Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_08 29 2005LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES AUGUST 29, 2005 2:00 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Minutes of the July 25, 2005 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Members Absent Andrew Francis, Chairman Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman Fletcher Hanson David Wilbourn Debra Harris None City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA AUGUST 29, 2005 2:00 P.M. I. OLD BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: A. Z-7809 3010 Painted Valley Drive B. Z-7893 4409 West 12th Street C. Z-4691 -A 8824 Fourche Dam Pike II. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: 1. Z-3371-0 11821 Colonel Glenn Road 2. Z-4701 -B 11121 N. Rodney Parham Road 3. Z -7050-A 4511 West 12th Street 4. Z-7900 57 Valley Estates Court 5. Z-7901 15604 Taylor Loop Road 6. Z-7902 822 N. Coolidge Street 7. Z-7903 1020 Rock Street/ 316 East 11 th Street 8. Z-7904 1723 N. Monroe Street 9. Z-7905 2809 Kavanaugh Blvd. 10. Z-7906 Southwest Corner of Chenal Valley Drive and Wildwood Lane L U 0 0 N ■ � t i7�•� — 3NId .._./— 83¢Val w , `V nnvelHl d� N Q UW NVW830 � W m � o W NIVW AtlMOV088 HOaV S3H0 i ONIN IN00 d3H3aO o 0 NOlh° FMOa000M g 3NId 3 13 d1S (O e ' _ 3NId e 8V0 N0111rytl ll00S ��� z N�yb — s SShigdS m Na d altl� All AINn AlISa3AINn SONIBdS 83A30 J 'T C� HqnH Et Idd55D IN s d' — 1001140 s 81OAd3S38 M08WO NHOf 3 y 3NNI H Q8 31 OV S 080331NOVHS o z ^ SIOatlS o� WV Vd A3NO08 m ze c J h0 NtlW 08 s — — S11WIl A110 x 30O1a AwIA oW CV mgt .{j v ci Wn�l p�,�gtP� E O 4=rpPA s a �z NVA111nS V/ 18VM31S Hsd,6� S11Wn AHD 0 OI�J 31YON63i (10 0 W AUGUST 29, 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: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT 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- cochere will extend across the front platted building line by approximately 15 feet, resulting in a 10 foot front setback. AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) 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. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the setback and building line variances, as requested. 2 AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. 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. 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. 3 AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 29, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested the application be withdrawn, without prejudice. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn, without prejudice by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. M �II ill I �� �(I''111'ii ��I��i � li J. 9 (fIII I--.I-1-_.-�-_Ii.I I� I I illi �-�,}�,,I; I t�N�l`��� - -� I{► i l l� l i l j 1! I! ` � j i l ON, V-4 or � foertA "we, V� 5 xqm ��"11� p�t.�b` v�l�►N o 18�8iL : ICS' ' : � ' ! I � i ! UDU v 419� rrl+ ko, MHHM l i l l l l IfI (I I T. (...-.i � I I! I. I l i l l��{ S I I! I I I I .I... ..I l i l l l l l l l� l !! i l l ! HHIM I III I!;!I!:II,HIIIIIIIilIIlIl�'', IM I H HIMI I 1111fivi1l Iffill AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: B File No..- Owner/Applicant: o.:Owner/Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-7893 Jae Hun Ru 4409 West 12th Street South side of West 12th Street, between Washington and Peyton Streets 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 facade 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 80 square feet (32 square feet and 48 square feet). The signs are of a vinyl/material, but are permanently attached to the building. AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T. 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 primarily been involved in issues involving the clean-up and beautification of the 12th 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 29, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the September 26, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 26, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 -7'13 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: (i.) 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 rea. Best regards, a Hun AUGUST 29, 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 pole at the northeast corner, within a few feet of the existing ground -mounted sign. The existing pole is approximately 40 feet tall. AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) 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(x)(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. 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 AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 29, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had revised the application to combine the two (2) ground -mounted signs (existing and proposed) at the northeast corner of the property, as suggested by staff in paragraph B of the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the revised application, subject to the following conditions: 1. A sign permit must be obtained for the new sign. 2. The existing sign at the northeast corner of the property must be taken down and attached to the larger existing sign pole prior to signage being added to the top of the larger existing sign pole. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as revised and recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. K IOULSON OIL GROUP 66' Dui►sa�vO VAHROCK f( HEFSEAHAWK TRANSPORT ■ 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 Darn Pike, Little Rock Dear Board Members: 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, Eddie Martin, for Diamond State Oil, LLC EM:mc Enclosures ■ P.O. Boa 68, North Little Rock, AR 72115-0068 ■ Phone: 501-376-4222 ■ FAX Corp: 501-376-7904 ■ FAX Acct: 501-376-4707 AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z-3371-0 Owner: Metropolitan National Bank Address: 11821 Colonel Glenn Road Description: Lot 1, 1 -430 -Colonel Glenn Commercial Subdivision Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 557 to allow wall signs without public street frontage. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Branch Bank Proposed Use of Property: Branch Bank STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 11821 Colonel Glenn Road is occupied by a branch bank facility which was recently constructed. The property is located at the southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and David O. Dodd Road. There are subdivision access roads located along the south and east property lines. Access to the branch bank facility is from the subdivision access roads. As part of the bank development, the applicant is proposing wall signs on all four (4) sides of the building. There are currently wall signs on the north, east and west building facades. The sign on the east facade consists of the Metropolitan Bank eagle logo. The applicant also proposes to place a sign on the south building facade which will match the existing sign on the north (front) fagade. All of the wall signs are under 10 percent of the building fagade area for each side of the structure. Section 36-557(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that all on -premise wall signs face required street frontage except in complexes where a sign AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) without street frontage would be the only means of identification. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the wall signs on the east and south building facades with no public street frontage. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels the request is reasonable. Although there are not public streets along the south and east property lines, there will be access drives along these property lines which will serve the remainder of the subdivision. These drives will essentially function as public streets. Therefore, staff feels that it will be appropriate to have wall signs on the east and south facades, and that these signs will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the overall subdivision. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to permits being obtained for all signs. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 29, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the September 26, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 26, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 0) 0 ARCHITECTURAL SIGNS 2 POINT CIRCLE LITTLE ROCK, AR 72205 PHONE: 501.352.1796 FAX: 501.851.8840 : � 4-1-4 l 12-33-W-0 To: Little Rock Board of Adjustment ®ate: 7.22.05 From: Charles Aitkens RE: Metropolitan National Bank sign variance request CC: To Whom It May Concern: Metropolitan National Bank would like to add th r logo and letters to the south side of the drive through canopy at their branch bank located at Rsdiqpo 1 Pwhw Road. The logo and letters will be the same size as the letters and logo on the front of the building. Attached are pictures which show how this has already been approved by the planning commission for the branch bank located on Chenal Parkway at Highway 10 near the new Wal — Mart. Sincerely, Charles Aitkens President DFI Architectural Signs, Inc. AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z-4701 -B Owner: Market Place Partnership Address: 11121 N. Rodney Parham Road Description: Southwest Corner of Rodney Parham Road and Market Street Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 557 to allow an additional ground -mounted 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: 1. In accordance with Section 32-8, no obstruction to visibility shall be located within a triangular area 50' back from the intersection right-of-way line (or intersecting tangent lines for radial dedications) at the intersection of Rodney Parham with Market. B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 11121 N. Rodney Parham Road is occupied by a one-story commercial strip center. There is paved parking along the north and east sides of the building, with drives on the west and south sides of the center. There are two (2) main ground -mounted signs along the north (Rodney Parham Road) property line and a small real estate sign (leasing information) at the northeast corner of the property. The westernmost large commercial sign advertises Franke's Restaurant, with the other large commercial sign being a marquee sign with the names of the various businesses on the property. The smallest sign, at the northeast corner of the property, is approximately 2.5 feet in height and 3 square feet in area. AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) Summit Bank has plans to remodel the space at the south end of the commercial building, creating a drive thru branch bank facility. There will be an ATM machine, with canopy, located within the parking lot near the southeast corner of the property. As part of the branch bank development, the applicant proposes to remove the small real estate sign at the northeast corner of the property and replace it with a sign advertising the bank. The proposed sign will have a height of three (3) feet and an area of 15 square feet. Section 36-557(c ) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows commercial properties which have over 150 linear feet of street frontage to have one (1) additional ground -mounted sign for each additional 150 feet of street frontage. Such signs must be separated by at least 150 feet. The subject property has approximately 240 linear feet of street frontage along Rodney Parham Road. The ordinance would typically allow only one (1) ground -mounted sign for this street frontage based on the fact that there is not at least 300 linear feet of frontage. The fact that there are two (2) existing commercial signs along this street frontage is a nonconforming situation. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow a third sign along the Rodney Parham Road street frontage. Staff does not support the requested variance. Staff does not view the request as reasonable. The proposed sign would be in violation of Section 32-8 (blind corner ordinance) as noted in the Public Works comments in paragraph A. of this report, and could possibly create sight -distance problems at this Rodney Parham Road/Market Street intersection. Additionally, staff feels the proposed sign would add to an area with an abundance of sign clutter. There is an existing marquee sign on the property which staff feels the applicant could arrange to have signage on. Additionally, the ATM located at the southeast corner of the property will have signage on all four (4) sides of the canopy which will help identify the branch bank facility. Ground -mounted signage would be allowed along the Market Street frontage (east property line), which might be an additional option for the bank. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 29, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the September 26, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 26, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 Summil Bank July 22, 2005 City of Little Rock Sign Variance Review Board & Dept. of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Ladies and or Gentlemen, i -4-w, 4 7- -�-'- �-7� l2 -P'--) Pursuant to Section 36-557 of the Little Rock Ordinances specifically addressing signage as it applies to other signs within a restricted linear footage along a thoroughfare, Summit Bank at 11121 North Rodney Parham Rd. Suite 14A, is making this application for a variance in said code restriction. Enclosed surveys, photographs, and related drawings will show that our remodeled location is the very southern most unit of the Market Place Shopping Center as it faces east toward Market Street, and is adjacent to Arcade Drive. Rodney Parham Road is the dominant east west thoroughfare within this part of Little Rock. However, Market Street south of Rodney Parham is lined with a number of beautiful evergreen trees. The positioning of trees, no doubt obstruct the view of our banking location from our customers who will be seeking our office. Mr. Vogel, who owns the Market Place Center, has agreed to give up his sign at the corner of Rodney Parham and Market as it is sited on the southwest corner of that intersection. We are asking that you allow such a variance for a low profile, but illuminated monument sign, which would sit on a 9 inch stand, and span 36 inches tall and 60 inches long. A created graphic is enclosed to show the sign as it would exactly appear. Additionally, Market Street as it lays south from Rodney Parham, slopes away at between 2 and 3 degrees, which further reduces the visibility of our location from North Rodney Parham Road. Other drawings and graphics indicate our site location along with a forward positioning of our ATM as it will be placed in front of our banking location and the southern most parking area of the Market Place Center. We ask that you consider the clear visual obstructions and grant a much needed variance for this additional sign. Not only would this assist some Little Rock citizens who will bank with us, but many of our out of Little Rock customers, who are in Little Rock temporarily. Your consideration is much appreciated. Kindest -regards, -John Fowler, President Summit Bank Little Rock, Arkansas AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z -7050-A Owner: Peter Lee Address: 4511 W. 12th Street Description: Lots 11-16, Block 6, H.F. Buhler's Ninth Addition Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-301 to allow a new building with reduced setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Commercial and Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Commercial and Convenience Store STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The lots must share a single driveway access on 12th Street. The width of driveway must not exceed 36 feet. The site has excessive number of driveways, the two driveways at Peters are required to be removed. