HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_04 26 2004LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
APRIL 26, 2004
2:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being three (3) in number.
Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The Minutes of the March 29, 2004 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Andrew Francis, Vice Chairman
Terry Burruss
David Wilbourn
Fred Gray, Chairman
Debra Harris
City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
APRIL 26, 2004
2:00 P.M.
NEW ITEMS:
1.
Z -4099-A
1118 West 3`d Street
2.
Z -6127-A
1000 McGowan Street
3.
Z -7224-A
915 W. Capitol Avenue
4.
Z-7609
5122 "F" Street
5.
Z-7610
4820 Country Club Blvd.
6.
Z-7611
West side of Highway 300
7.
Z-7612
200 Weston Court
8.
Z-7613
3 Falata Court
9.
Z-7614
5201 Stonewall Road
10.
Z-7615
2317 East 6th Street
11.
Z-7616
1020 West 4th Street
i
0
0
—
H32tld3
110VBIH1
U
NVrv839
V
_^/
gONp
w�
NIVY
�
AVM0tl02J8 HOW
� 1N0
S3H0
ONIN lry
83H380
L1)
o 0800Q*
3NId
133
S
3NId
HJby
NO1lI& ll00S
y
s SSNANdS
A11S63AINn
v J
kUS213AINn
50NI21dS tJ3A30 U�
3HOnH
C
Idd155 11
N6
�
1001H0
y
6IOA83S38
MOd8V8 NHO^ 3
3NNl3H
021 31 080331NOVHS S
,,, SIOdVS
YIVH21Vd A3NOOM
O
— 3,
w � 3
m
5 ��" �
NV
08 s _
Sllrvn A110
x 300121 AMA
H�bp� o
axe'
,�,pp
v
�Sy1S
O
f e�V
co
)
18VM21S
NVAIllf15
V\
6Sy6
n
0
S1IYill ALIO
O�
Ode
7J''�
C )
`V
31YON83d
0
19
f'�
April 26, 20,
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Floors First By Hills
1118 W. 3rd Street
East Y2 of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 294,
Original City of Little Rock
UU
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the
development provisions of Section 36-
342.1 associated with building and parking
lot additions.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
a
Public Works Issues:
The applicant's justification is presented
in an attached letter.
Commercial with office
Office/showroom with warehouse
1. With building permit, repair or replace any curb and gutter or
sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
Landscape and Buffer Issues:
Areas set aside for landscaping meet with Landscape Ordinance
requirements with the reductions allowed within the designated mature
area of the City.
C. Staff Analysis:
The UU zoned property at 1118 W. 3rd Street is occupied by a one-story
brick commercial building. The building is located within the west Y2 of the
April 26, 2C
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
property, with a non conforming gravel parking lot located within the east
1/2. A driveway from W. 3rd Street serves as access.
The applicant proposes to construct a one-story, 39 foot by 69 foot
addition at the rear (north) of the existing building. The building addition
will be located six (6) inches from the north and east property lines and
five (5) feet from the west property line. The addition will be located 110
feet back from the front property line. The addition will have a 10 foot
wide garage door and a standard walk through door on its south side,
facing W. 3rd Street. The building addition will allow for the use as an
office with showroom and warehouse.
As part of the proposed development, the applicant proposes to pave the
existing gravel parking lot within the east'/2 of the lot. The new parking lot
will contain 10 parking spaces. The applicant proposes to landscape the
parking lot as per Landscape Ordinance requirements.
The applicant is requesting three (3) variances from the development
standards of Section 36-342.1 (urban use development standards) for the
proposed building addition and parking lot. Section 36-342.1(c)(8)
requires that the ground -level (street fronting) floor of non residential
structures have a minimum surface area of sixty (60) percent transparent
on window display. As noted previously the south side of the building
addition, facing W. 3rd Street, will have only a garage door and walk-
through door and no windows.
Section 36-342.1(c)(10)b. requires that surface parking lots be located
behind or adjacent to a structure, never between the building and abutting
street. Although the parking lot is located adjacent to the existing building,
it will be located between the building addition and the street. Therefore,
staff feels that a variance needs to be requested.
Section 36-342.1(f)(1) requires that buildings within the UU zoning district
be constructed to the front property line with a 0 foot setback. As noted
earlier, the building addition will be located 110 feet back from the front
(south) property line.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the
applicant's plan represents a quality redevelopment of the property. Staff
feels that the new parking lot is needed, based on the fact that there is no
on -street parking on W. 3rd Street. Given the narrowness of the lot, the
building additions could not be constructed along the front property line
with parking to the rear, because it would be impossible to gain vehicular
access to the lot. Staff feels that with compliance to the landscape,
2
April 26, 20U-,
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
buffer, building and fire codes, the proposed redevelopment of the site will
have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area.
D. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works and Landscape and Buffer
comments as noted in paragraphs A & B of the staff report.
2. Compliance with all Building and Fire Codes.
3. A building permit must be obtained for all construction.
4. Compliance with all other Urban Use development standards.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2004)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
K
t
l
TmFLOORS FIRST by Hill's, Inc. Jim HUI, Jr. - President
1118 West Third
Utile Rook, Arkansas 72201
Phone (801) 378.9300
Fax (501.) 375-1630
ffbh01 oiunca, m
March 10, 2004
Department of Planning & Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham St.
Little Rock, AR. 72201
RE: Zoning Variance
Gentlemen,
I am in the floor covering business. At the present time I must rely on storing materials in two non owned
warehouses in North Little Rock. Although the cost of warehousing in this manner is effective, the cost of time lost
in production more than offsets any savings realized. My crews leave the office and must, oftentimes, make up to
six or seven stops (many of these stops are from local suppliers that we must have installation supplies from or
flooring products that are warehoused by local distributors), gathering materials, before they can proceed to their job
site.
In June of 2003, I purchased the property located at 1118 West 3rd with the intention of constructing an in-
expensive warehouse at the rear of the existing building (I briefly consulted with Mr. Brown in regards to this prior
to making the offer). The existing building is situated on the property ideally to do this as is shown on the
accompanying drawings.
It is critical, in the floor covering business, to hold cost to a minimum as it is a highly competitive enterprise (I've
been involved in this type business since 1970 and, therefore, do have some background on what it takes to make it
work). It was with this thought in mind that I have initially pursued the acquisition of a metal building. The
proposed warehouse building would be sixteen feet high inside for maximum storage and access by "double mast"
lift trucks (fork lifts). We would be staring rolls of carpet, cartons of tile, rolls of sheet vinyl, pallets of hardwood,
and installation sundries. It would be heated only with no other plumbing required. Once constructed, both the new
and the old building would be color matched so that, aesthetically, the entire facility would be pleasant to see from
all surrounding areas. Most shipments tonne in via bob trucks or short tractor trailers. The parking area shown on
the accompanying drawings would not only accommodate off street parking for customers but would also allow for
maneuvering trucks to the warehouse door as well. To add to the appearance, Mr. Brown suggested the use of
landscaping additions, paved parking lot, and an appropriate dumpster enclosure as shown on the attached drawings.
All of which, I believe, would make the property more attractive and functional.
