Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_06 30 2003LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JUNE 30, 2003 2:00 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the May 28, 2003 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present Members Absent: William Ruck, Chairman Fred Gray Andrew Francis Terry Burruss Scott Richburg, Vice Chairman City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA JUNE 30, 2003 2:00 P.M. NEW ITEMS: 1. Z -6689-D 300 President Clinton Avenue 2. Z -7090-A Southeast corner West 3rd and Broadway Streets 3. Z -7384-A 4923 Stonewall Street 4. Z-7414 3719 West 11 t" Street 5. Z-7423 5412 Centerwood Road 6. Z-7424 5304 Crestwood Drive 7. Z-7425 307 President Clinton Avenue 8. Z-7426 3400 Ludwig Street 9. Z-7427 326 President Clinton Avenue 10. Z-7428 5517 Country Club Blvd. co 0O ■ L — a3lzvad cz nnvellu ` O — �vb�r W W U 4--Jgp�p w o � MOD NIVW AVMOtl0a8 H�atl N01,yp 53HO ONIH lW a3H380 — o M � $ i — \R�SpN Mo �MOa000M _ _ � 3NId 133t/IS 3NId y�b'b e aV0 0 N011MV 1100S H �i O Natld a1tl3 y �' r� r /, AlU MNn J € AlISi13M1IN0 SOM&S 83AM S3HOOH u IddISS IW d� a6 1001H0 SOA8328 M086V9 N140r 3 6 c� 3NN13H — 0i10331N0VHS SQVSo — o� WVHaVd A3NOON o m s ■-1 LL tea' Nd oe � — slirin Allo x 300% AWN NJb0j3�b1s o pRe�� v .N 6� GA�SZPL zy� d NVAIllnS 18tlM315 V^` ysd'6 O S1IWIl Allo C �Ol/b 31tlON933 O m June 30, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 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. Landscape and Buffer Issues: •�:• Paul Johnson 300 President Clinton Avenue Northeast corner of President Clinton Avenue and LaHarpe Blvd. M A variance is requested from Section 36- 342.1 to allow an outdoor bar/restaurant use in the UU Zoning District. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Restaurant/Bar Restaurant/Bar Insufficient building expansion to require a landscaping upgrade. C. Staff Analysis: Banana Joe's/Margarita Mama's restaurant and bar occupies the building at 300 President Clinton Avenue. The property is located at the northeast corner of President Clinton Avenue and LaHarpe Blvd., and backs up to Riverfront Park. There is an outdoor dining/bar area (patio) at the north end of the building, overlooking the park. An outdoor patio area has existed for some time and was previously used by the Pour House restaurant. June 30, 2003 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) The current tenant, Banana Joe's/Margarita Mama's, recently reconstructed the outdoor patio area, raising it several feet to be level with the building's ground floor. Banana Joe's/Margarita Mama's also recently constructed an unenclosed Cabana Bar within the existing patio area, as shown in the attached photos. The cabana is approximately 10 feet by 20 feet in size, and is located at the northwest corner of the restaurant building. Section 36-342.1(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that all uses within the UU Zoning District be "inside or enclosed". Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. Although an outdoor restaurant/bar patio area existed with the previous occupant (Pour House), the current tenant has added to the use by raising the patio area and constructing the cabana bar structure. To staff's knowledge, the outdoor patio area associated with the Pour House Restaurant pre -dated the current UU Zoning standards. Staff is supportive of the variance to allow the outdoor restaurant/bar seating and cabana bar structure. On May 6, 2003 the River Market Design Review Committee reviewed the outdoor patio/cabana bar area along with other issues associated with exterior fagade colors and window treatments. The DRC approved the outdoor patio/cabana bar area with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 recusal. Staff supports the River Market DRC's vote on this issue, and feels that the outdoor use of the property will not be out -of -character with the overall River Market District. Staff has been made aware of possible building code issues which may exist on the property. The applicant needs to contact Chuck Givens, building official, at 371-4828 to resolve any of these outstanding issues. D. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the outdoor patio/cabana bar use in the UU Zoning District, subject to the following conditions: 1. There is to be no signage attached to the cabana bar structure. 2. The applicant must contact the City's Building Codes division and resolve any outstanding issues. 2 June 30, 2003 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 30, 2003) The applicant was not present. The staff informed the Board that the applicant failed to complete the required notification to surrounding property owners. Staff recommended deferral of the item to the July 28, 2003 agenda. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 28, 2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. '43 H+W + Heiple Wiedower kArchitects Planners May 23, 2003 Mr. Monte Moore Little Rock Dept. of Planning & Development 723 Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Moore, I am representing Banana Joe's/Margarita Mama's property in this request for the use of a freestanding open cabana bar on the patio at the above referenced establishment. This outdoor bar was mistakenly built during the recent renovation of this building without notification or approval. When the mistake was discovered, the applicant went before the River Market DRC and obtained approval for construction from that group. The reason that this, outbuilding was constructed was'to serve the outdoor patrons of this eating establishment. The patio was expanded and elevated making it much more widely utilized. The difficulty in serving the outdoor patrons from a remote, indoor location was very cumbersome and would greatly inconvenience both the patrons and the wait staff. The bar is freestanding, but is located near the building, elevated above the adjacent public property, is behind the required railings and ties into the design motif of the Banana Joe's/Margarita Mama's theme. Since the River Market DRC reviewed and approved this variance, it is our hope that the Board of Adjustment will likewise grant the requested variance. Sincerely, Tim A. Heiple, A.I. Heiple + Wiedower Architects Encl: 319 President Clinton Ave.; Ste. 201 + Little Rock, AR 72201 + (t) 501-707-0115 + (0 501-707-0118 River Market Design Greg Hart, Chairman Millie Ward, Member Review Patty Wingfield, Member Tim Heiple, Member Committee Shannon Jeffery -Light, Member Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 • 501-371-4790 • fax 501-399-3435 May 27, 2003 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Banana Joe's Chairman and Members, The River Market DRC met on May 6, 2003 and reviewed 1) painting of the exterior, 2) outdoor cabana bar and 3) the treatment of the front windows at 300 East President Clinton for Banana Joe's. The DRC did approve the items listed above. The final vote for items 1 and 2 listed above was 4 yes, 0 noes and 1 recusals. The final vote for item 3 listed above was 3 yes, 0 noes, 1 recusals and 1 abstention. Thank you, a-U�c Brian Minyard River Market DRC Staff June 30, 2003 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Z -7090-A Realty Parking Properties Southeast corner of West 3rd and Broadway Streets Lots 1-5, Block 103, Original City of Little Rock UU Variances are requested from the development criteria of Sections 36-342.1 and 36-557 associated with a proposed branch bank development. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Parking Lot Branch Bank 1. Broadway is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required or a waiver from the Board of Directors will be required. 