell Architects for Lot 74, Block 83 in The Arbors submitted at the regularly scheduled Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee meeting on June 15, 2005 was reviewed. Preliminary plans is approved (review of elevations, site plan and floor plans). Submit final plans and certified survey for final approval. An Architectural Control Committee member will be available on the Tuesday afternoon following the meeting between 1:30 - 4:30p.m. to review committee comments. This time is for meetings only. You may come to the office anytime for stamped plans if you have an approved letter. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, � �11 - Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee TR.jw 4 501-821-5757 1-4 E N A, D 0 W N S, 800-848-9559 FAX: 501-821-5656 WWW .CHENAL.COM VA L L E Y C G M N't E R C 4 A L JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-7888 Owner: Miles Goggans Applicant: Jeff Junkin Address: 24 Greathouse Bend Drive Description: Lot 24, Phase II, Greathouse Bend Estates Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow a pool with a reduced front setback and separation. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 24 Greathouse Bend Drive is currently undeveloped and wooded. The property slopes downward from back to front (south to north). There is a 40 foot wide access easement within the rear portion of the property. The applicant proposes to construct a single family residence on the property, as noted on the attached site plan. As part of the lot development, the applicant is also proposing a pool structure at the northwest corner of the house. The pool will be located 30 feet back from the front (north) property line and 21 feet from the side (west) property line. The pool will be separated from the house by approximately four (4) feet. JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 60 foot front setback for accessory structures in residential zoning. Section 36- 156(a)(2)b. requires accessory structures to be separated from principal structures by at least six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the pool structure with a reduced front setback and separation. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Given the topography of the single family lot, staff feels the request is reasonable. Because of the slope of the lot and the vehicular access being along the rear property line, the front of the house will face the rear (south) property line. This places the rear yard between the house and the street frontage, limiting the area where accessory structures can be constructed. Staff believes the pool structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The proposed pool is located within the required setbacks for a principal structure. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with the proposed pool structure, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2005) 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. . - 7M1 P. 0. Box 241475 Little Rock, AR 72223 Mobile: (501) 351-5572 Mobile: (501) 351-5545 Fax: (501) 868-5784 June 6, 2005 Re: 24 Greathouse Bend Greathouse Bend Estates Little Rock, AR Board of Adjustment We would like to propose to construct a Swimming Pool at the above referenced location. The reason for requesting a zoning variance is due to the Swimming Pool having to be located on the front side of the property and being. located within 60 feet of the front property line. The geographical nature of this lot is an upward slop away from Greathouse Bend Drive. The property also has an access easement on the backside of the property. This access easement is the only accessible entrance for the five (5) properties located along this side of Greathouse Bend Drive. The only accessible entrance to this property is on the backside of the lot. The front elevation of the home will have to face the rear access easement with is the backside of the property. This will have the swimming pool located on the backside of the home,. which -would be the side closer to Greathouse Bend Drive, which is considered the front side of the property. With the only accessible entrance to the property at 24 Greathouse Bend being through the access easement on the rear side of the property, we would like to request a Zoning Variance to located the proposed Swimming Pool on the front side of the property and to be within 60 feet of the front property line. If I can be of any further assistance please'feel free to call. Sincerely, KT Builders Inc. q 09 q Jeff Junkin Vice President JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-7889 Owner: Horace B. Childress, III Applicant: Terri Duncan Address: 3219 Foxcroft Road Description: Lot 240, Foxcroft Fourth 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 deck addition 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 3219 Foxcroft Road is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two car wide driveway from an access easement which runs along the north property line. The property slopes downward from Foxcroft Road (west to east). There is an existing elevated wood deck/walkway leading from the front property line to the front of the residence. The walkway/deck structure is located 10-12 feet above grade and crosses a 25 foot front platted building line. The applicant is proposing to rebuild the front walkway/deck structure. With reconstruction the applicant is proposing to enlarge the walkway/deck structure JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) slightly, as noted on the attached site plan. The two (2) small areas of expansion along the northern side of the walkway/deck structure will include additional deck space and a sitting/bench area. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned property. In addition, 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 from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed walkway/deck addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses the front platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff would have approved the walkway/deck reconstruction administratively, had the applicant not been proposing to enlarge the structure. The walkway/deck structure is located below the grade of the street and therefore, is relatively hidden from the adjacent properties. Staff feels the walkway/deck reconstruction will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the proposed walkway/deck addition. 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 variances associated with reconstructing the front walkway/deck structure, 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: (JULY 25, 2005) 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. ,q-4xKh?ck6 America's Deck Builder" June 8, 2005 -'— 4 " V l Board of Adjustments Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, Ar. Re: Horace B. Childress III 3219 Foxcroft Rd. Little Rock, Ar. 72227 Board of Adjustments: As the agent for Horace B. Childress III at 3219 Foxcoft Rd., Little Rock Ar., 72227, I am requesting a variance on the entryway/walkway into this home. The request is to replace€,the existing walkway with one landing extending an additional 32 feet width in order to build a bench and to:widen the area nearest the doorway by an additional 62 feet by 11' in order to place a table and chairs and enjoy the wooded lot. The plan is to promote more enjoyable access into the house which is shielded by many trees and for my customer's enjoyment of his home. The remainder of the existing walkway would remain the same dimensions. Sincere. thanks, °je vim: &UVVs Terri Duncan Co -Owner and Manager Archadeck of Central Arkansas 16906 Mimi Lane Alexander, Ar. 72002 501-847-6366 archadeck @alltel.net 501-847-6966 (fax) 501-776-5199 (cell) JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-7890 Owner: Martin and Kara Smith, Brian and Nancy Larson Applicant: Martin L. Smith Address: 120 South Izard Street Description: East '/z of Lots 9 and 10, Block 276, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: UU Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the development provisions of Section 36-342.1 to allow a ground sign. 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 UU zoned property at 120 South Izard Street is occupied by a small two- story building which is being used as an office. The building was once the carriage house for the single family home (now an office) which exists on the property immediately to the south, at the northwest corner of West 2nd and Izard Streets. There is a driveway from Izard Street which serves as access to the property, and a small parking area at the southeast corner of the property. The applicant recently constructed a small ground -mounted sign along the north side of the existing entry drive. The sign is located along the front (east) property line, with a height of approximately seven (7) feet and an area of approximately 3.5 square feet. JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) Section 36-342.1( c)(11) of the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits ground - mounted signs in the Urban Use Zoning District. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the existing ground -mounted sign. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels it is reasonable to allow the ground -mounted sign. There are many other ground -mounted signs in this general area of downtown. The proposed sign is relatively small in size compared to the other signs in the area. Staff feels the proposed sign will not be out of character with the general area. Additionally, the overall size of the proposed sign is well under the maximum area (64 square feet) typically allowed for ground -mounted signs in office zoning districts. Staff believes the proposed ground sign will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a ground - mounted sign in the UU Zoning District, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance is approved for this specific business (Larson, Burns, Smith) only. If this business vacates the building, the sign must be removed from the property. 2. The sign must be anchored as to not move in the wind. 3. A sign permit must be obtained for the sign (double fee). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2005) 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. 51 - 7X1 c June 10, 2005 City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas To Whom It May Concern: Landscape Architecture Environmental Design Planning 120 South Izard Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501.378.0200 T 501.378.0201 F Please find attached the documentation requested for making application for a zoning variance regarding the sign located at 120 South Izard Street. Our request for a zoning variance is due to the following justifications: 1) The building was built in 1878 and is listed on the National Historic Register therefore limits the type of signage which could be placed on the building facade without diminishing the Historical Integrity of the building. 