On my last visit to see Mr. Brown, we found four hurdles that had to be crossed (because we are Just barely within
the "LU' district) before proceeding with construction:
1. There is to be no parking between newly constructed buildings and the street.
2. There is a required amount of grass frontage on new buildings.
3. The new building is to have no setback (it is to be positioned at the very front of the property).
4. There are to be no corrugated metal buildings in the W district.
As you can see, the first three items are extremely detrimental to the. construction of this proposed warehouse facility
because the layout of the existing building on, the property dictates a plan like the one I'm presenting to you. Any
building used to store materials is, in my minds eye, inviting a break in if glass is used on any part of the structure.
Regarding the metal building, I would still like to pursue that avenue if allowable as it is the most economical.
Because it would, be set at the back of the property I believe it would not be detrimental to the enhancement of the
community.but would, in fact, be pleasing to the eye. If this is not acceptable, is a metal building with a brick front
acceptable to the `Board"? If not, is a concrete block building acceptable? Visually, the metal budding would seem
to be nicer looking than a concrete block building.
If my property were in the 1200 block of West 3rd (which is less than 150' from my property), as I understand it,
these regulations would not apply .... Cross Street is the western border of Zone W. Please understand that we keep
a tidy, well kept property, that is kept looking above average year round.
Please see fit to approve this.
Sincerely,
a
Jim ill Jr.
President
April 26, 2l.
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
/0
Public Works Issues:
Z -6127-A
Todd Greer
1000 McGowan Street
Lots 1-6, Block 5, Masonic Addition
UU
Variances are requested from the
development provisions of Section 36-
342.1 associated with a new multifamily
structure and parking areas.
The applicant's justification is presented
in an attached letter.
Undeveloped
Multi -family
With Building Permit:
1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged
in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. Concrete aprons will
be required at all driveways .and alley.
2. Pave alley to 9' from centerline.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
Portions of the proposed on-site landscape strip width along 1-30 are less
than the 6 -feet 9 -inch minimums allowed. This takes into account the
reductions allowed within the designated mature area of the City. The
perimeter landscaping is a requirement of the Landscape Ordinance. A
variance of this requirement would take City Beautiful Commission
approval.
April 26, 2C_ r
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.)
C. Staff Analysis:
The UU zoned property at 1000 McGowan Street (Interstate 30) is
currently undeveloped and grass -covered. There are a few small trees on
the site. There is a paved alley along the west property line. The property
represents an entire half block bounded by McGowan Street on the east,
E.10th Street on the north and E. 11th Street to the south.
The applicant proposes to construct a three story multifamily building on
the property to serve University of Arkansas students, primarily the law
school (located across E. 11 th Street to the south) and UAMS. The
building will be approximately 65 feet by 191 feet in size, and have 86
one -bedroom living units. The structure will be approximately 40 feet in
height. It will be located between 14 and 63 feet from the front (east)
property line, 20 feet from the rear (west) property line, 11 feet from the
south line and 97 feet from the north line.
The applicant also proposes two (2) small parking areas. A 12 -space
parking lot is located on the north side of the proposed building, between
the building and E. 10th Street. A 4 -space lot is located at the southeast
corner of the proposed building, between the building and McGowan
Street. The Urban Use development standards require no off street
parking. The parking lot on the north side of the building is proposed to
be accessed from the alley, with the smaller parking lot taking access
from E. 11th Street.
The applicant is requesting three (3) variances from Section 36-342.1
(Urban Use development standards) with the proposed development. The
first variance is from Section 36-342.1 (c)(10)b., which states that no
surface parking lot is to be located between a building and an abutting
street. As noted earlier, the north parking lot is located between the
building and E. 10th Street, with the southeast parking lot being located
between the building and McGowan Street.
Section 36-342.1(f)(1), requires that buildings be located on the front
property line, with a 0 front setback. The proposed building will be located
from 14 feet (northeast corner) to 63 feet (southeast corner) from the front
property line.
Additionally, Section 36-342.1 (f)(2), requires a minimum rear yard
setback of 25 feet where the property is adjacent to lots containing single
family detached structures. The proposed building is located 20 feet from
the rear (west) property line. There are single family residences on two
(2) of the lots (mid -block) across the alley to the west.
2
April 26, 2L --r
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.)
The proposed site plan shows that portions of the proposed parking lots
do not have the minimum required 6 foot — 9 inch landscape area
between the parking lots and the east property line. Staff has discussed
this issue with the applicant, and the applicant has noted that the site plan
will be revised to comply with the landscape ordinance.
The site is located within the McArthur Park Historic District. The
applicant recently met with the Little Rock Historic District Commission.
The commission suggested several design changes to the building
(fagade type, roof design, air conditioner location, etc.). The applicant is
scheduled to present the design changes to the Commission at its April
21, 2004 meeting.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that with
compliance to the remainder of the UU ordinance requirements, the
Landscape Ordinance and the Little Rock Historic District Commission
design requirements, the proposed development of this property should
prove to be a nice in -fill project. Staff feels that the requested variances
are very minor in nature, especially given the fact that the property is
within a small "finger" of UU zoning, extending to the south along 1-30
from E. 9t" Street. Additionally, the other properties within this area of UU
zoning are non conforming in the sense that they do not meet the UU
development standards, with respect to building setbacks and parking
location. Staff feels that the proposed development will have no adverse
impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
D. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph
A. of the staff report.
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and buffer Ordinance.
Redesign parking lots to meet landscape requirements.
3. Compliance with the remainder of the UU development standards,
including site lighting and trash receptacle location.
4. The project must be approved by the Little Rock Historic District
Commission.
K
April 26, 20i
l
TREE HOUSE DEVELOPERS, LLC
P.O. Box 2590 — CONWAY, ARKANSAS 72033 — (501) 513-3000
March 26, 2004
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Attn: Mr. Monty Moore
- FAX (501) 513-3004
Re: Board of Adjustment Request for Variance
Multi -family Housing, W Zoning District
McGowan Street all lots between East 10th Street and East 11th Street
Dear Mr. Moore,
We wish to apply for a Variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for this
project for the Apiil 26, 2004 Meeting Date for the following reasons:
1. Section 36-342.1.( c ) Development Criteria (10 ) Parking lots
We request variance to the location of parking lot between the building and the
street because of the unusual lot configuration, and the scale of the building. The
project encompasses the entire block between East 10th Street and East 11th
Street, on a truncated triangular shaped lot, limiting the available options for
locating a parking lot.
2. Section 36-342.1.( f ) Area Regulations (1 ) Front yard
We request variance to the zero front yard setback between the building and the
street because of the unusual lot configuration, and the location within the district.
The major frontage is toward the access road along Interstate Highway 30, and we
wish to step back from the front property line and align the structure to the
neighborhood to the west.
I appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have additional questions or comments,
please let me know.
Respectfully Yours,
Robert R. Etters
-7- Y4
April 26, 2L
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z -7224-A
Mary H. Rose, LLC.
915 W. Capitol Avenue
Part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 251, Original
City of Little Rock
UU
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the
development and use provisions of Section
36-342.1 to allow a building addition and
expanded outside restaurant seating area.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
/0
Public Works Issues:
No Comments
Landscape and Buffer Issues:
The applicant's justification is presented
in an attached letter.
Restaurant with outdoor seating
Restaurant with outdoor seating
No additional landscape requirements
C. Staff Analysis:
The UU zoned property at 915 W. Capitol Avenue is occupied by a one-
story restaurant building (Mr. Mason's Bar -B -Q). There are two (2) access
drives from Capitol Avenue, with parking on the south side of the building.
There is a drive-thru window on the west side of the building. On May 20,
2002 the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to allow outside
restaurant seating between the building and the front (north) property line.