2. Widen 3`d Street to align with existing street section west of Broadway. Provide additional right-of-way as needed at intersection to assure handicap pedestrian access. 3. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Broadway with 3rd and Broadway with 4th 4. The new curb cut on Broadway should be right -in, right -out only. 5. Storm water detention will not apply to the proposed development. June 30, 2003 Item No.: 2 (Cont. 6. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The on-site landscaping perimeter strip width along Third Street drops below the six (6) nine (9) inch minimum allowed by the Landscape Ordinance. Additionally, the width of the interior landscape island within the proposed southern parking lots drops below the five (5) foot seven (7) inch minimum allowed by the Landscape Ordinance. Landscape Ordinance variances require the approval of the City Beautiful Commission. These requirements take into account the reductions allowed within the designated mature area. The Urban Use District Ordinance requires trees with a minimum three (3) inch at planting caliper within the sidewalks along both Broadway and Third Streets. These trees are required to be planted every thirty (30) feet on center. Curb and gutter will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. C. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at the southeast corner of West 3`d and Broadway Streets is occupied by a commercial paved parking lot. The applicant, Bank of the Ozarks, proposes to construct a two-story branch bank facility on five (5) of the lots within this half -block. There will be one (1) additional lot within this half -block located between the proposed bank and West 4th Street. The proposed bank building will have drive-thru lanes on its east side, with paved parking on the north and south sides of the building. There are three (3) access drives proposed; one from Broadway at the southwest corner of the development, one from the alley along the east property line, and one from West 3rd Street. The applicant is requesting three (3) variances with the proposed development. Two (2) of the variances are from the UU Zoning District development standards in Section 36-342.1 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, and one (1) variance from the sign provisions of Section 36-557. The requested variances are as follows: 0 June 30, 2003 Item No.: 2 (Cont. #1. Section 36-342.1(c)(3) states that no new drive-through facilities may be visible or take direct access from a primary street. The proposed drive-through bank facility will be visible and take access from Broadway, a primary street according to the Zoning Ordinance. #2. Section 36-342.1(c)(10)(b) states that surface parking is to be located behind or adjacent to a structure, never between the building and abutting street. A portion of the proposed parking will be located between the bank building and West 3`d Street. #3. Section 36-557(a) states that all on -premise wall signs must face required street frontage. The applicant is proposing wall signs on the north, west and south sides of the building. The signage will conform with ordinance standards, with the exception of the wall sign on the south side of the building. There is a lot between this property and West 4th Street, and therefore the sign on the south building fagade has no direct street frontage. The applicant is currently working with the Public Works Department on requesting waivers or deferrals on the required right-of-way dedication for Broadway and the West 3rd Street improvements. These issues will be worked out administratively or taken to the Board of Directors for approval. No action is required by the Board of Adjustment. The applicant has stated that all other UU Zoning District development criteria will be complied with. The applicant has also stated that the landscape and buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of this report and the remaining Public Works requirements will be adhered to. As noted in the applicant's cover letter, the driveway from Broadway will be right-in/right-out only. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the variances as requested are reasonable. In most areas of Downtown Little Rock it would be difficult to develop a branch bank location with drive- through lanes and conform to all of the UU Zoning District Standards. Additionally, staff supports the sign variance based on the fact that the applicant is proposing wall signs on three (3) sides of the building in lieu of a combination of wall signs and a ground -mounted sign (which would not be permitted in the UU Zoning District). Staff believes that the proposed branch bank development will have no adverse impacts on the adjacent properties and be a quality redevelopment of property in the downtown area. 3 June 30, 2003 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) D. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. The issues related to right-of-way dedication for Broadway and Street improvements for West 3`d Street must be resolved prior to a building permit being issued. 2. All other Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of this report must be complied with. 3. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of this report. 4. Compliance with all other UU Zoning District develop criteria as noted in Section 36-342.1 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 30, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 0 McGETR/CK McGETKlCK ENGINEERS - PLANNER5 - OURVEYOR5 �--747 2 - June 18, 2003 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Planning and Development 725 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: 3rd & Broadway Board of Adjustment Dear Mr. Moore, We are requesting the approval of a bank facility with drive up lanes on this site. The property is currently zoned W. We would request the following variances. 1) Parking on the North side of the building between the proposed building and the street. 2) Drive thru lanes visible to an adjoining street. 3) A sign on the South side of the proposed building, meeting the requirements for signage. 4) We would request a waiver of the street right-of-way dedication on Broadway. It is our understanding that the Public Works Department is going to amend the master street plan in the Downtown area to meet current right-of-way widths. 5) We would also request that the widening of Third Street East of Broadway not be required. Third Street East of Broadway is the same width for its entire length. Widening only half a block would create a difficult lane transition in mid -block. 6) We will sign the drive on Broadway to be a right out only. We are attaching a sight plan showing the proposed facility. If you have any questions or co�t� rding this matter, please advise. incerely, McGetrick & McGetrick, Inc. a nc MUMM W!'reeldent Clinton Ave. (Market Row) #202 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501-223-9900 fax 501-223-9293 June 30, 2003 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z -7384-A Owner: Creative Heights Partners, LLC Address: 4923 Stonewall Street Description: Part of Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 28, Newton's Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Sections 36-156 and 36-254, and the fence/wall provisions of Section 36-516 associated with the reconstruction of a single family residence. 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. Single Family Structure under reconstruction Single Family Residential 1. Public Works does not support the construction of walls or fences in the public right-of-way of Jackson Street. 