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Area set aside for interior landscaping within the proposed vehicular use area is 138 square feet less than the 785 square feet required by the landscape ordinance. To receive credit toward fulfilling interior landscape requirements, interior landscape islands must be at least 113 square feet in area and 5.6 feet in width. Variances from the landscape ordinance require City Beautiful Commission approval. These requirements take into account the reductions allowed within the designated mature area of the city. AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 4511 West 12th Street contains a one-story block commercial building within the east half of the property. The west half of the property is undeveloped and grass/gravel covered. The property is located on the south side of West 12th Street, between Adams and Washington Streets. There are four (4) existing access drives from West 12th Street and one (1) drive from Washington Street. There is paved parking between the existing commercial building and West 12th Street. There is a drainage ditch which runs along the south property line. The applicant is proposing to construct a new convenience store with gas pumps within the west half of the property. The proposed convenience store building will be 3,200 square feet in size and be located within the rear (south) portion of the property, 10 feet from the south property line. A canopy covering gas pumps will be located on the north side of the building, 20 feet back from the front (north) property line, after additional right-of-way dedication. The buildings will be located 40 to 58 feet back from the west street side property line. New paved parking will be located on the north and east sides of the proposed convenience store building. New access drives will be constructed from Adams Street and near the center of the property from West 12th Street. Two (2) existing driveways from West 12th Street and one (1) from Washington Street in front of the existing commercial building (east half of property) are proposed to remain. The driveway from Adams Street is proposed to be an exit only drive, based on the proposed circulation around the gas pumps and parking in front of the building, as noted on the attached site plan. Section 36-301(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for C-3 zoning. Section 36-301(e)(3) requires a minimum rear setback of 15 feet (when providing a 25 foot exterior side yard). Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow a 20 foot front setback and a 10 foot rear setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels the variances are reasonable for this proposed infill development. The proposed gas pump canopy is located 25 feet from the front property line prior to the additional five (5) foot right-of-way dedication. The existing commercial building is located 6.5 feet from the rear property line, 3.5 feet closer than the proposed convenience store building. Therefore, the proposed building setbacks will not be out of character with other structures in the area. Staff believes development of a convenience store with gas pumps facility on this property will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Although staff has no problem with the proposed building setbacks, staff has a concern with the proposed vehicular circulation within the site. The proposed site plan shows one-way vehicular circulation through the site, from West 12th Street to the exit only drive to Adams Street. Staff feels that this is 2 AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) unreasonable, based on the fact that vehicles will be pulling up to the south side of the gas pumps in an east bound direction, with gas tank access on the driver side of most vehicles. Therefore, staff feels the driveway from Adams Street should be two-way, the angled parking in front of the building should be reversed and east bound circulation allowed to the south side of the gas pumps. With these changes and compliance with the Public Works and Landscape requirements as noted in paragraphs A. and B. of this report, staff would support the redevelopment plan for the property. This includes elimination of the two (2) existing driveways from West 12th Street within the east portion of the property. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A. of the staff report. 2. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer Ordinances, or request a variance for reduced interior landscaping from the City Beautiful Commission. 3. Revising the interior vehicular circulation, as noted in paragraph C. of the staff report. 4. The dumpster must be serviced during day light hours only. 5. Any site lighting must be low level and directed away from the adjacent residential property to the south. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 29, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 3 -room ---------------- -0- W__I, ANDREW 14ICKS I ARCHITECT 3 !�, $hackieford Liifie Rock, Arkansas 72205 50121-9.1614 501.2-19,1613 FAX www.andrewhicksarchitect.corn a July 20, 2005 MR. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Dept. of Planning and Development 723 WS Markham Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 RE: 4511 West 12th Street Zoning Variance - Ton- Residential Dear Monte, - 70,50 4 Please find enclosed the plans revised in response to our variance request. I have drawn and labeled the building and required ROW dedication areas as requested by the City of Little Rock. I sent a preliminary site plan for David Hamilton's review and advice on this property. When it returned, David let me know that the City needed 5 feet of additional right-of-way from both Adams and Twelfth Streets. This compounded the problem of an already narrow site (front to back). The property with ROW subtracted is only 135 feet deep. In order to have a workable vehicular design on the site for a fuel canopy and convenience store, I respectfully request the following: 1. Reduction of the front setback to 20 feet instead of 25 feet. This would be in relation the fueling canopy overhead with no encumbrances at ground level. This allows room for adequate drive areas before and after the fueling of vehicles. 2. Reduction of the rear yard setback t This would. allow further decompression on the site as described above. 