April 26, 2t, _ r
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.)
The applicant is currently proposing to expand the outside seating area to
an area at the northwest corner of the property and along the west side of
the building. As part of the proposal, the applicant is proposing to
construct a roof/awning structure (18 feet by 30 feet) on the west end of
the building. The structure will be unenclosed and located approximately
one (1) foot back from the side (west) property line, and nine (9) feet back
from the front (north) property line. The drive-thru window will be
eliminated as part of the proposal.
Section 36-342.1 (f)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
front setback of 25 feet for this property within the UU (Urban Use) zoning
district. Additionally, Section 36-342.1 (d)(1) requires that all uses be
inside or enclosed. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from
these ordinance requirements.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. To staff's knowledge, all of
the existing and proposed areas of outside restaurant seating are located
on the applicant's property and not in the right-of-way. It appears that the
areas of outside seating will not affect the sidewalk along Capitol Avenue
in any way. Staff feels that the requested front setback is reasonable as
the proposed roof/awning structure will align with the main front wall of the
restaurant building. The existing commercial building immediately to the
West is located less than one (1) foot from the dividing side property line.
Therefore, the proposed roof/awning structure must conform to all
Building and Fire codes. Otherwise, the additional outside seating area
will help the continued revitalization of the area of downtown by promoting
and increasing the pedestrian traffic in the area.
D. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to the
following conditions:
None of the outside seating areas may encroach into the sidewalk
area (public right-of-way) along W. Capitol Avenue.
2. The proposed roof/awning addition must conform to all Building and
Fire codes.
3. A building permit must be obtained for all construction.
N
April 26, 200,
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2004)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
3
March 22, 2004
Mr. Monte Moore
City of Little Rock
Planning and Development
723 W. Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 77201-1334
Dear Mr. Moore:
Following is information concerning 915 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 and
the corresponding request for zoning variance.
The property is owned by Mary H. Rose, LLC., and is leased to Mc Mason's Pit Bar -B -Q &
Catering Co., LLC. It is operating as a restaurant. Mary H. Rose may be contacted at 501-529-
6279 or 501-663-3657. I, James Hendren, a member of Mr. Mason's, am acting on behalf of Mr.
Mason's and Mary H. Rose, and Mary H. Rose, LLC. I may be contacted at 501-225-4881 or
584-0006 or 12 Perdido Circle, Littie Rock, Arkansas 72201.
The attached application for zoning variance is to allow additional outside seating for patrons.
The facility currently has approved outside seating at the front of the building. The additional
outside seating will be constructed on the owner's property without encroaching any right of way
or any other property. The seating area is to be placed on the east side of the building from the
front property to line to the back of the building. A shelter of rough post and tin -like roofing is to
be built following the roofline. The shelter will have eight fans for cooling, track lighting, and
electrical outlets for warming units.
The additional outside seating will accommodate approximately 75 seats at maximum and tables
will consist of both picnic -type tables and standard 4 -top and 6 -top dining tables.
We believe that this additional seating will be attractive, encouraging more pedestrian use, and
will continue to help invigorate a fairly low utilization of Capitol Avenue. It will not impede any
neighbors or other users in the area.
We thank you for your consideration.
Yours very trujy,
James Hendren
Member
915 West Capitol! Avenue @ Chester Street * Downtown Little Rack, Arkansas 72201
501-373-4227 * mrmasonst?« aol.com
April 26, 2G. .
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z-7609
Owner: Arthur and Patricia Norris
Address: 5122 "F" Street
Description: Lot 6, Block 41, Pulaski Heights Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an
accessory building with a reduced street
side setback and increased coverage.
Justification: The applicants' justification is presented
in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residence
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residence
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (John Barr, 371-4646)
for any landscaping or improvements constructed in the right-of-way.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5122 "F" Street is occupied by a one-story
brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the
northeast corner of "F" Street and Clarkson Street. There is a two -car
driveway from Clarkson Street, which accesses a two -car unenclosed
carport on the north end of the residence. There is an open ditch along
Clarkson Street. The property also contains two (2) accessory storage
buildings (8' x 8' and 10' x 20') along the north (rear) property line. A large
portion of the 10' x 20' storage building is located in the public right-of-
way.
The applicant proposes to remove the two (2) existing accessory buildings
from the property and construct one (1) larger accessory building. The
April 26, 26u -r
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.)
new proposed accessory building will be 528 square feet in area, and be
located three (3) feet from the side (east) property line and 4.5 feet from
the rear (north) property line. The structure will be located between five
(5) feet and 6.5 feet from the street side (west) property line, as measured
from the nearest building corners. Approximately 275 square feet of the
structure will be located within the required rear yard (rear 25 feet), which
represents a proposed rear yard average of 53%.
Section 36-156 (a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a
minimum 15 foot street side yard setback for accessory buildings in R-2
zoning. This section also allows accessory buildings to have a maximum
rear yard coverage (rear 25 feet) of 30%. Therefore, the applicants are
requesting variances from this ordinance section for the proposed
accessory building.
Staff does not support the variances as requested. Although staff is
pleased that the applicant is planning to remove the existing accessory
structure which is in the right-of-way, staff feels that the applicant is
proposing too much rear yard coverage. As noted earlier, the proposed
accessory building is 528 square feet in area. The two (2) existing
accessory buildings have a total area of 264 square feet. Staff could
support a street side yard setback variance associated with a new
accessory building, given the unusual lot shape and the narrowness of the
north portion of the lot. However, given the narrow width of the north
portion of the lot, and the large amount of lot area covered by the principal
structure, staff feels that the applicant should not only adhere to the
maximum rear yard coverage of 30 percent, but construct an accessory
building not exceeding 264 square feet (the area of the existing accessory
buildings). Staff feels that a smaller building, as described above, will
have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties or general area.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variances, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2004)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
Staff noted that the applicant had revised the application by reducing the size of
the proposed accessory building to 423 square feet. Staff noted that this
2
April 26, 20�u,
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.)
eliminated the rear yard coverage variance, as the building conformed to
ordinance coverage standards. Staff supported the revised application, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The accessory building is to have a maximum area of 423 square feet.
2. Compliance with the Public Works Comments.
3. A building permit must be obtained for the construction.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
3
Arthur R. and Patricia D. Norris .� b
5122 F Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
614-7280
March 23, 2004
Mr. Monte Moore
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas
Dear Mr. Moore:
Attached is our application for a residential zoning variance, along with six copies of a
survey showing existing and proposed structures. We are requesting variances in order to
complete a phased remodeling of our home. We have finished the house itself, but now wish
to replace unsightly tin outbuildings (one permanent, one temporary) with an architecturally
designed, attractive building to complement the house.
The primary difficulty posed for us by the zoning ordinance is the shape of our lot. As
can be seen by the attached drawing, the: lot narrows to 17.1 feet in the back (north) along the
alley. Although our property itself narrows to this extent, the visual perception is larger due
to an easement that runs along the diagonal boundary (Clarkson Street).
We are requesting variances to allow us to construct the building footprint as indicated
in the drawing, with a 3 -foot setback from the east property line. The broad areas around the
buildings will be landscaped tastefully. We have retained the services of a landscape architect
to design this space as well as the space around the entire lot. The visual perception of the
backyard will. not appear cluttered due to the open area of the easement. Moreover, it will be
some 22 feet from the edge of the street (Clarkson), again allaying concern for a visual
perception of overcrowding.