2. Remove the existing picket fence from the Stonewall Street right-of- way or obtain a franchise agreement with Public Works. 3. The driveway should be constructed to meet Stonewall with 15 degrees +/- of a right angle. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per ordinance. 4. A residential curb cut permit will be required prior to construction. Contact Public Works Traffic Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield). June 30, 2003 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 4923 Stonewall Street contains a single family structure which is currently under reconstruction. The Board of Adjustment recently approved setback variances associated with a garage extension at the northeast corner of the residential structure. The applicant, along with the Planning Staff, has determined that additional variances are needed for other aspects of the reconstruction. The first requested variance is from Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. This section requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet from the front property line. The applicant is proposing a front entry (porch and steps) which will be located approximately 15 feet back from the front property line. The second requested variance is from Section 36-156(a) b. and c. for a proposed 14 foot by 14 foot trellis structure at the northwest corner of the residence, within the side yard area. These sections require a minimum front yard setback of 60 feet, a minimum street side yard setback of 15 feet and a minimum separation from the principal structure of six (6) feet. The proposed trellis will be located approximately 22 feet from the front property line, 2'/z feet from the street side (west) property line and separated from the main structure by approximately five (5) feet. The next requested variance is from the fence/wall height requirements of Section 36-516(e)(1)a. This section allows a maximum fence/wall height of four (4) feet between a building setback line and a street right-of-way. Because of the existing grade of the property, the driveway which serves the new garage area will be sloped upward from Stonewall Street, with a retaining wall along the east side of the driveway. The wall will have a height of approximately six (6) feet at the northeast corner of the house, decreasing as the wall runs northward to Stonewall Street. The last requested variance is also from the fence/wall height requirements of Section 36-516(e)(1)(a). This section allows a maximum fence/wall height of four (4) feet between a building setback line and a street right-of-way, and six (6) feet elsewhere on the property. The applicant is requesting a six (6) foot high wood fence extending from the northwest corner of the house west into the Jackson Street right-of-way. There would be a six (6) foot high masonry wall running from the corner of the fence southward within the Jackson Street right-of-way. The existing three (3) foot high picket fence located between the house and Stonewall Street will be removed. 2 June 30, 2003 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) Staff supports the requested variances, except for the variance to allow the six (6) foot fence and wall to extend into the Jackson Street right-of- way. Staff believes that this type of fence/wall construction should not extend into a street right-of-way for public safety reasons. Staff could support the six (6) foot high fence/wall turning and running along the west property line and not in the right-of-way. Otherwise, staff is prepared to support the other requested variances. If approved, the applicant will need to conform with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of this report. A franchise permit will need to be obtained for any portion of the retaining wall (associated with the new driveway) which extends into the Stonewall Street right-of-way. Additionally, any portion of the front porch/steps area which extends into the required 25 foot front yard setback cannot be covered or enclosed. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the variances, as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 30, 2003) Gary Pursell was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with recommendations of approval on all of the variances, except the variance to allow the six-foot high fence to extend into the Jackson Street right-of-way. Gary Pursell addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that there were other fences and structures in the area which were close to the street rights-of-way or possibly extended into them. This issue was briefly discussed. He presented photos of other properties to the Board. He explained that the reason for the proposed fence placement was to maximize the size of the courtyard on the west side of the house. Fred Gray expressed concern with the height of the fence and its close proximity to Jackson Street. He noted concern with pedestrian traffic. This issue was discussed. Chairman Ruck also expressed concern with a fence being located in the right-of-way. Andrew Francis discussed the Public Works Comments, specifically the comment relating to the angle the driveway intersected with Stonewall Street. It was noted that Stonewall dead -ended to the east, just past this property, and that the proposed angle of intersection shouldn't be a problem. 9 June 30, 2003 No.: 3 (Cont. Mr. Pursell discussed planting shrubs and/or trees between the west property line and the Jackson Street pavement. Staff noted that this would require a franchise permit. There was a motion to approve the variance for the retaining wall height along the proposed driveway, without regard to Public Works Comment #3 (as noted in paragraph A. of the agenda report). The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. There was a second motion to approve the variance for the reduced front yard setback for the porch and steps, subject to none of the porch and steps located within the front 25 feet being covered or enclosed. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. There was a third motion to approve the setback variances associated with the trellis structure. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. There was a fourth motion to approve the height variance for the fence running from the northwest corner of the building to the west property line. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The final motion was to approve the fence height variance for the fence extending into the Jackson Street right-of-way. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent. n �Z- 73YV To the Board of Adjustments, I am writing to request a variance to the front and side yard setbacks for property located at 4923 Stonewall. A front yard setback for a garage extension to this same property has already been approved and in order to keep the driveway from being too steep, I would like to curve the driveway and make it longer. If approved, a gradual rise can be constructed from the street to the garage floor. In order to construct this curve, it will be necessary to build a retaining wall on the east side of the driveway. This will hold back the fill required to raise the driveway. This retaining wall, at its highest point, will be approximately 6 feet high next to the house and then taper off and end as the ground curves around the wall at the street. A retaining wall will be much more appealing to neighbors and to this property as the only other option is to try and slope the dirt from the driveway down to the property line on the east side. I would also like to request a variance to the side yard setback on the west side of the property. This is a corner lot and much of the building area is lost due to the street right of way. The west side, the N. Jackson St. side of the property, has a right of way of 60 feet. This allows for approx. 