0 10 feet from 15 feet. of the vehicular traffic Mfr. Peter Lee is the owner of the fish market located on the same block with this property. He is developing this convenience store to better serve the residents of this area. Retail space is lagging in this area of 12' Street and the benefit to Little Rock citizens local to this development is obvious. Mr. Peter Lee is interested in making an investment in this part of the city where he is already a dynamic and successful part of the community. If I may facilitate your review in any way, please do not hesitate- to contact me. Thanks for your cooperation, Sincerely, a �im IIowty Andrew Hicks Architect AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-7900 Owner: Steve and Terri Jackson Address: 57 Valley Estates Court Description: Lot 2, Pleasant Valley Estates Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a pool structure which crosses a side platted building line and a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 57 Valley Estates Court is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of Valley Estates Court and Valley Estates Drive. There is a two -car wide driveway from Valley Estates Drive which serves as access. The property slopes downward from front to back (north to south). There is a 25 foot front platted building line located along the north property line and a 36.5 foot side platted building line along the west property line. The applicants propose to construct an inground pool and fence as noted on the attached site plan. The pool will be approximately 16 feet by 34 feet in size, and located approximately 23 feet back from the street side (west) property line. The majority of the pool crosses the 36.5 foot side platted building line. The proposed six (6) foot high wood fence is located 15 feet AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) back from the street side property line, and will tie into an existing fence (wood with rock columns) along the south property line and the southwest corner of the residence. Section 31-12(c ) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Section 36-516(e)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that residential fences between building setback lines and street rights-of-way have a maximum height of four (4) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the pool to cross a platted building line and the fence with an increased height. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. The architectural control committee for this neighborhood approved the pool and fence construction at their June 26, 2005 meeting (see attached letter). Given the curvature of this private street (Valley Estates Drive), staff feels the proposed fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent property to the south, as the fence is setback 15 feet from the street side (west) property line. Additionally, in 1984 the Bill of Assurance for this neighborhood was amended to allow swimming pools to be located between side platted building lines and street rights-of-way. Staff believes the proposed pool and fence construction 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 side building line for the proposed pool. 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 the pool and fence construction, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the side platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 29, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 July 20, 2005 4 Proposal and Justification/Reasons for Variance Request Steve and Terri Jackson, Owners Property Description: Lot 2, Pleasant Valley Estates (57 Valley Estates Court, LR, 72212) Proposal: Construct a personal swimming pool in the back yard of 57 Valley Estates Court and construct a 6 foot, instead of 4 foot, privacy fence to secure the pool from trespass. Justifications/Reasons for Variance: Our home is located on a corner lot at the intersection of Valley Estates Drive to the west (side) and Valley Estates Court (front) in Pleasant Valley Estate Subdivision. The yard has a gentle slope from front to back with less slope on the west side of the back lot. On the east side of the back lot are several very big and beautiful oak trees. The oak trees are many years old and provide great shade for our yard as well as our neighbor's yards. We do not wish to cut down these trees because of the beauty they provide and the extending time, generations, to grow these trees. With that, we have proposed to locate the pool on the west side of the back lot toward the street. The back yard is a large enough size as to keep the pool outside of the drip line of the oak trees and out of the easement located on the extreme back of the lot as well as the easement on the west side of the lot. This location will cause the pool to be partially located outside of the platted 36.5 foot building line as illustrated on the attached survey. This locate will allow us to enjoy the pool, preserve the beautiful oak trees and also remain away from the easements. We are also proposing a 6 privacy fence along the west side of the back yard, along the 15 foot easement. This proposed location will not interfere with any easement work that maybe necessary in the future as well as position the fence far enough away from the street so that the sightline of traffic on the street will not be visually impaired. This location and increased height (6 feet) will provide adequate security around the pool so no intentional or unintentional trespass can occur into the pool area. We have requested the approval, presented the plan and received approval from the Pleasant Valley Estates Property Owners Association (POA) for this project. The approval is attached. We thank you for your consideration. Pleasant Valley Estates Property Owners Association June 27, 2005 Mr. & Mrs. Steve Jackson 57 Valley Estates Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Jackson: We are happy to inform you that the architectural control committee of the Pleasant Valley Estates Property Owners Association has approved the installation of a fence and swimming pool in your back yard. The fence shall have rock columns to match the ones you will tie onto as per your verbal agreement with your neighbor Mrs. Donna Johnson -Smith. Our approval is contingent to the approval of the city of Little Rock and meeting of all zoning requirements. We have given you a copy of our construction rules and regulations. Please give a copy to your contractor as well. The contractor and home owner are both responsible for the clean up of our streets during construction. Yo rs Truly, onna Joh son -Smith �/ Chairmen Architectural Control Committee # 1 Valley Estates Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ph: 227-5345 PLEASANT Valley Estates Property Owners Association The committee and board members meet on Sunday, June 26, 2005 at the home of the chairmen. Attending were board members: Ruth Kirtley Jamie Kirtley Donna Johnson -Smith We had a majority board vote on this request to build a pool and fence at 57 Valley Estates . Sincerely, Donna, Johnson ACC Chairmen AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-7901 Owner: Michael and Amy Zini Address: 15604 Taylor Loop Road Description: North side of Taylor Loop Road, West of Rahling Road Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: The applicant is requesting an administrative appeal in order to construct a new single family residence on the property prior to removing an existing residence. 