We earnestly intend to improve the appearance of this lot. In fact, we do not want to
move the proposed buildings toward the house for aesthetic reasons. Doing so would require
removing a large oak tree. We have been very careful during this remodeling effort to
preserve the trees on the lot.
We also would like to connect the proposed shed to the back door of the house with a
deck. For safety and aesthetic reasons, we would like the deck to be at the level of the back
door of the house, which will make it approximately 15 inches above grade. The east side of
the deck would extend the east line of the house, which has a 5-fo6t setback.
Art Norris
April 26, A
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z-7610
Beth Leake
4820 Country Club Blvd.
North side of Country Club Blvd.; between
Jackson and Spruce Streets
IVA
Variance Requested: An appeal is requested from the Home
Occupation standards of Section 36-253 to
allow a catering business with the addition
of a duplicate kitchen.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
Q
Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented
in an attached letter.
Single Family Residence
Single Family Residence, with home
occupation
The R-2 zoned property at 4820 Country Club Blvd. is occupied by a one-
story frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from
Country Club Blvd. which serves as access.
On July 23, 2003 the Department of Planning and Development issued a
Home Occupation/Privilege License permit to Jacquelyn Compton and
Jeremy Pittman for the operation of a home catering business within the
residence. The home occupation was issued based on the fact that there
would be no off-site employees, no customer traffic and no signage. The
privilege license application does note that "additional kitchen equipment"
April 26, 20%, r
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.
would be installed, however staff was never under the impression that a
second duplicate kitchen was being constructed. If so, staff would not
have issued the Home Occupation Permit. When staff became aware of
the construction of a duplicate kitchen in February, 2004, by way of the
building codes staff, the property owner was notified of the violation.
According to Section 36-253(b)(6)9. of the City's Zoning Ordinance, home
occupations will be permitted that will not "require the construction of, or
the addition to, the residence of duplicate kitchens." The Planning and
Development staff issued the Home Occupation/Privilege License permit
with no knowledge of the second duplicate kitchen. The business owner,
Jacquelyn Compton and Jeremy Pittman contend that staff was aware of
the second kitchen, and are requesting an appeal of staff's determination
that one (1) of the two (2) kitchens must be removed from the site.
The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine whether it will be
necessary for the business owners to remove one (1) of the two (2)
kitchens. Attached is the applicant's letter giving a more detailed
description of their appeal. Also attached are the Home Occupation and
Privilege License applications as completed by Jacquelyn Compton and
submitted to staff on July 21, 2003.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2004)
Jeremy Pittman and Jacquelyn Compton were present, representing the
application. There were several persons present in opposition. Staff presented
the application.
Jeremy Pittman addressed the Board in support of the requested appeal. He
stated that he was not aware of the requirement not to create a second kitchen
when the home occupation application was filed. He stated that he became
aware of the requirement in February of this year. He stated that he would like to
not remove the original kitchen. He noted that the catering business would be
located at 4820 Country Club Blvd. on a temporary basis. He stated that he was
looking for a commercial location. He stated that the new kitchen would be
removed when the business moves.
David Wilbourne asked if services to the original kitchen could be disconnected.
Mr. Pittman noted that they could. Staff noted that at a minimum the stove would
need to be removed and the gas capped off. There was a brief discussion of this
issue.
Trudie Levy, of the Heights Neighborhood Association, addressed the Board in
opposition. She noted that an action plan for the neighborhood had been
2
April 26, 20G,
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.)
completed. She stated that she wished not to have the zoning changed in the
neighborhood, opening the door for other commercial businesses in residential
zoning. There was a general discussion related to ordinance requirements for
home occupations.
Mike Mayton also spoke in opposition. He noted that the ordinance
requirements existed to protect property owners, and that two (2) kitchens in a
residence went beyond the intent of the ordinance. He asked the Board to
enforce the ordinance as intended and not approve the second kitchen. He also
discussed the area and traffic patterns in the neighborhood.
Vice Chairman Francis asked if the original kitchen were removed, could the
household function with the new kitchen only. Mr. Pittman indicated that it could.
There was a motion to approve the applicant's appeal and allow the second,
duplicate kitchen. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 3 nays and 2 absent.
The appeal was denied.
Mr. Pittman noted that the original kitchen would be removed.
3
Palette LLC.
4820 Country Club Blvd..
Little Rock AR, 72207
Department of Planning and Development
Attention: Board of Adjustment
723 West Markham
Little Rock AR
March 8, 2004
Subject: Interpretation of zoning ordinance (duplicate kitchens)
To Whom It May Concern:
July 21, 2003; the owners of Palette llc. filed a Home Occupation Accessory use Application with
the city of Little Rock, application number 7696. At this time an application for a Business License was
filed as well. The purpose of these two applications was the establishment of a home catering business
based at 4820 Country Club Blvd. On both applications this objective was plainlystated along with the
fact that kitchen equipment would be added to the residence.
July 23, 2003; the application for Home Occupation Accessory Use along with the Business
License was approved by Kenny Scott, Chairman of the Home Occupation Accessory Use Committee. The
only limitations placed on the project at the time were the limitation of employees to the residence of 4820
Country Club Blvd exclusively, that no cliental traffic would be created at the residence, and that no
signage would be installed.
Based on the approval by Kenny Scott Palette began to move forward on the project. First
contacting the state health department and receiving approval to operate the kitchen. Next contacting the
city wastewater utility and coming to terms on a grease trap system. After this contractors were secured
'and plans were drawn up and submitted for approval. And finally Palette He. purchased the necessary
equipment and supplies.
February 2, 2004; plumbers representing Palette llc. approached the department of planning and
development to obtain the necessary permits to begin their work. They were denied. Kenny Scott from the
department of planning and development then contacted Palette 11c. to notify them that no such permit
could be issued because it would be in violation of zoning ordinance, despite the fact that Mr. Scott had
approved the project himself in July of 2003. According to the Department of Planning and Development
the construction of said kitchen would be in violation of code sec. 36-253, 6 (9) "require the construction
of, or the addition to, the residence of duplicate kitchens."
This decision was appealed in person on February 4, 2003 by the owners of Palette He, and Beth
.Leake homeowner of 4820 Country Club Blvd who met with Kenny Scott, Dana Carney, and Steve Beck
representing the Department of Planning. and Development. At this meeting Palette was given permission
to move ahead with their project on the condition that the duplicate kitchen (existing house kitchen) is
removed (gas disconnected). Palette agreed.
Also agreed upon between the parties was that Palette He. would contact the Board of Adjustments
for an interpretation of the "duplicate kitchen code." To determine weather it is truly necessary for the
elimination of the duplicate kitchen.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely
Jeremy Pittman Co -Owner Palette Ile. Jacquelyn Compton Co -Owner Palette llc.