16 feet of yard from the curb to the property line that can't be used. Due to this right of way, only 8 feet of the 33 foot side yard can be used for construction. I would like to construct a trellis in this side yard area to provide privacy for this house. This requires a side yard variance in order to build to the property line. This will still leave 16 feet of yard between the structure and the street. This property is actually part of 3 lots and the unusual configuration doesn't allow for much building room. I have been able to keep the existing footprint of the original house but would appreciate your consideration for these structural landscaping improvements. S, cereiy, Ga. Pursell Creative Heights Partners June 30, 2003 ITEM NO.: 4 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-7414 Belinda Avery 3719 West 11 th Street Lots 4 and 5, Block 16, Forest Hill Addition Ffm Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-255 to allow an awning (covered patio) addition with a reduced front yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-3 zoned property at 3719 West 11th Street is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family structure. There is a single car driveway from West 11th Street which serves as access. A nonconforming metal carport structure which has existed a number of gears covers the driveway, and extends into the right-of-way of West 11 " Street by approximately 1.3 feet. The carport is located at the northeast corner of the residence, and appears to be attached to the main structure. The applicant recently constructed a 16 foot by 16 foot awning (covered patio) addition on the east side of the metal carport structure. A concrete slab under the structure was recently poured. The awning is wood construction with a metal roof. There is lattice enclosing the east and June 30, 2003 Item No.: 4 (Cont. west sides of the structure, with lattice on a portion of the north side. The applicant has stated that she would like to add lattice to the remainder of the north side. The recently constructed awning follows the same front line as the existing metal carport structure. Therefore, the awning is located 1 — 1.3 feet into the right-of-way of West 11th Street. Section 36-255(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet from the front property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement for the awning (patio cover) structure. Staff does not support the requested front yard setback variance. Staff views the encroachment as unnecessary. The awning (patio cover) extends onto a vacant lot (46 feet by 130 feet) which contains ample space for construction of this type of structure with conformance to the required setbacks. Staff suggests that the applicant consider locating this structure on the east side of the residential structure (attached and at least 25 feet back from the front property line). Staff feels that this could be done with much of the building materials being re -used. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested front yard setback variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 30, 2003) The applicant was present. Staff noted that a variance was needed for the height of a new fence along the east property line, and that the variance had not yet been requested. Staff suggested deferral of the application to the July 28, 2003 agenda to allow the applicant time to revise the application and request a fence height variance. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 28, 2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. K 4a241-- 2003 Y cvvegb&ndenee e6~6 & m4 wee y "w9�(Off Mf intent & 4adorJM4 defakwmf G&wa o".1, Mf �xc at 399 OLwyA� O/Am �6 (Vax�r Daae td ��necc�e �e �%�n��c�xe6 a�tle ��e��/dd�,aac�! �m�t 6e knaurn- t�iat %se tm3o�& wWx�jb&Ay wt&na de a dates a)�bxad/ jn OF a, ��a�l � bia M4 -A,#metc�y. ermeem and tX a a&ad a he&&w. A'a6e de xffnmdeed "t9ie G/ a Aved adoae w& na m# A* me ar t but �r�Gal6� M7jbmm de t�h yot/e A���"6Wwa - June 30, 2003 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-7423 Owner: Steven and Elizabeth Quattlebaum Address: 5412 Centerwood Road Description: Lot 92 and part of Lot 91, Prospect Terrace #2 Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with a reduced rear yard 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: 1. The proposed garage location on the right-of-way of "O" Street creates a traffic hazard when cars back out of the garage. A minimum of 20' clear area is needed from the garage wall to the edge of pavement of "0" Street. 2. The rock wall encroaches into the right-of-way of "O" Street. Remove wall or obtain a franchise agreement with Public Works. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5412 Centerwood Road is occupied by a two- story single family residence. There is an existing driveway (shared with the property to the east) which extends from Centerwood Road to "O" Street, along the property's east property line. There is an existing one- June 30, 2003 Item No.: 5 (Cont. story accessory building near the northeast corner of the property, along the existing driveway. The applicant proposes to remove the accessory building and construct additions to the house, extending to the rear (north) property line. A two- story (18 foot by 23 foot) addition is proposed at the northwest corner of the building, with a one-story addition (22 feet wide) extending 33 feet from the rear of the structure. A 28 foot by 36 foot, 1 '/2 story garage with recreation room is proposed to be attached to the one-story addition. The overall structure will extend from the rear of the house to less than one (1) foot from the rear (north) property line. The applicant proposes direct vehicular access to the garage structure from "O" Street. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 25 foot rear yard setback for this lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for the proposed rear yard setback, which is approximately 1/2 foot. The proposed additions conform to the required side yard setbacks. Staff does not support the requested rear yard setback variance. Staff believes that the proposed building additions will be out of character with the other properties in this general area. Although there are other properties with accessory garage structures which take access from "O" Street or alley rights-of-way in this general area, staff believes that the massing and yard coverage associated with the proposed additions are too intense for this single family neighborhood. Additionally, Public Works notes in paragraph A. of this report that the garage location adjacent to "O" Street could cause a traffic hazard, due to insufficient maneuvering area. A conditional use permit for Forest Park Elementary school (across "O" Street to the north) was recently approved by the Planning Commission. This approval including school parking along the north side of "O" Street, which is currently under construction. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested setback variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 30, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting the application be deferred to the July 28, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 28, 2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIAB=y COMPANY 111 Center Street Suite 1900 Steven W. Quattlebaum Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 quattlebaum@ggtb.com May 23, 2003 Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Application for Residential Zoning Variance for 5412 Centerwood Road Dear Board Members: (501) 379-1700 Telecopier (501) 379-1701 Writer's Direct Dial (501) 379-1707 Please consider this letter to be an addendum to my application for a residential zoning variance. My house is located at 5412 Centerwood Road. Directly behind my house is "O" Street. Centerwood is a street consisting of one block with nine houses on the north side of Centerwood, all of which back up to "O" Street. Four or five of the nine houses have garages that are within the 15 -foot setback allowance from the property line. Two of those garages have been built within the last few years pursuant to variances issued by this Board. My wife and I would like to build a garage at the back of our property, which would be located on a line with all of the other garages along the backside of the properties facing Centerwood and backing up to "O" Street. The garage would be within the 15 -foot setback from the property line, but sufficiently off of "O" Street so as not to cause a traffic problem or traffic hazard. In fact, the garage door will be over eleven feet from the edge of the street. The justification for the setback allowance is that it will allow us to store our automobiles off of the street and enclose our yard equipment and other items. Thus, it will help beautify the neighborhood, and further, it will enhance the property values of the neighborhood. The setback would present a hardship to us in the construction of the garage. If the setback were enforced, the placement of the garage on the lot would be unattractive and would consume most of the backyard of our property. Additionally, the property originally had a garage at the back and currently has a small, frame shed building at the approximate location where the garage will be located. The frame building will be removed. Thus, the construction, while larger, will be consistent with the status quo for this lot and others. Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow PUC Department of Planning & Development Page 2 May 23, 2003 Attached to this letter is a copy of an architectural rendering of the proposed garage and heated and cooled addition to the house that connects to the garage. Also attached are copies of photographs of the subject property and some of the garages of neighboring properties. We respectfully request that this variance be considered at the meeting of the Board scheduled for June 30, 2003, and that the request for variance be approved. If additional information is requested, we will be happy to provide such information. Cordially yours, QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL & BURROW PLLC Steven W. Quattlebaum SWQ/tsr Attachment June 30, 2003 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-7424 Owner: John and Jennifer Harvey Address: 5304 Crestwood Drive Description: Lot 212, Prospect Terrace #3 Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from Section 36- 254 to allow reduced rear and side yard setbacks associated with a proposed building addition. 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 5304 Crestwood Drive is occupied by a two- story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car drive from Crestwood Drive, which serves as access. The main portion of the residential structure is set back approximately 72 feet from the front (south) property line. The applicants propose to construct a 6.5 foot by 10.5 foot building addition (one-story) at the northeast corner of the existing residential structure. The proposed addition would be for the enlargement of the existing master bathroom. The applicants note in the attached letter that the addition would allow the room to be enlarged without making interior structural changes to the existing bedroom/bathroom area. June 30, 2003 ►R.�:1t( WDM , The proposed addition will be located approximately three (3) feet from the side (least) property line and 22 feet from the rear (north) property line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet and Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the variances are very minor in nature. The existing house sits at a slight angle with the side property lines. The side yard setback (east) ranges from 7.5 feet at the southeast corner of the structure to 3.1 feet at the northeast corner of the proposed addition. Therefore, the proposed addition will have a slight corner relation with the east side property line. Staff feels that the reduced side and rear yard setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties on the general area. There should be enough room along the east side of the proposed addition for construction and maintenance without encroaching onto the property to the east. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances subject to a building permit being obtained for the proposed construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 30, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 C To the Board of Adjustments, Z I am writing to request a variance to the side yard and rear yard setbacks at 5304 Crestwood. We would like to enlarge our master bath which is currently located on the northeast corner of the house. The side yard setback has already been encroached because the house was built before the setbacks were in effect. The only option to enlarge the bath is to go straight back. This would continue the existing footprint on the side yard. This addition would also encroach the rear yard setback by approx. 2 feet, so a rear setback variance is also required. If approved, this variance will greatly simplify the expansion of our master bath without having to make interior structural changes to the bedroom. Thank you for your consideration. Siiacerely, G*'L. Pursell Pursell Construction Inc. Acting as agent for Jennifer and Jack Harvey June 30, 2003 ITEM NO.: 7 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-7425 Pressley Melton 307 President Clinton Avenue South side of President Clinton Avenue, between Cumberland and Rock Streets UU A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-353 to allow a projecting sign which does not conform to all of the River Market design standards. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Mixed Use Mixed Use Ernie Bigg's Chicago Style Piano Bar occupies the building at 307 President Clinton Avenue. A projecting sign for the business was recently installed on the building front, between two second floor windows, extending over the sidewalk. The sign is 2 feet by 6 feet and is painted on both sides. The top hanger area on which it was hung was previously used by Starr's Guitars, a second floor use. The sign is not internally lighted. The recently installed projecting sign conforms to all of the River Market Design Overlay District standards except for Section 36-353(e)(1)b., which states the "height of projecting signs shall not extend past the sill of the June 30, 2003 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) second story windows." Therefore the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. The River Market Design Review Committee reviewed the signage at its May 6, 2003 meeting. The projecting sign, as installed, was denied by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 recused. The DRC met again on June 6, 2003 to reconsider the sign issue. At that meeting, the May 6, 2003 vote was expunged, with a second vote taken. The second vote approved the projecting sign, as installed, by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. Staff is supportive of the requested sign variance. Staff feels that the requested projecting sign is reasonable, and will not be out of character with other signs in the River Market District. Staff supports the River Market DRC in their June 6, 2003 vote. Although staff is supportive of the variance request, staff feels that the variance should be for this particular business only (Ernie Bigg's), and when this business vacates the building, the sign should be removed. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance is approved for "Ernie Bigg's Chicago Style Dueling Piano Bar" only. When this business vacates the building, the sign must be removed. 2. A sign permit must be obtained for the sign. 3. A franchise permit must be obtained for the sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 30, 2003) The applicant was not present. The staff informed the Board that the applicant failed to complete the required notification to surrounding property owners. Staff recommended deferral of the item to the July 28, 2003 agenda. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 28, 2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 f j r / ERNIE BIGG'S CHICAGO STYLE DUELING PIANO BAR _ -72 307 President Clinton Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 372-4782 Dear Zoning Commission, It has very recently been brought to our attention that the exterior signage at Ernie Biggs Speakeasy, 307 President Clinton Avenue, has failed to meet your standards. From what we have been told, the sign itself is satisfactory, but there is a problem with where it has been placed. We find this distressing for a couple of reasons. Before the sign was constructed we followed normal procedure to insure that our sign would meet all guidelines. This included shrinking the sign by two feet in length and six inches in width. We were also given location guidelines or parameters, to which we also complied. In fact, we have simply hung the sign in the exact location, from the exact same pole as the previous tenants had hung theirs. This complete adherence to all requests made by local officials is the basis for our confusion and concern. It is important to note that Ernie Biggs leases and utilizes both the top and bottom floors of the Melton building and feel that the sign is currently placed in a centralized locale so as to better make our customers aware that the piano bar downstairs as well as the forthcoming restaurant upstairs are in fact one in the same and also share common ownership. It is not understood why certain parties feel that two different signs forced into this space for the same business is not only necessary, but deemed an improvement. This is not to mention the additional time and significant expense placed on the ownership. We as a whole have gone to great lengths to improve our space while still maintaining the integrity of the River Market District. We respect and agree with the need for "watchdogs" in this area to insure that the area not only gains economic and human density, but that this growth is also channeled in the right direction. In this case however, it is unclear how moving and somewhat hiding this sign down in between the canvas awnings on either side of us will be beneficial to either us as a business or to the aesthetics of the street. Sincere y, ,�� '777/— Jody Thornton T4,, River �Z _ _7 Z 5 Market Design Greg Hart, Chairman Millie Ward, Member Review Patty Wingfield, Member Tim Heiple, Member Committee Shannon Jeffery -Light, Member Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 •50.1-371-4790 • fax 501-399-3435 June 16, 2003 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Ernie Biggs Chicago Style Piano Bar Chairman and Members, The River Market DRC reconsidered its vote of May 6, 2003. It met on June 6, 2003 and reviewed the signage at 307 East President Clinton for the Ernie Biggs Chicago Style Piano Bar. The DRC did approve the projecting sign as installed. The final vote was 5 yes, 0 noes and 0 absent. Thank you, Brian Minyard River Market DRC Staff June 30, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7426 Owner: Calvin Richardson Address: 3400 Ludwig Street Description: Lots 5 and 6, Block 183, John Barrow Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow construction of 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: The concrete block wall encroaches to the center of a platted alley. Action should be taken to close the alley, or set the wall back within the owners property. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 3400 Ludwig Street is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. There is a single car driveway from Ludwig Street. The property slopes from the northeast corner downward to the south and west. There is a newly constructed concrete block retaining wall along the south, west and a portion of the north property lines. The applicant is in the process of filling and leveling the rear yard area. The new retaining wall is located approximately 1 foot inside the south property line and appears to encroach into the alley right-of-way along the June 30, 2003 Item No.: 8 (Cont.) west property line by approximately three (3) feet. A small portion of the wall is located along the north property line at the property's northwest corner. The wall is approximately six (6) feet above grade at the southwest corner of the property. The wall is approximately 1 '/2 feet tall at the southeast corner of the property and 2 — 2 '/2 feet tall at the property's northwest corner. The applicant proposes to construct a six (6) foot wood fence on top of the concrete block wall as shown on the attached site plan, to enclose the rear yard. A four (4) foot high wood fence is proposed on top of the wall between the front building line and the Ludwig Street right-of-way. As viewed from the property immediately to the south, the fence/wall will have a height of approximately 12 feet at the southwest corner of the property (3400 Ludwig Street), decreasing to a height of approximately 5'/2 feet at the southeast corner. As viewed from the property immediately to the west, the fence/wall will have a height of approximately 12 feet at the southwest corner of the property, decreasing to a height of 8 — 8'/2 feet and the northwest corner. Section 36-516(e)(1)(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet between a building line and a street right-of- way and a maximum height of six (6) feet along interior property lines. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the overall fence/wall height to exceed four (4) feet between the building setback lines and the Ludwig and West 34th Street rights-of-way, and to exceed six (6) feet along the south and west property lines. Staff does not support the fence height variance as requested. Staff feels that a six (6) foot high fence on top of the existing retaining wall will be too imposing on the properties to the south and west. Staff feels that the overall fence/wall height of 12 feet at the southwest corner of the property is too high and will negatively impact the adjacent properties. Staff would support a four (4) foot high wood fence on top of the concrete wall along the south and west property lines, and a six (6) foot high wood fence along the street sides as shown on the attached site plan. As noted earlier, the new concrete wall along the west property line extends into the alley right-of-way by approximately three (3) feet. The applicant needs to request to abandon the alley right-of-way or request a franchise permit from the Public Works Department. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the fence height variance, as requested. 