2) Our office building is setback +f- 67 _On off South Izard Street, which is unusual for a building located within the Urban Use District. This setback makes it very difficult for clients or visitors to locate our office traveling along South Izard Street. Respectfully submitted, LARSON BURNS & SMITH, INC. Martin L. Smith, ASLA Principal 120 South Izard St. Little Rock, AR 72201 UTTLE ROCK AUSTIN t: 501.378.0200 f 501.378.0201 JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-7891 Owner/Applicant: Guy E. Allen Address: 39 Lakeside Drive Description: Lot 53, Lakeside Terrace Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 39 Lakeside Drive is occupied by a one-story brick, rock and frame single family residence. There is a two (2) car wide driveway from Lakeside Drive which serves as access. There is a paved alley along the rear (north) property line. The applicant recently constructed a new six (6) foot high wood fence enclosing the street side and rear yards, as noted on the attached site plan. The fence is located approximately 11 feet back from the street curb along the east property line and 47 feet from the southern street curb. There is a 25 foot platted building line along the south and east property lines. The majority of the fence is located between the platted building line (street side) and Lakeside Drive. JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between a building setback line and a street right-of-way. Fences elsewhere on the property can be constructed to a height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a six (6) foot fence height for the portion of the fence located between the platted building line (street side) and the Lakeside Drive right-of-way. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels the request is reasonable. Staff believes the fence is set far enough back as to not create a site distance problem at the Lakeside Drive intersection, or for cars using the alley for access onto Lakeside Drive. Staff believes the fence will not be out of character with the neighborhood, as other similar fences exist. Staff feels the fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to a building permit being obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2005) 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. 2 Mr. Guy E. Allen 39 Lakeside Drive Little Rock, AR 72204 (501) 570-8427 Residential Zoning Variance City Of Little Rock Planning &Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 (501) 371-4792 Attention: Mr. Monte Moore Zoning and Enforcement Administrator June 16, 2005 I (Guy E Allen) am a resident at 39 Lakeside Drive Little Rock, Ar. 72204 I've lived here fro seven months and very please with my new home and it surrounding. I have been trying to improve my home in a way that makes the block look even more attractive and I'm very please with the neighborhood and my neighbors. The reason for this letter is, there have been some concern about the Zoning Variance (private fences), the size of the private fence 59 by 50. I also would like to let you know that I've received more information concerning this matter before I decided to install a private fence. I've contact the Neighborhood Association, also the Block Club Association. They stated that the area is to open on the corner and it would wise to install a private fence on my property so that it will not be a problem with neighborhood. Also as I stated before the reason for my private fence is to have a dog and dog pin, and for my private backyard area. (Unfortuly I do not have a backyard). The Neighborhood Association also insisted that I install a private fence for the safety of the animals, mines and the residents. I took a drastic measures and I comply with theirs request because I did not want any problems or complaints. Also my main concern in this matter, I would like to know why this action or harassment has been taken against me instead of the Fence Builder Contractors (flying- Do they have policies on Residential Zoning Variance, which should had been explained to me Further more I've noticed that there are other private fence in the neighborhood, and the residents measurement is about the same size. (Enclosed are pictures of residents fence). Thank you for your assistance JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7892 Owner: James and Jan Eager Applicant: James D. Eager Address: 9 Bent Tree Drive Description: Lot 24, Longlea Estates Addition, Phase III Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 9 Bent Tree Drive is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of Bent Tree Drive and Bent Tree Court. There is a two car wide driveway from Bent Tree Court which serves as access. The property backs up to a rather wide drainage ditch. The rear portion of the lot is designated as a drainage easement. There is a pool in the rear yard which is located slightly into the easement. A six (6) foot high wood fence which was constructed 20 years ago and enclosed the rear yard area of the lot was recently damaged by high winds. The applicant rebuilt the six (6) foot high fence (with brick columns) at the JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) same location as the old fence, as noted on the attached site plan. The fence extends a few feet into the rear drainage easement. A portion of the fence is also located between a 25 foot side platted building line and Bent Tree Court right-of-way. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for residential fences located between building setback lines and street rights-of-way. Other residential fences can have a maximum height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot high fence between the 25 foot platted side building line and Bent Tree Court. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels the variance request is reasonable based on the fact that the lot backs up to a wide drainage area and not the front yard of another residence. Staff feels the fence will have no adverse visual impact on adjacent property, and will create no site -distance problem. The applicant should be aware that if any portion of the fence located within the drainage easement is damaged during maintenance work on the drainage area, it must be replaced/repaired at the applicant's expense. Staff believes the fence construction will have no negative impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence variance, subject to a building permit being obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2005) 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. 