Mar 15 04 11:16a CITY OF LITTLE ROCK 501 371 4569 p.`z
APPLICATION NO. 7696
iL4.li�4�C�TgA.T..ZO_ u A�OIi�aRY LrSE AP.EL7CATION
DATE:
,i �� 2 r 2 3 - X410
APPLICANT'S NAME//: �� U�t (` JeVe t,4
TELEPHONE NO.:
NAME OF BUSINESS:�-
OWNER OF BUSINESS: I n, (/
L401 --o
A,ADDRESS OF BUSINESS: "7��Q COI.�i.��wl /�iJ1� 131✓0� tk#-te 12.A .Q}2
PROPERTY OWNED BY:�.a�
ADDRESS: 11920 lr;u4.rv^�, CI�i� T�1��( Lc��i2 _ate >I�C -7"2r-J
DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS OR SERVICE ACTIVITY OFFERED BY THIS BUSINESS:
l�Uh,t'_ Lln� 2i��Gl
TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT:
A. RESIDES ON PREMISE: a
B. RESIDES OFF PREMISE: D
WILL PROPOSED USE GENERATE PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OR DELIVERY
BY MAIL OR COURIER?. YES (i
LIST THE TYPE OF STOCK OR MERCHANDISE TO BE STORED ON THE PREMISE:
SMS-, t �p nc�jPdyl C e H Che T
LIST ANY SERVICES OR REPAIRS DONE ON THE PREMISES:
WHATp TYPE OF BUSINESS ADVERTISING.IS PROPOSED:
puts! heSS Cl/(vdt'�.yi1^ f�'i/f e,at
TOTAL SQUARE. FOOTAGE OF DWELLING UNIT:
TOTAL. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF DWELLING UNIT DEVOTED TO BUSINESS: 7 G G
PLEASE USE TH S SPACE FOR ANY COMMENTS OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
//
PROPERTY ZONED: _ Z�
INSPECTOR'S NAME:
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION.PPROVED DISAPPROVED
p'ld �Y>tiAIA GB,S l�%C1 t� 1/?. 0 ' ` _.-rL
f<fo Sti� vutl G.i CHAIRMAN DATE
MOTE
APPLICANT SHOULD BE APPRISED THAT HE/SHE SHOULD INVESTIGATE ANY "BILL
OF ASSURANCE", RESTRICTIONS PLACES ON THIS PROPERTY.
MATERIAL PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION IS PRELIMINARY AND, ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE COMMITTEE.
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE RECEIVED, READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE
RESTRICTION ON THE USE OF MY RESIDENCE FOR A HOME OCCUPATION.
APPLI ANT'S SIGNATURE- ( Z,
DATE
Mar 15 04 11:16a CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
501 371 4569 P.7
EtlTreasury
Maaageasent Division
100 Ck, Hall
300 W Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
ACCOURt #:
(} L
Classiflcatiore gD
%
Amount Dtx:---�.r —ry,�—
—76
APPLICATION FOR BUSINESS
LICENSE
�
For questions about the application, call 371-4645 or 371-4438.
For qucstions about zoning or sign permits call 371-4844.
ee tollowmg:
NEW eedtto oIt BUSINESS _CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP EXISTING BUSINESS CHANGE OF ADDRESS
At 770N FOR A HOME-&4SED BUS/.NFSSMUST BF A1.4DF /.V PF-W.VA T ZONING, LOC:4TED AT 723 W. MARABAA/.
A NAME OF BUSINESS: T 0.1 C T t y
B. ACTUAL BUSINESS STARTUP DATE•: MONTH O L -F DAY _J_ YEAR DO -PLEASE LIST THE DATE
THE BUSINESS STARTED OPERATION. NOT THE INCORPORATION, CONTRACT. OR SETUP DATE.
NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES I_
C. FORM OF BUSINESS: _CORPORATION _SOLE PROPRIETOR X PARTNERSHIP _OTHER
D. PRESENT BUSINES,SS LOCATION: 10 C Oil s—t ✓ N L I L ip 2114
crrY:L1+41,? KOLk STATFf 41f- 7V zo PHONE:'FAx:
E-MAIL ADDRESS: J aer Ce 1 +01-. A jXQ l , i. D I
E, MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY: STATE. 7JP
F. PREVIOUS BUSINESS LOCATION:
CITY: STATE 7JP PHONE FAX
G. BUS24FM OWNER'S NAME: Jr 0.e �.n wY Af i; —r,
w�. PHONE: �4 ! Y$'S FAX
HOME ADDRESS: yf %D C uy kJej; i 1 tel, 81 wd. CITY: L � Pfit Qct.K STATE: A -e—_ ZIP: L 2- s,7
SEX: MALE. .FEMALE „RACE
H. BUSINESS OWNER'S SOCIAL SECIIRTTY#:�h�_S1 5v3'l— r
t Z- DATE OF BIRTH: iir
t. .L 1,117
L IESCRIPIION OF BUSINESS: 9 WL t i L♦ Py I N:4
DOES YOUR BUSINESS MAINTAN.NVENTORY? JlYES••• XNa
'-IF YES. LIST THE AMOLNTOF BEGINNING INVENTORY:
DOES YOUR BUSINESS SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS? _YES —)(—NO
DOES YOUR BUSINESS SELL ANY TYPE. OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE? _YES X NO
3. PROPERTY OWNER'SNAME: 'Ke i L. L eAl( e- PHONE:L-L.L'- JE—FAX:
K. ARE YOU CURRENTLY NVOLVED WITH OR DO YOU PLAN ANY CONSTRUCTION OR REMODELING AT THIS
LOCATION A- YES _NO y
EXPLAIN: A 41 C1 \ }'T U C, -O
L DO YOU STORE OR STOCK FLAMMABtdi OR FXPLOSIVE MA IA1S? NO NOTE TYPE& QUANTiTffS:
NOTL: A FALSE STATEMENT OR MISREPRESENTATION MAY MAKE: TNF: LR:ENSE NULL AND VOID AND CONSTTITIIE
FORFEITURE OF ANY FEES PAID. eP4— / l
SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR REPRFSENTATI DATE: [ r'I 7
................................................ ...........
MR OEME III= ONLY- • a • • � �
PROPEM IS ZONED _
PROPOSEDUSE I APPROVE,6*6R.4J
PROPOSED USE /S AUSE P.ozs..0 Jn . , e.+ q A I.. i+ ! , .. „-�S Al n _�, c n -,OC.
ZONING OFFICIAL V .,-4 hr — DATE `7 /,- z /n R
CONTACTED BY: DATE. ACCOUNT #
..........•...........................................................................•..
P . r NOTE:
1. W YOU ARE NO LONGER IN RMNIM, PLEASE. SEND WRT
2 IF YOUR BUSINESS LOCATION CHANGE& PLEASE COMPL
1 �j1Qe¢WILL RE ISSl�FJ1T0 al�SA`F_tiSiS YAf1.1NC TO—_� .� � _
April 26, 2C
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-7611
Central Arkansas Water
West side of Highway 300, between Pence
Drive and Mantle Lane (Lake Maumelle)
R-2 and OS
A variance is requested from the fence
provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a
fence which exceeds the maximum height
allowed.
The applicant's justification is presented
in an attached letter.
Watershed
Watershed
1. Highway 300 is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial with a future right-of-way of 55 feet from centerline. We
recommend the fence be placed at the future right-of-way line.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2/OS zoned property along the west side of Highway 300, between
Pence Drive and Mantle Lane, is occupied by Central Arkansas Water
facilities and the Lake Maumelle Watershed. Central Arkansas Water
proposes to install approximately 6,200 feet of eight (8) foot high, black
vinyl coated, chain link fence (with security wire). The north section of
fence is proposed to run parallel to and one (1) foot back from the
Highway 300 right-of-way. The south section is proposed to run parallel to
and 21 feet back from the Highway 300 right-of-way, with the fence
running west (200 feet north of Pence Drive) for a short distance. In
response to Home Land Security, Central Arkansas Water conducted a
survey which recommended the proposed security fence.