2 June 30, 2003 Item No.: 8 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 30, 2003) Calvin and Francis Richardson were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff noted that a four (4) foot high fence on top of the retaining wall could be supported. Calvin Richardson addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that the retaining wall was constructed because of a drainage problem. He noted that the six (6) foot high fence was needed on top of the retaining wall because he owned a large dog which could get over a four (4) foot high fence. Chairman Ruck expressed concern with the wall/fence being in the alley right-of- way. This issue was briefly discussed. Mr. Richardson noted that no neighbors were opposed to the proposed fence construction. He discussed the privacy issue related to the proposed fence. He further explained the drainage issues associated with the property. Chairman Ruck expressed concern with the retaining wall construction. Mr. Richardson explained how the wall was constructed. This issue was briefly discussed. Mr. Richardson noted that the contractor built the wall according to the proper specifications. Terry Burruss asked if a drainage system was installed with the wall construction. Mr. Richardson explained that a French drain system was installed. Fred Gray asked if any of the neighbors objected to the wall and fence. Mr. Richardson noted that no neighbors had expressed any opposition. Staff noted that no phone calls had been received. There was a motion to approve the fence height variance, subject to the alley right-of-way being abandoned or a franchise permit being obtained, prior to a fence permit being issued. The motion was briefly discussed. Steve Haralson, of Public Works, indicated that Public Works would not be opposed to a franchise permit. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was approved. 3 Z- -7 V�/ • L P I ' l d i d C. 1` s' O Jit na C { .sc)are4P ` esl `�IEJ 4 I j ✓ 1 r l e4 I R k K �i a c S -`fad to • st flS NY, dy sae`pv+ ck a06 -Ulq t -Eke- L&-�e;. H (AJ(A 3 1 h sill S;�ap Ngo i Se "w 1 R I �- -�'-Peg ue June 30, 2003 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-7427 SRM Properties, LLC 326 President Clinton Avenue Northwest corner of President Clinton Avenue and Ottenheimer Plaza EA Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Sections 36-353 and 36-547 to allow installation of projecting signs. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Mixed Use Mixed Use The property at 326 President Clinton Avenue is occupied by a two-story mixed use building. The proposal is to add a projecting sign at the corner of the building at Ottenheimer Plaza and President Clinton Avenue for the "SportsZone", a sports bar to be located in the north end of the building with access off of Ottenheimer. The projecting sign is larger, placed higher and at a different angle than permitted. It does have neon on the sign, which requires a larger thickness for the mechanical working of the neon. The applicant would also like the sign to be animated. The sequence of illumination would be as such: "S", "P", "O", "R", "T", "S", "Zone" and then the white outline of each letter "S", "P", " O", "R", "T", "S "Zone". The "Bar & Grill" would be on continuously. The martini glass at the top would not be illuminated. June 30, 2003 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) Several variances are needed from the River Market Design Overlay District and sign sections of the City's Zoning Ordinance for the proposed projecting sign. The requested variances are as follows: #1. Section 36-353(e)(1)(b) Height of projecting signs shall not extend past the sill of the second story windows. The sign would start below the windowsill of the second story window and extend above 10'-0". #2. Section 36-353(e)(1)(e) Projecting signs shall be placed at a 90 -degree angle to building. The request is to place the sign at 45 -degree angle to the corner of the building. #3. Section 36-353(e)(2)(a) Projecting signs shall have a maximum of twelve (12) square feet of sign face per side. The proposed sign will be slightly less than 20 sq. feet in area. #4. Section 36-353(e)(2)(b) Thickness of projecting signs shall be limited to five (5) inches. The proposed sign will be 18 inches thick for the neon mechanisms. #5. Section 36-353(e)(4)(b) Neon is not permitted on projecting signs. This sign has neon on both sides of the sign. #6. Section 36-547(6) Unless otherwise specified by this chapter, all signs may be illuminated. However, no sign regulated by this chapter may utilize. The illusion of movement by means of a preprogrammed repetitious sequential switching action in which illuminated elements of the sign are turned off or on to visually simulate the impression of motion characteristic of chasing, running, blinking, oscillation, twinkling, scintillating, or expanding and contracting light patterns. This sign would have a preprogrammed repetitious sequential switching action to illuminate the letters. The River Market Design Review Committee met on June 3, 2003 and reviewed the proposed signage. The DRC voted to approve the variances as listed above, with the bottom of the projecting sign being located just above the brick ledge separating the first and second floors. At the June 3, 2003 DRC meeting, the applicant presented a second projecting sign to be located along the Ottenheimer Plaza side of the building. This sign will be less than 12 square feet in area, and extend 2 June 30, 2003 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) approximately five (5) feet out from the building. The applicant is requesting the following variances for the second projecting sign: #1. Section 36-353(e)(1)(c) Projecting signs shall extend a maximum of three (3) feet from the face of the building. The proposed sign would extend a maximum of five (5) feet from the building. #2. Section 36-353(e)(2)(b) Thickness of projecting signs shall be limited to five (5) inches. The proposed sign will be 18 inches thick for the neon mechanisms. #3. Section 36-353(e)(4)(b) Neon is not permitted on projecting signs. This sign has neon on both sides of the sign. #4. Section 36-547(6) Unless otherwise specified by this chapter, all signs may be illuminated. However, no sign regulated by this chapter may utilize. The illusion of movement by means of a preprogrammed repetitious sequential switching action in which illuminated elements of the sign are turned off or on to visually simulate the impression of motion characteristic of chasing, running, blinking, oscillation, twinkling, scintillating, or expanding and contracting light patterns. This sign would have a preprogrammed repetitious sequential switching action to illuminate the letters. The River Market DRC also voted to approve these variances on June 3, 2003. Staff supports all of the requesting variances with the exception of the variance from Section 36-547(6) for both signs. This particular section of the ordinance was established for public safety reasons, in an attempt to prohibit signs which could distract drivers of motor vehicles. Staff feels that the type of illuminated motion as proposed with the two projecting signs could create such distractions. Therefore, staff cannot support the requested variances from Section 36-547. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the sign variances, as requested. 9 June 30, 2003 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 30, 2003) Ronnie Wells was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application and noted that the applicant had amended the lighting plan for the two (2) projecting signs as noted in a letter dated June 27, 2003, and revised the application accordingly. Staff recommended approval of the revised application, subject to the following conditions.