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 15604 Taylor Loop Road is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. There is a gravel driveway from Taylor Loop Road which serves as access. There are two (2) accessory buildings and one (1) storm shelter located on the property. The applicant proposes to construct a new single family residence immediately north of the existing residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The applicant proposes to reside in the existing residence while the new structure is being constructed, and remove the existing residence from the property upon completion. The applicant proposes to begin construction of the new residence on September 1, 2005, with a completion date in approximately 10 AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) months. As part of the lot redevelopment, the applicant proposes to remove the larger accessory building and the storm shelter from the property. On July 11, 2005 the applicant submitted a letter to staff requesting to leave the existing residence on the property while the new home is being constructed. Staff was unable to approve the request administratively, as Section 36-254(b)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows only one (1) single family dwelling on any R-2 zoned lot or parcel. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an administrative appeal. The Board is asked to determine if it is appropriate to allow construction of the new single family residence at this location while the existing residence remains on the property. Staff suggests that issues related to time frame for the new construction and a trigger mechanism for removal of the existing structure be discussed by the Board with relation to the applicants' request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 29, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the City Attorney requested to defer the application to the September 26, 2005 agenda, in order to clarify issues related to the request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 26, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. K 7445 �-?-79v1 July 21, 2005 To Whom It May Concern, We, Michael and Amy Zini, currently live in an house built sometime in the late 50's at 15604 Taylor Loop Road in West Little Rock. This is marked 1 Story Frame on the attached survey. We are requesting a building permit to build a new home directly behind our current residence. Labeled Proposed Residence on attached survey. Upon completion of the proposed residence, the 1 Story Frame we currently live in will be removed. Also being removed is the adjacent "Frame" Storage Building and the Storm Cellar. The metal storage building shown on survey as overlapping the proposed residence has already been relocated to the northern most property line.. We are requesting that our current residence be allowed to remain only during construction of the new residence, in order for us to have a place to reside during the construction process. We are fully aware and in complete agreement that our current 1 Story Frame must be removed once the new residence is completed. Preparations are underway to have this taken care of. Sincerely, Michael and Amy Zini a AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-7902 Owner: John and Chastity Seliga Address: 822 N. Coolidge Street Description: Lot 1, Block 18 Success 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: 1. In accordance with Section 32-8, no obstruction to visibility shall be located within a triangular area 50' back from the intersecting right-of-way line (or intersecting tangent lines for radial dedications) at the intersection of Coolidge with "H". The fence provides a sight distance problem. Vehicles north bound on Coolidge can not see oncoming East bound traffic on "H". Contact Traffic Engineering for acceptable relocation of fence or remove to rear corner of structure. 2. Provide property survey. No portion of the fence is to be located in the Right -of -Way. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 822 N. Coolidge Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the southwest corner of Coolidge and "H" Streets. There is a two -car wide drive from Coolidge Street which serves as access. There is a paved alley along the west property line. The applicants recently constructed a six (6) foot high wood fence enclosing the rear and north side yards, as noted on the attached site plan. The fence extends from the northeast corner of the house to the AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) north property line, runs along the north property line to the northwest corner of the property, then runs south along the rear property line enclosing the rear yard. A building permit was issued for the fence construction. However, the sketch presented to staff by the fence company did not indicate that this was a corner lot, as it did not show "H" street. Staff issued the permit based on the sketch showing an interior lot and not a corner lot. Subsequently, staff issued a notice to lower the height of the fence or obtain a variance, upon observing the fence after construction. 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. A six (6) foot fence height is allowed along interior lot lines. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for the portion of the six (6) foot high fence located between the required side setback (5 feet) and the "H" street right-of-way (north property line). Staff does not support the variance, as requested. The fence as constructed violates the blind corner ordinance, as noted in the Public Works comments (paragraph A.) Staffs inspection of the site revealed difficulty in pulling out onto "H" Street from Coolidge Street (north bound) given the reduced visibility caused by the location of the fence in question, being too close to the Coolidge/"H" Street intersection. Additionally, staff has received numerous complaints from surrounding residents regarding the reduced visibility when pulling out onto "H" Street from Coolidge Street. "H" Street is a relatively busy street, with Hall High School located one (1) block to the east. Also, CATA Bus Route #8 (Rodney Parham Route) runs along "H" Street in this area. Staff believes the fence as constructed creates a health/safety issue and should be adjusted to conform with Section 32-8, as noted in paragraph A. of this request. If the fence were relocated to comply with this section, staff could support the variance for increased fence height. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested fence variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 29, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had revised the application to move the northeast corner of the fence back as required by Public Works, to allow adequate sight -distance at the corner of Coolidge and "H" Streets. Staff recommended approval of the revised application, subject to the fence being moved to comply with the Public Works sight -distance requirements within 14 days. oil AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as revised and recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 3 July 21, 2005 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas City of Little Rock Zoning Board of Adjustment: In November 2004, we purchased the property at 822 N. Coolidge and began to do some remodeling prior to moving into the premises. One such remodeling project was the removal of the existing fence and replacing it with a privacy fence. We wished to tear out the existing chain-link fence with privacy strips, and replaced it with a 6 -foot wooden privacy fence that followed the exact same boundaries. We chose Ingle Fence Company to perform this job for us. Ingle applied for the permits with the City of Little Rock and was granted permission to do the work. The fence has been in place for the past eight months without incidence and we have been very pleased with the