April 26, 20�u,
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.)
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, in residential zones. Other fences may be
constructed to a height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow the eight (8) foot high security fence.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The black vinyl coated
fence as proposed should prove to be very unobtrusive. There appear to
be no single family homes abutting the east side of Highway 300, across
from the proposed fence location. The majority of the property across
Highway 300 is State Parks property. As noted in paragraph A. of this
report, Public Works suggests that the fence be located at least 55 feet
back from the centerline of Highway 300. Staff contacted Joseph O'Hara,
of Central Arkansas Water, and informed him of the comment. He
expressed no problem with conforming to the request. Staff feels that the
proposed fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or
general area. As noted earlier, the proposed security fence is part of
Home Land Security to aid in the protection of the Lake Maumelle
watershed.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence variance, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works comment, as noted in paragraph A.
of the staff report.
2. The fence must be of black vinyl coated material.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2004)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
K
CENTRAL
A�ZKANSAS
WATER
March 25, 2004
Mr. Monte Moore
Office of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Security Fence Installation
Project No. 1863 (34A)
Attached is an overall map of the above reference project.
This project involves installing approximately 6,200' of 8' chain link fence,
black vinyl coated with barbed tape strung along the top. The fence is to
parallel the west Right of Way along Hwy 300. The installation will start
approximately 200' north of Pence Drive and continue north to the Spillway
overpass just south of Mantle Lane, Little Rock.
This fence has been recommended'as part of a survey Central Arkansas
Water has had done in response to Home Land Security. We are currently
advertising this project and plan on taking bids on April 1, 2004. We ask to
be placed on the April 26, 2004 Little Rock Board of Adjustment meeting to
comply with zoning in this area. Certified notices will be sent to property
owners and postmaster receipts will be sent in your attention shortly.
If you have any questions or need more information, please call me at 223-1579
or on my cell phone 680-.0386.
CENTRAL ARKANSAS WATER
Joseph T: O'Hara, Erlgi—eer
1500 WEST MARYLAND AVENUE • NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72120 • (501) 834-8900
D �f
[_ ❑.�1.�u p Y061Y
0�\f /
o °a yi
m.
ES EB
U —i
ZJ
Uj LU 0 W
41
CA
�LL2
< >. Z
MW= +
4 11
U Ye
!
�
V� �f
D �f
[_ ❑.�1.�u p Y061Y
0�\f /
o °a yi
m.
ES EB
41
�•�� 4
F
co�
�
•
-
o
71
ra
9
April 26, 2C_
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.: Z-7612
Owner: Billy Hartness Construction Co.
Address: 200 Weston Court
Description: Lot 18, Block 16, Villages of Wellington
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:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented
in an attached letter.
Single Family residence under construction.
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 200 Weston Court is occupied by a two-story
brick single family residence which is currently under construction. The
property is bounded by Weston Court, Weston Place and Wellington
Village Road. There is a three -car driveway from Weston Place which
serves as access. There is a 25 foot platted building line along the north,
east and south property lines (the three street frontages).
The applicant proposes to construct a six (6) foot high wood privacy
fence, extending from the home to and along the north (Wellington Village
Road) and east property lines. The proposed fence will enclose the rear
yard area, with a portion of it being located between the 25 foot platted
building lind and the north (Wellington Village Road) property line.
April 26, 20U-+
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.)
Section 36-516 (e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum
fence height of four (4) feet for fences located in residential zones
between building setback lines and street rights-of-way. Other fences
may be erected to a maximum height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot fence height
between the platted building line and the Wellington Village Road side
property line.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the variance
is very minor in nature. The houses along the north side of Weston Court
back up to Wellington Village Road, therefore the proposed fence will
have a rear yard relationship with the property immediately to the east.
The applicant submitted a letter from the Villages of Wellington
Architectural Review Committee approving of the proposed fence. The
Committee noted that the finished side of the fence must face out. Staff
feels that the proposed fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent
property or general area.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence variance, subject to
the following conditions:
1. A building permit must be obtained.
2. The finished side of the fence must face outward.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2004)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
2
:f4l,- 4 7
23 March 04
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning & Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
Re: Variance Request for Privacy Fence Construction
Dear Sirs:
Attached you will find our application for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance relative to the construction of a privacy fence at 200 Weston Court, Villages
of Wellington subdivision, Little Rock.
As we understand the zoning ordinance, without the requested variance, we are allowed
to construct either 1) a 4 -foot fence along the line between the IP points or 2) a 6 -foot
fence at the 25 -foot building line.
The Villages of Wellington Architectural Committee has approved the fence construction
at the 6 -foot IP line on the property, however advised us that since this is a corner lot, a
fence at this boundary is limited to 4 -feet, unless a variance is granted. Their approval is
attached also.
There are several reasons that we would like to construct a 6 -foot fence instead of a 4 -
foot:
1. Privacy
Given that the residence backs up to a main road (Wellington Village Road), a
privacy fence is necessary to ensure a reasonable degree of privacy.
2. Practicality
The area enclosed by a 6 -ft fence at the 25' building line encloses a small and not
very useable portion of the backyard of the residence. Much of the site would be
outside the fence, and not utilized. Additionally, we believe this would have an odd
appearance.
3. `Aesthetics
We believe that a 6 -ft natural wood privacy fence will blend better with other fence
structures in the neighborhood. The residence immediately to the south will have a 6 -
ft fence to which this proposed fence will adjoin.
Privacy Fence Zoning Ordinance Variance Request Page 1
4. Pets
The proposed 6 -ft fence will allow adequate space for our dogs in the backyard. We
have legitimate concern that the dogs might jump over a 4 -ft fence. If a variance is
not granted and a 4 -ft fence is constructed, it will likely be necessary to have a dog
run line in order to make sure the dogs do not get out of the backyard.
5. Visibility
Given the portion of the lot that extends to the street to the north of the residence,
visibility is not impeded as a vehicle approaches the comer, from either Wellington
Village Road or Weston Place (see photographs pages 4 and 5).
6. 50 Foot Triangle
While obtaining the variance request packet, I was made aware of the "50 foot
triangle" requirement. The fence as drawn on Page 3 does not enter into the 50 ft
triangle, if we have found and measured. correctly from the IP marker at the northeast
comer of the site.
We are hopeful for an approval of this request and will satisfy the requirements for
notice forms and posting of the zoning variance sign.
Respectfully,
Greg McKee
�
5 CmbyCout
Little Rock, AR 72211
501.765.7197 (cell)
501.227.0408 (home)
Privacy Fence Zoning Ordinance Variance Request Page 2
02/19/04 09:31 ( 5501 663 4456 WINROCK ENT.
The Villages of Wellington
Architectural Review
Name: 121
Lot:
dock: rip
Address: goa (&ez; jW �
Date Plans and Specifications were received: 2 •/'7- Q -
X1002/003
-- - 7
77�fa-
General Description:6-P, Aja X- ,fy� dear c e - -F:�_ . �s�, 2 �
Heated and Cooled Square Foo'fage:
Foundation Veneer.
Roof Pitch:
Roofing Material:
Elevations:
Siding Material:
Soffit, fascia, frieze, roof trim:
Chimney:
Other: -re Nr e 1.4 C a 4- ? b,v A- .MO w $1��
The Villages of Wellington Community Association Architectural Review Committee
bas reviewed the above referenced plans and specifications in accordance with the
Declaration of Covera its and Restrictions.