2 James D. Eager #9 Bent Tree Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 (501) 225-6829 To whom it may concern: On Friday, May 13, 2005 a high wind blew over a 15-20 foot section of our fence. The fence was first built in 1985 when the home was built and now some 20 years later it was time for a new one. We pur- chased the home in 1989. We contacted several firms but only one was able to get started right away. We were anxious to get going because we have a small dog. They said that they would take care of the necessary permits. I contacted our neighbors within line of sight of the fence to gain their approval. (see enclosed) The work was finished and then on 6-8-05 the City came by and informed us of the height violation of the fence. We were not aware of the violation. The previous fence and the new one are built on the identical spot. Previously the con- struction of the fence had boards running at the bottom to compensate for the slope and grade of the land. In the building of the new fence we chose to compensate for the slope by using a taller board and trimming it so that the top would be level all the way across. In doing so we eliminated the cross board at the bottom. Since we had no objections from our neighbors we felt the appearance would be better. We apologize for the error the builder made in its construction and ask that the board grant this variance. James D. Eager JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7893 Owner/Applicant: Jae Hun Ru Address: 4409 West 12th Street Description: South side of West 12th Street, between Washington and Peyton Streets Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 557 to allow incidental signage which exceeds the maximum area allowed. 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 4409 West 12th Street is occupied by a one-story commercial strip center building. There is paved parking on the north side of the building, with access drives from West 12th, Peyton and Washington Streets. The applicant, J's Grill, occupies a portion of the commercial building. The overall building fagade for this business is approximately 480 square feet. The applicant recently placed signage on the building, over and on the windows on front of the portion of the commercial building they occupy. The wall signage above the windows is approximately 36 square feet in area (20 square feet and 16 square feet). The signage on the windows accounts for approximately JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.) 80 square feet (32 square feet and 48 square feet). The signs are of a vinyl/material, but are permanently attached to the building. Section 36-555(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 10 percent of the fagade area of a building to be utilized for wall signage. Section 36-557(e) allows each business to have incidental signage not exceeding 20 square feet in area. In this case the ordinance would allow this business to have wall signage totaling 48 square feet in area, with 20 square feet of incidental signage, for a total of 68 square feet of wall signage. The applicant has a total of 116 square feet of sign area. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from these ordinance standards to allow the existing signage. Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. Staff does not believe the total amount of signage requested by the applicant is reasonable. The 12th Street Initiative/Chain of Hope is a group effort of the City and local churches and institutions which meets to discuss issues related to the 12th Street area. The group has primaril� been involved in issues involving the clean-up and beautification of the 12 h Street corridor. Staff believes the amount of signage proposed for this business only adds to the amount of sign clutter in the area and would only go against what the 12th Street Initiative/Chain of Hope is trying to achieve. Staff could support permitting the two (2) signs above the windows as permanent wall signs, and allowing the signage on only one (1) side of the door (on the window) to serve as incidental signage. Staff feels that the signage on the windows on one (1) side of the door should be removed. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the August 29, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 29, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. 2 703 June 24, 2005 To the Department of Planning and Development, I am filing an application for a zoning variance (sign). My proposed justification for a zoning variance is as follows: (1) There is an impossibility for individuals to see inside the store because of the steel, protective fence that is installed for store security. (Internal structural handicap visibility) (2) The nature of this business is not a familiar business to individuals. Therefore, a zoning variance (sign) would assist in creating awareness. I will take the necessary actions to maintain a clean and orderly environment in regard to the zoning variance and my immediate business area. Best regards, a Hun JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Z-7894 Owner: Mr. And Mrs. James H. Hill, Jr. Applicant: Jim Hill Address: 8721 Ranch Blvd. Description: Lot 155 R, The Ranch Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 8721 Ranch Blvd. is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence which was recently constructed. The property is located at the southeast corner of Ranch Blvd. And Lanes End Drive. There is a two -car wide driveway from Lanes End Drive which serves as access. The rear yard of the lot slopes upward from west to east and north to south. The existing residences to the south along Lanes End Drive are at a slightly higher elevation. The applicant is proposing to construct a six (6) foot high wood fence to enclose the rear yard area of the lot, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed fence will extend across a 25 foot platted side building JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 10 (CON'T.) line, and be located between the building line and the Lanes End Drive right-of-way. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows fences in residential zones which are located between a building setback lines and a street rights-of-way to have a maximum height of four (4) feet. Other residential fences may be constructed to a height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed six (6) foot high fence between the 25 foot platted side building line and Lanes End Drive. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels the portion of the fence located along the west property line, between the 25 foot building line and the street is out of character with the neighborhood. Staff noticed no similar fence encroachments in the immediate area. Additionally, the fence extending to the west property line would be located in the front yard of the residence to the south. Staff feels this would cause an adverse visual impact on that property, and because of the curve of the street, the fence could cause a site -distance problem with vehicles exiting the driveway at 8721 Ranch Blvd. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested fence height variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2005) Jim Hill was present, representing the application. There was one (1) objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Jim Hill addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that the fence as proposed would restrict visibility when backing out of his driveway. He presented a sketch to the Board with two (2) alternate locations for the fence between the platted building line and the west property line. He noted that the fence was needed for security for his grandchildren. There was a brief discussion of the two (2) alternate fence locations. John Chappelle, the owner of the property immediately to the south, addressed the Board in opposition to the application. He expressed opposition to a six (6) foot high fence along his side property line running to the sidewalk. 2 JULY 25, 2005 ITEM NO.: 10 (CON'T.) There was additional discussion of the proposed alternate fence location. Chairman Francis stated that he could support the six (6) foot high fence running from the west side of the sidewalk at the southwest corner of the house (crossing the platted building line by approximately two (2) feet) southward to the point where the platted building line intersects with the south (rear) property line. Mr. Hill revised the application accordingly. There was a motion to approve the revised application, subject to the following conditions: 1. The fence is to be a good -neighbor type, with the face side outward. 2. There is to be no additional fencing along the south property line, between the platted building line and the west property line. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. The revised application was approved. -T�Z,V-4/0 ST -7o r-mFLOORS FIRST by Hill's, Inc. Jim Hill, Jr. - President 1118 West 3`" Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Phone (501) 375-4300 Fax(501)375-1630 fibh0l@juno.com June 24, 2005 Gentlemen, My wife and. I are completing the building of a new home at 8721 Ranch Blvd. in Little Rock. When we bought the lot we didn't realize how much of a "cut" into the property would be necessary to place a one story home on a slab there. After it was all said and done, when the trees were removed it was very apparent that the lot had a very significant slope. There is now a wall behind the patio that, at one point, is eleven feet high and stair steps down. We have twin grandsons that are just over two years old and we want to provide a flat place for them to play in our back yard when they come over. Because of the slope of the yard, we would like to take in the flat part of the yard, which is between the patio and the sidewalk that is parallel to Lanes End, with a 6' high wooden fence. This would mean that the fence would enter into the "Set Back" area. Please see the plot plan for details. Thank you for your consideration, Jim & B tty Hill FROM THE DESK OF JOHN GHAPPELLE July 11 "i', 2005 Mr. Monte Moore Board of Adjustment 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Sir, 7,0 I saw the "Zoning Variance" application posted in the window of the new residence at the corner of Ranch Boulevard and Lanes End, and contacted you at the posted number, 371-4790. It is my understanding the owner, Mr. Hill, proposed to build a six (6) foot fence along his back property line completely to the sidewalk on Lanes End. This proposed fence would tie in with my fence that stops at the rear corner of my house, and would run to the sidewalk the entire length of my northern property line. It is my family's wish not to be fenced in all the way to the sidewalk on the Boulevard side, with any sort of fence. However, I have been advised Mr. Hill can legally build a four (4) foot fence the length of his rear property line. I did not buy my property to be enclosed on either side, or the front. I value the view, the feeling of openness, the unhindered access to the front of my home, and the ability to maintain an established lawn without the problems arising from a six (6) foot fence running full length in conflict with accepted building practices throughout the neighborhood. I do not want my home and landscaping to appear part of a holding pen for livestock. I have made my investment, just as Mr. Hill has made his, and I expect him to abide with the standard set by all the residents in the construction of all phases of their residences. I can be reached at #3 Lanes End, Little Rock, AR, 72223, or at 501-868-5975. Thank you for the opportunity to address this important issue, and to express mine and my family's expectations. Sincer 1 , RECE71 VED John Chappelle JUL 14 0 5 BY: • • 4� �V1 c 0 Q V) a) a� Z_ Q U) 00 Q Z W U) 00 Q W Q Z H � WWF LU O Q W W ¢ C) Z Q U- z W Q�u)Z -� <C Z Z Or O O W�cn m � U- Go Q J July 25, 2005 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:55 P.M. Date: Chairman Secretary