result. As the original fence was in a state of disrepair and neglect, we have had several neighbors stop by specifically to tell us how much they feel the new fence has improved the look of the area. Having two small children and two family pets, it has provided the security, safety and privacy we had hoped when we elected to purchase the home. On June 11, 2005, we returned from vacation to find a courtesy notice on our door from David Stowe with Little Rock Department of Planning & Development. It stated that our fence was in violation of two city ordinances and that we had ten days to remedy the situation or to at least take steps in that direction. Since then, we have been in contact with Dave Richardson at Ingle fence, to ensure that they went through the proper channels to obtain a permit, which they had. We have also spoken with Monty Moore with the City of Little Rock on several occasions to find out what our next steps should be. It is our understanding that since the fence is in violation of city ordinances, the corrective procedure is to apply for variance approval. We are willing to file all necessary paperwork in order to get approval for a variance for this structure. Thank you very much for you time. Sincerely, !John and Chastity Seliga Felicia J. Norwood Phone (501) 280-0900 700 North Coolidge Cell (501) 247-3781 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 entail nflrwooddraffina0comcast_net July 26, 2005 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Variance for 800 North Coolidge Dear Sirs: I am writing to express my concern with regards to the fence that has been erected at 800 North Coolidge. The previous owners had a chain link fence at this location and the new owners have erected a privacy fence. While the new fence is significantly more attractive, it has created a serious blind spot for vehicles turning off of Coolidge onto H Street. Regrettably drivers travel too fast on H Street, to the point that on a regular basis Little Rock Police officers sit at the intersection with radar guns. The fence makes it very difficult to see oncoming traffic, and on more than one occasion I have nearly been rear ended from other vehicles when I pull onto H Street. I do not feel that a two foot reduction in the fences height will remedy this issue due to the topography of H Street upon approach from the West. The chain link fence that was in place prior to the new owners could be seen through, making the turn much safer. I hate to cause more cost to the home owner, but I feel the safety of the neighborhood is a much more important issue. My suggestion is to move the corner of the fence from the front edge of the house to the rear edge of the house. I think this in conjunction with a height reduction would allow enough room for visibility. Respectfully, elicia J. Norwood PRIECED JUL 12 9 2005 BY: August 5, 2005 The Members of the Board of Adjustment c/o Monte Moore Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Board Members: 2---79oy (.7perr—) There is a request for a variance for a fence that has been built at 822 N. Coolidge Street, which is on the SW corner of N. Coolidge at the intersection of N. Coolidge and H Streets. We respectfully request that this request be denied. This fence presents a safety hazard to drivers traveling north on N. Coolidge approaching the corner, and we believe it is just a matter of time before there is an accident. It is not possible to see traffic approaching on H Street from the West. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that Hall High School is two blocks east of the corner, and Catholic High School is also nearby. Therefore, H Street carries a lot of high-school traffic in addition to heavy going -to -work traffic in the morning. It is not a question of whether an accident will happen, but only when it will happen. The city police recognize the hazardous situation that exists at this corner, and they often set up a radar speed check on N. Coolidge for traffic on H Street. We respectfully request that the variance be denied. 4co �a z A Zt 7/ � C� 60c) ell7l qL oa TI.4Ee. t &�Ua� &)64-1 goo *7aaa15" SO/ AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-7903 Owner: Barbara G. Core Address: 1020 Rock Street/316 East 11 th Street Description: Northeast corner of East 11 th and Rock Streets 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: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant (being remodeled)I Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R -4A zoned property at 1020 Rock Street/316 East 11 th Street is occupied by two (2) old brick commercial style buildings. The property is located at the northwest corner of East 11th and Rock Streets. The larger building within the east half of the property is currently being remodeled for use as a single family residence. The westernmost building will be used as an art studio/storage area to serve the single family residence. There is a paved alley along the west property line. As part of the remodeling project, the applicant proposes to construct an eight (8) foot high wood fence along the north and south property lines running between the two (2) buildings, as noted on the attached sketches. The fence will have 8'-6" brick columns. There is currently a six (6) foot high wood fence along the south property line, running between the two (2) buildings. AUGUST 29, 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 required building setbacks and street rights-of-way. Other interior fences are allowed with a maximum height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the eight (8) foot high fence with 8'-6" columns. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels the request is reasonable, and the proposed fence will be a quality improvement to the property. Given the fact that the two (2) existing buildings are located on the north and south property lines, staff feels that connecting the buildings by way of the proposed fences will have no adverse visual impact on the adjacent properties. This property owner also owns the property immediately to the north. The Little Rock Historic District Commission reviewed and approved the proposed fence at their August 4, 2005 hearing (see attached letter). The approval was conditioned on the columns having a maximum height of 8'-6", no more than one-quarter inch gaps between boards and Board of Adjustment approval. Staff believes the proposed fence will have no adverse impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. 2. The columns are to have a maximum height of 8'-6". 3. There are to be no more than one-quarter inch gaps between fence boards. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 29, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 July 21, 2005j —� p� 7 City of Little Rock �� % 9 0 Department of Planning and Development Little Rock Board of Adjustment Re: Application for a Residential Zoning Variance — August 29th 2005 meeting Address: 1020 Rock & 316 E. l lb Legal Address: 1020 Rock — City of LR E 68' of Lot 7 Block 45 316 E. 11' — City of LR W 72' of Lot 7 Block 45 Owner: Barbara G. Core Reason for request: New brick and wood (board on board) 8'fence on the South property line: 1. Aesthetic/Historic preservation (see drawings). Both of the structures were originally built as commercial properties, but are now utilized as a private residence (1020 Rock) and art studio/storage (316 E.1 lth). Both properties have brick exteriors two story facades. I want to enhance the existing streetscape between the two structures by building a fence that would be appropriate in scale and design for these two structures. This would require an 8' fence. Proposed is a new fence constructed with brick piers and board on board fencing between the piers. The fence will be set to the back of the piers in order to allow a planting bed between the piers. Trellising plants will be placed in this green space — in time to completely cover the wood fence. The pier design has been copied from l lth & Scott Streets. 