The proposed plans and specifications axe:
Approved X
Date: _ a .-/6P �f-
04;�-
April 26, 20u,
ITEM NO.: 8
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
0
Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7613
Robert & M. Renee Trammell
3 Falata Court
Lot D-29, Block 13, Chenal Valley Addition
..N
A variance is requested from the building
line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a
step structure which crosses a platted
building line.
The applicant's justification is presented
in an attached letter.
Single Family residence under construction.
Single Family Residential
The PRD zoned property at 3 Falata Court is occupied by a two-story
single family residence which is under construction. Access to the site is
by way of a platted access easement which runs along the north property
line. There is a 10 foot front platted building line along the south property
line. The platted building lines within this subdivision were approved as
part of the PRD (Planned Residential Development) zoning for the
property.
The single family home under construction has a front porch at the
southeast corner of the structure. The porch is located 5.5 feet back from
the front platted building line, and is approximately 5 feet above grade.
The applicant proposes to construct an uncovered step structure
April 26, 2L -r
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.)
extending from the porch, across the building line, to near the front
property line. The proposed step structure will be located within one (1)
foot of the front property line.
Section 31-12(c) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that
encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by
the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the step encroachment.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Although staff typically does
not support structures located this close to front property lines, staff
supports this specific proposal. After close review of the proposal, staff
determined that the proposed step structure will not be out of character
with the abutting property.
The home immediately west of this property is the only other structure on
the north side of Falata Court which fronts this street. The next property
further west is located within the curve at the end of the street, and the
home immediately to the east faces Falata Circle to the east. Because
Falata Court runs west at a slight angle to Falata Circle, the home
immediately west appears to be located 5 to 6 feet closer to the front
property line than the front of the home in question. Therefore the
proposed step structure will have the appearance of extending no closer
to the front property line than the home to the west. Staff feels that the
proposed step structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent
property or 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 front building line for
the proposed step structure. 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 Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted
building line as approved by the Board.
2. The step structure must remain uncovered and unenclosed on all
sides.
3. A building permit must be obtained for the construction.
2
April 26, 200-+
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2004)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
3
z�--7b/3
Robert D. Trammell 2-
22021 Denny Road Little Rock Arkansas 72223 USA rdt®alltel.net
501690 7373 cell . 8216662 fax 223 3100 firm
To: Board of Adjustment March 25, 2004
Via:. Monte Moore
Re: #3 Falata Court - Lot D-29 Block 13 Chenal Valley
This application is to permit steps descending from the
front porch to be outside the building envelope.
1.. The structure is in a small -lot, "empty nester'
neighborhood, and is designed to be sufficient even if
disability makes only the first level accessible.
2. The lot has, for this neighborhood, one of the steepest
slopes from back to front. Lowering the house to the
maximum and positioning the porch on the high side
still had the front porch five feet higher than front grade.
See picture A attached. I have to get visitors five feet
higher than the curb over about 26 feet.
2. The intention.was to build steps with a very soft grade
from the curb to the front door. It will be more expensive
and look much better, but I now realize the steps are part
of the house and will be within the front setback.
3. a. The attached picture 'B' is of a similar set of steps
which I plan to pattern after.
b. Pictures "-C & D' reflect that I have -to rise 5 feet
over 26 feet to climb from the curb to the porch.
c. The blueprint excerpt `BP -1 and BP -2' of the front
porch shows the porch being a part of the house main
level and covered by roof. The survey prepared for the
building permit, S-1 and S-2, innocently does not show the
porch and thus the potential need for encroachment.
Only pictures or a topo might have raised a red flag with
zoning during the permit process.
4. The modification will enhance the neighborhood, is
necessary, and will not create any problems.. which
setbacks are designed to avoid.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert D. Trammell
April 26, 20� .
ITEM NO.: 9
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7614
Natasha Marlow
5201 Stonewall Road
Lot 1, Block 25, Newton's Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a
building addition with a reduced side yard
setback.
The applicant's justification is presented
in an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 5201 Stonewall Road is occupied by a one-
story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at
the southwest corner of Stonewall Road and Newton Street. There is an
asphalt area for parking two (2) vehicles along the Newton Street right-of-
way. There is an existing swimming pool within the rear yard.
The applicant proposes to remove an old 700 square foot building
addition from the southeast corner of the house. The applicant then
proposes to construct a new 1,600 square foot (one-story) addition on the
rear of the structure, extending into the rear yard and along the east side
of the existing swimming pool. The main addition will be located 4.4 to 4.5
feet from the west (side) property line. It will be located 25.5 feet from the
rear property line. A small covered porch (unenclosed) will be located on
April 26, 20L .
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.)
the east side of the addition, adjacent to the paved parking area. The
porch will be located 1.2 feet from the east (side) property line.
Section 36-254 (d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
five (5) foot side yard setback for this 50 foot wide residential lot. As
noted previously, the building addition will be located 4.4 to 4.5 feet from
the west (side) property line, with the covered porch being 1.2 feet from
the east (side) line. The main building addition will maintain
approximately the same side yard setbacks as the existing house.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance
standard.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the variance as
very minor in nature. The main portion of the addition encroaches only a
few inches into the required side yard along the west property line. The
remainder of the main addition conforms to ordinance requirements. The
small porch (5' x 14') should prove to be fairly unobtrusive, as long as it
remains unenclosed. Staff feels that the proposed building addition will
have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The porch addition must remain unenclosed on the north, south and
east sides.
2. No steps will be allowed to extend from the porch to the east.
3. A building permit must be obtained for all construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: . (APRIL 26, 2004)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
2
March 26, 2004
Dear Board of Adjustments of the City of Little Rock,
My husband, Cary Marlow, and I are requesting a zoning variance for our home
located at 5201 Stonewall Road, Little Rock. We are planning to renovate our home by
tearing down 700 square feet that is an addition of our home and adding approximately
1600 square feet. The reason for tearing down the addition is to be able to obtain a
termite policy for our home. We will be building up the house to where it is all one level.
We are requesting a variance because we would be encroaching on the normal
required setback of the side yard. This area is close to our parking pad and we would like
to use it as our main entrance.
On the west side the addition would be between 4.4 feet and 4.5 feet of the
property line rather than the full 5 feet. We will have an entrance on the East side of the
home that will serve as our main entrance.
Sincerely,
xa&��A
Natasha M. Marlow
April 26, 2L .
ITEM NO.: 10
File No.: Z-7615
Owner: James Terry
Address: 2317 East 6th Street
Description: The west 25 feet of Lot 15, Block 8, East
End Addition
Zoned: 1-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-321 to allow
construction of a building with reduced
setbacks.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented
in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Vacant Commercial Building
Proposed Use of Property: Office
STAFF REPORT
n
Public Works Issues:
1. Drainage and Grading plans must be approved by Public Works
Engineering, David Hamilton (501) 244-5402, prior to construction. Do
not obstruct drainage from adjacent property to the west and the ditch
located in the 7th Street right-of-way.
Landscape and Buffer Issues:
Area set aside for buffers and landscaping appear to meet with ordinance
requirements.