2. Security/safety/noise: The property line sits next to the sidewalk and is in a high traffic path. (The last through street east of the freeway.) The street is also on a bus line which runs from early morning until late at night. I would like to be able to enjoy the green space (yard) between the two properties and am planning extensive landscaping. I have already planted 14 crepe myrtles (15') in the green space between the street and the sidewalk in order to enhance the streetscape. New board on board fence on the North property line: In order to balance the 8' fence on the south streetscape with a matching fence on the North property line, it is necessary to construct an 8' fence on the North property line. Also, the guest cottage on the adjacent property (10 16 Rock — also owned by me) is on a raised foundation. From any interior room on the south side of the cottage or from the porch, you can see over a 6'fence and view the entire area — eliminating any privacy. Thank you for your consideration, Barbara G. Core AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7904 Owner: Alice Lichtenstern and Sandra Levin Address: 1723 N. Monroe Street Description: Lot 56, Cliffewood Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a carport addition with a reduced side setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 1723 N. Monroe Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide concrete driveway from Monroe Street which serves as access. There is an unenclosed porch located at the southwest corner of the residence. There is a 25 foot front platted building line on the property. The applicant proposes to construct a one -car wide unenclosed carport on the south side of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The columns of the proposed carport would match the existing house, and be located 1.5 feet from the side (south) property line. The structure's overhang will be located 1 foot from the south side property line. The proposed carport structure will be located approximately 33 feet back from the front (west) property line. AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of 5.5 feet for this 55 foot wide R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement to allow the carport addition with a 1.5 foot (1 foot from overhang) side setback. Staff does not support the variance request as filed. Although staff would typically support a 1.5 foot side setback for an unenclosed carport addition, the single family house on the property immediately to the south is only 3.5 to 4 feet from the dividing side property line. This would result in a building separation of only 4.5 to 5 feet. Staff feels that a slightly greater building separation should be required. If the applicant would consider a smaller column design, staff feels that a three (3) foot side setback (with a six inch overhang and gutter) could be provided. Staff would support a three (3) foot side setback, which would result in a 6 to 6.5 foot separation between the residential structures. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested side setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 29, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had revised the application to provide a three (3) foot setback to the columns of the proposed carport structure, with a six (6) inch overhang. Staff recommended approval of the revised application, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained for the carport construction. 2. The carport addition must remain unenclosed on the south, east and west sides. 3. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the south. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 1 Cd LA3k0✓�t i YI�ClC ricry� fl d —% ! ! KO owAe& L3 --�-� 'h8 is o p : e S o le 1j b iS an Q y C a CV G� i,ia C:Q C� ayn SAL c.Q L +%Q., hou � et n p d'dd e(' 4--0 Yr dL 't- C -o j b u. ti t f ai 'mac e moi U P AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7905 Owner: Frank Whitbeck Address: 2809 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: South side of Kavanaugh Blvd., between Palm and Beechwood Streets. Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-502 to allow a restaurant -type use with a reduced number of parking spaces. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Commercial Space Proposed Use of Property: Bar/Lounge STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 2809 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by a one-story commercial building located between Beechwood and Palm Streets. The commercial building contains a mixture of commercial uses, with 2809 Kavanaugh Blvd. occupying only a portion of the overall building. This portion of the building has been used in the past as retail space, most currently an antique shop. There is on -street parking in front of the building and in the general area. The applicant proposes to remodel this commercial space and occupy it as a bar/lounge. The space to be occupied by the bar/lounge is approximately 1,530 square feet. Section 36-502(b)(3)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires 15 off-street parking spaces for this bar/lounge use. The previous retail use required 5 off-street spaces. Therefore, the new bar/lounge use is required to provide the difference, or 10 off-street parking spaces. This AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.) commercial building occupies almost the entire property, and there is no off- street parking. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from the parking requirements based on the fact that he can provide no additional off- street parking. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. This commercial building, as well as several others in this general area along Kavanaugh Blvd., has relied entirely on off-site parking for a number of years. There is on -street parking it front of this building as well as many other surrounding streets. Additionally, the proposed bar/lounge use will be primarily an after-hours use and will have additional options for parking, as several of the surrounding uses which have off-street parking will be closed the majority of the time when the bar/lounge is operating. Staff believes the conversion of this commercial space to a restaurant -type use with no additional off-street parking provided is reasonable, and will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 29, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. r. Application For A Non -Residential Zoning Variance The Hillcrest Fountian 2809 Kavanuagh Little Dock, AR 72203 July 21, 2095 -i1°5 1, James Bryant, acting as an authorized agent of the property owner at 2809 Kavanuagh, would like to )tition the Board of Adjustment for a zoning variance to change from its current zoning of retail office to that of ar/restaurant. The building has been vacant for many months and a parking variance is necessary to allow e transition from former antique store to that of the newly intended use. My partner and I would like to offer a ithering place that would serve beer and wine only and would best