C. Staff Anal:
The 1-3 zoned property at 2317 E. 6th Street is occupied by a one-story
frame commercial building which is in a state of disrepair. The property is
located at the southwest corner of E. 6th and Calhoun Streets. The site
April 26, 26
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.)
contains no off-street parking. The remainder of the property is mostly
grass covered. The lot has dimensions of 25 feet wide and 144 feet deep.
The lot was originally platted as 50 feet wide, but the east 25 feet of the
lot was taken for Calhoun Street right-of-way at some point in the past.
The applicant proposes to remove the existing structure and construct a
20 foot by 30 foot building within the north '/2 of the property for use as an
office. The building will be located 40 feet from the front property line and
5 feet from the side (west) property line. The applicant proposes to locate
the building on the east property line with a 0 side setback.
As part of the lot redevelopment, the applicant proposes to construct two
(2) paved parking spaces on the south side of the proposed building. The
parking will be accessed by way of a new drive from Calhoun Street. The
proposed use of the building as office requires one (1) off-street parking
space.
Section 36-321(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
front setback off 50 feet. Section 36-321(e)(2) requires side yard
setbacks (east and west sides) of 30 feet. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting variances from these ordinance standards.
Staff does not support the requested variances. Although staff recognizes
the fact that the right-of-way dedication for Calhoun Street cut the size of
the lot in half some time in the past, staff has informed the applicant that
the appropriate way to request a re -development plan for the property
would be through the PZD (Planned Zoning Development) rezoning
process. However, the applicant chose to file a variance application to the
Board of Adjustment. Staff's main reason for requesting the PZD process
be used is so that the use of the property could be tied down. The
applicant is proposing office use for the building. Other 1-3 permitted uses
(such as warehouse) require more parking. The Board of Adjustment
does not handle use issues and cannot restrict the use of the proposed
building, as the zoning controls the use. Staff suggests that the applicant
file a PZD rezoning application for the property, so that the use issues, as
well as other possible site design issues, can be addressed.
D. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variances.
2
April 26, 20(�- .
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 26, 2004)
The applicant requested to defer the application to the May 26, 2004 agenda,
based on the fact that only three (3) Board members were present. The Board
offered the deferral at no charge to the applicant.
A motion was made to defer the application to the May 26, 2004 agenda. The
motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was
deferred.
3
AMARcHrrEcTuRE, INC.
401 Main Street
North Little Rock, AR 72114
26 March 2004
City of Little Rock
Board of Adjustment
Department of Planning and development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: 2317 West 6`h Street
Dear Sir or Madam:
We have been contracted by Mr. James Terry to provide architectural services for his
property at 2317 E. 6th Street. To date, we have completed a site study and have made
our recommendations to Mr. Terry.
The existing structure, as shown on the survey will require a large budget to renovate and
bring to code standards. For this reason, Mr. Terry would like to re -develop the site, as
shown on Ate. However, existing side setback requirements overlap and
preclude any new development of the site.
At this point, Mr. Terry would like to request a variance of side setbacks, as shown on
Al- - one being adjacent to the property on the west and the other being a side street
setback to the east.
We would request that the matter be added to the 26 April 2004 agenda.
Sincerely,
Andrew F. McCauley, AIA
h: 501.374.5500 Fx: 501.374.5501
www.amarchitecture.com
April 26, 26, .
ITEM NO.: 11
File No.: Z-7616
Owner: Comcast
Address: 1020 W. 4th Street
Description: Northeast corner of W. 4th and Ringo
Streets
Zoned: UU
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the
development provisions of Section 36-
342.1 to allow a ground -mounted 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:
1. Place signs out of the street right-of-way.
B. Staff Anal:
The UU zoned property at 1020 W. 4th Street is occupied by a four (4)
story office building. There is parking along the north, east and west sides
of the building, with access drives from W. 3rd, Ringo and W. 4th Streets.
The building occupant, Comcast Cable, recently installed two (2) ground -
mounted signs along the west (Ringo Street) property line within
landscaped areas. The larger sign is located at the northwest corner of
the property, and has a height of eight (8) feet and an area of 40 square
feet. This is the main identification sign for the property. The smaller sign
is also located along the west property line, and serves as a directional
(entrance) sign. Both signs appear to be located relatively close (within a
foot or two) to the west property line.
April 26, 2�,
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.)
Section 36-342.1(c)(11) of the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits ground -
mounted signs within the UU (Urban Use) zoning district. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a variance to allow the signs.
Although staff is not opposed to the applicant having signage so that their
customers can locate and identify the property, staff has some concerns
with the specific proposal. Typically when ground -mounted signs are
allowed in the UU district, they must conform to the office standards as
found in Section 36-553 of the Ordinance. This section allows ground -
mounted signs with maximum heights of six (6) feet and maximum areas
of 64 square feet. Signs must also be located at least five (5) feet back
from property lines.
Therefore, staff could support the larger identification sign if it were
reduced two (2) feet in height and moved back at least five (5) feet from
the west property line. Additionally, the smaller directional sign must be
also be moved back at least five (5) feet from the west property line. The
size of the directional sign conforms to the ordinance allowance for
incidental signage.
C. Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends denial of the sign variance, as requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: . (APRIL 26, 2004)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the
May 26, 2004 agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to complete
the required notifications to abutting property owners.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred as recommended
by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
2
03/25/2804 15:1; 8707931944
DODD SIGNS, INC.
701 Harrison St Batesville, AR
870.793-4424
3-28-04
TO THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
VARIANCE COMMITTEE:
PACE 02
72501
WE ARE WRITING THIS LETTER TO REQUEST A VARIANCE ON 2 SIGNS AT COMCAST
CABLE WHERE THEY RECENTLY MOVED TO THEIR NEW LOCATION AT 3RD & RINGO.
THE TWO SIGNS ARE LOCATED ON RINGO STREET AT THE ENTRANCE OF THEIR
CUSTOMER PARKING, ONE SIGN IS AN IDENTIFICATION SIGN AND ONE IS A
DIRECTIONAL SIGN. THESE SIGNS ARE NEEDED IN ORDER FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS TO
BE ABLE TO LOCATE THEM AND BE DIRECTED TO THE RIGHT OFFICE.
THEY ARE THE SAME SIGNAGE THAT COMCAST USES AT OTHER LOCATIONS.
THE SIGNS ARE ATTRACTIVE AND DO NOT BLOCK VISION OF TRAFFIC AND SUIT THE
ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED,
WHEN WE WERE NOTIFIED OF THEIR MOVE AND THE NEED FOR NEW SIGNAGE, WE
CHECKED ON CITY PERMITS AND WERE TOLD THAT NONE WERE NEEDED BECAUSE
THE SIGNS WERE NOT ELECTRICAL, AND THEREFORE WE BEGAN WORKING ON THE
PROJECT. AFTER THE JOB WAS COMPLETED, WE WERE INFORMED THAT THERE
HAD BEEN CHANGES MADE IN REGULATIONS RESTRICTING THE USE OF MONUMENT
SIGNS THAT WE WERE UNAWARE OF. SINCE THESE SIGNS ARE NEEDED BY
COMCAST, WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU WOULD GRANT A VARIANCE AND ALLOW
THESE SIGNS TO REMAIN.WE REGRET THAT THERE WERE ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS
AND WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND HELP tN THIS MATTER.
SINCERELY,
n
TOM DODD
DODD SIGNS, INC.
amen
�A
Six
0
I
z
W
coQ
ol
W
z
W
4
April 26, 2004
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
2:28 p.m.
Date:
Chairman
Secretary