be described as a neighborhood pub or unge. No food will be served and the current omission of hard ligour is a result of a conscious decision made reassure area residents that we do not intend to be a nightclub. If the demand is there and we feel that it is step with the wishes of the community, a separate liquor license may be applied for at a later date. We feel at this type of establishment, focusing on beer with a substantial wine selection will be filling a void in the �ighborhood and will provide a comfortable, low- impact environment for patrons to socialize. The Fountain will have two pool tables to be rented by the hour(no quarter tables) and an original 20ft. iuffleboard table from the 1950's. There will be a few televisions and a small area for acoustic music if :sired. This is not a sports bar or a pool hall, but a semi -casual neighborhood bar with these amenities -ovided mainly because they are offered nowhere else in Hillcrest. The decor will be toned down with themes )nsistent with those of our nieghbors. Our desired clientele will be those closest in proximity to us. We feel at this will be the optimal place in Hillcrest in to meet friends and family before or after dinner, watch a game simply get out of the house on a week night without having to leave the neighborhood for other areas of the ty. The Hillcrest area is becoming known for its casual and fine dining and we feel that our lack of food will .rve to compliment these restaurants as opposed to compete with them. Our count puts us within 200 ft. of ielve other restaurant/bars so as to give us reason to believe that ours is a pian that remains in line with the irrent direction of the area. curs of operation will be Monday through Saturday 4:OOpm-1:OOam or earlier as designated by the ABC. sere is potential for earlier openings on Saturdays for sporting events and for special occasions. As we are )ening many local retail shops and merchants will be closing for the day. This will allow for the least amount impact on available parking. Since,,rely, 7Jaynes D. Bryant AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Z-7906 Owner: George and Linda Gleason Address: Southwest corner of Chenal Valley Drive and Wildwood Lane (along the north side of Denny Road) Description: Property located between Chenal Valley Drive and Denny Road, west of Wildwood Lane Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow fences which exceed the maximum height allowed. 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: 1. In accordance with Section 32-8, no obstruction to visibility shall be located within a triangular area 50' back from the intersecting right-of-way line (or intersecting tangent lines for radial dedications) at the intersection of Wildwood Lane with Denny Road and the at the intersection of Wildwood Lane and Chenal Valley Drive. 2. The fence on Denny shall be placed no closer than 45' from center line of Denny. 3. The fence on Chenal Valley Dr. and Wildwood Lane shall be placed no closer than 30' from centerline of each street. 4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c ) &(d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 10 (CON'T.) B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 property at the southwest corner of Chenal Valley Drive and Wildwood Lane is currently undeveloped and mostly wooded. The property consists of approximately 98 acres and is bordered by Chenal Valley Drive to the north, Wildwood Land to the east and Denny Road to the south. Some site work is taking place along the north (Chenal Valley Drive) property line in construction of a new access drive to the property. As part of the property's development, the applicant is proposing to fence the entire property, as noted on the attached site plan. The applicant is proposing an 8 foot high wrought iron fence, with 10 foot high brick columns, along the Chenal Valley Drive portion of the north property line, along the east (Wildwood Lane) property line, and the east portion of the south (Denny Road) property line. An 8 foot high black vinyl coated chain link fence is proposed along the west portions of the north and south property lines, and along the west property line. The main entry from Chenal Valley Drive is proposed to have a section of 10 foot high wrought iron fencing with 10 foot high rock, brick and pre -cast columns with statuary. 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 building setback lines and street rights-of-way. Other fences can be constructed to a maximum height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard for the fencing with increased height as described above. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels the request is reasonable. Staff's support is based primarily on the fact that the fencing is proposed around an overall 98 acre residential development and not an individual residential lot. The proposed fencing will not be out of character with other neighborhood developments in this area of the city. Although staff typically does not support residential fence heights of 10 feet, the vast majority of the 10 foot high fence at the entry drive will be located behind the required 25 foot front setback, and can have an increased height to that of the zoning district (35 feet). Staff believes the proposed fencing will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The fencing must be located on the property as to be in compliance with Section 32-8 (blind corner ordinance) and be located at the future right-of-way lines for the surrounding streets, as noted in paragraph A. of this report. 2 AUGUST 29, 2005 ITEM NO.: 10 (CON'T.) C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of the staff report. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 29, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 3 © WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 24 Rahling Circle a Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 0 Phone: 501-821-1667 Fax: 501-821-1668 July 22, 2005 Mr. Monte Moore, Zoning Administrator City of Little Rock Neighborhoods and Planning 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Gleason Fence Variance Mr. Moore, Please find attached six copies of the survey for the above referenced project. The Gleasons would like to enclose their property with a variety of fencing materials for both aesthetic and security purposes. J0 At the main entrance we are proposing a combination of rock, brick and pre -cast columns 10 ft. in height with statuary on top of the columns. Wrought iron fencing between the columns will be 10 ft. in height. The remainder of the Chenal Valley Drive frontage will be fenced with 8 ft. tall wrought iron and possibly 10 ft. tall brick columns. This fencing will extend along Wildwood Lane and turn the corner on Denny Road to the existing SBC facility. The remainder of the fencing along Denny Road, the west and north property lines will be 8 ft. tall black vinyl coated chain link. Please place this item on the next available Board of Adjustments docket. Do not hesitate to call should you have any questions or require additional information. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted, >o�e D. White, . Cc: George and Linda Gleason CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING • • O U W W I— O z W 0 Q LL O Q O m Ed H d m c L Q .►r C� G z Q CO m Q z w m Q w Q z D of O w o O W of Q Z Q ~' LL m Z W Q� U) Z 0� Q U O CQ W Z X (n X m Q x z x � x Z) Q Q H LL m m 2 August 29, 2005 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:12 p.m. Date: Chairman