- 1. onditions: 1. The lighting of the signs is to be as revised by the applicant, as noted in the applicant's letter dated June 27, 2003. 2. The variances are approved for "Sports Zone" only. When this business vacates the building, the signs must be removed. 3. Sign permits must be obtained for the signs. 4. A franchise permit must be obtained for the signs. Ronnie Wells addressed the Board in support of the application. He described other signs in Little Rock which had similar lighting as he was proposing. Fred Gray expressed concern with the proposed sign lighting. He explained that animated -type signs might not be appropriate in the River Market District. Chairman Ruck expressed concern with the type of sign lighting proposed. The issue related to sign lighting was discussed. Andrew Francis noted that past actions of the Board of Adjustment set no precedence for other variance cases. He noted that no hardship existed regarded the proposed sign lighting. This issue was briefly discussed. There was a motion to approve the revised application as recommended by staff. There was a brief discussion of the motion. Staff suggested having two (2) separate motions, one (1) on the proposed variances from Section 36-353 and one (1) on the variances from Section 36-547. Mr. Wells amended the application to remove the variances from 36-547, noting that the signs would be continually lighted. Therefore, the motion was to approve the variances from Section 36-353 as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 0 CUSTOM SIGN & NEON 11820 CHICOT RD MABELVALE, AR 72103 May 16, 2003 City of Little Rock RE: Sports Zone The Sports Zone is going in the LaHarpe building at Pres. Clinton AV and Ottenhiemer. We are asking for several variances for the sign that they request. I don't think any of the variance is out of line for the River Market District. First we would like to install a 2' x 1U vertical sign on the second floor above the Building awning. The building awning keeps us from installing on the first level. We also would like for it to 45 degree off the building with Pres. Clinton so it can be seen from every angle. This sign will be projected from the building. The Text exceeds 3/4 the height of the sign and we are asking for a variance also on that. To sum up we are asking for you to allow us to be at a 45 angle from the building, letters exceeding 3/4 of the height and sign to be installed on second level. The sign will be approx. 18" in depth to allow for the neon transformers. And also 26Square Feet. The owner and the building owner would like for you to approve these variance for they feel it is the best interest of the Sports Zone to have this sign at this location to where it can been seen from Pres. Clinton not only with driving traffic also pedestrian traffic. The sign will be attractive and an asset to the River Market and the owner. Thanks You /I Z-67 � Ronnie Wells 44 j- 747- i River s ? Market Greg Hart, Chairman A Design Millie Ward, Member v Review Patty Wingfield, Member Tim Heiple, Member Committee Shannon Jeffery -Light, Member Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201 • 501-371-4790 • fax 501-399-3435 June 16, 2003 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: SportsZone signage Chairman and Members, The River Market DRC has reviewed the signage at the June 3, 2003 meeting. The DRC took two votes concerning the signage. The first vote was to mount the sign with the bottom of the sign just above the brick ledge separating the first and second floor and to approve as presented with the six variances listed in the staff report. That motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 noes and 0 absent. The second vote was to approve a projecting sign on Ottenheimer with a variance on the width for the sign and mounting bracket to extend a total of five feet from the face of the building and also the variances #4, #5 and #6 as stated in the first vote. That vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. Thank you, /&& A�a� Brian Minyard River Market DRC Staff June 30, 2003 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Z-7428 Owner: Michael and Ashley Cope Address: 5517 Country Club Blvd. Description: Lots 5, 6 and the East % of Lot 7, Block 21, Newton's Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with a reduced rear yard 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 property at 5517 Country Club Blvd. is occupied by a two-story brick single family structure. There is a shared driveway from Country Club Blvd. which serves as access. The residence sits on Lot 5, Block 21, Newton's Addition. Lot 6 and the East'/2 of Lot 7 are located immediately west of the residence and are currently vacant. These lots, as well as the residence, are owned by Michael and Ashley Cope. The property owners propose to construct a one-story addition along the west side of the existing residence. The addition will extend onto Lot 6. With the proposed addition, all of the property will become a single zoning lot, as there will not be enough property left for the construction of another residence. The addition will be located 33 feet from the front (north) June 30, 2003 No.: 10 (Cont. property line, 36 feet from the street side (west) property line and five (5) feet from the rear (south) property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a minimum eight (8) foot rear yard when providing 25 foot minimum front and street side property lines in the case of corner lots. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance for the proposed five (5) foot rear yard setback. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Staff does not believe the applicant has presented enough justification for the variance. Staff feels that there is ample yard space to move the proposed addition three (3) feet to the north, and still attain the applicants' goal of maintaining a large yard area north and west of the structure. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested rear yard setback variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 30, 2003) Michael Cope, Tim Daters and Ashley Cope were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Michael Cope addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained reasons for proposing the rear yard setback variance. He noted that he was trying to maximize the front yard area. He stated that he tried to revise the building plans to provide the 8 -foot rear yard setback, but was unable to based on the location of the door and walls on the existing house. Tim Daters also spoke in support. He explained that the existing structure dictated the proposed rear yard setback. There was a brief discussion related to the location of the accessory building on the property to the south. Mr. Cope noted that this building was used only as a garage. Andrew Francis explained that he did not think there was a hardship for the proposed variance. The floor plan of the proposed building addition was discussed. Mr. Copy explained that moving the addition to the north would not line up with the doorways in the existing structure. The issue was discussed further. There was a brief discussion related to the width of the garage portion of the building addition. It was noted that the garage portion would be 24 feet in width. 2 June 30, 2003 Item No.: 10 (Cont.) Terry Burruss noted that the proposed 24 -foot width was a comfortable width for a two -car garage. There was additional brief discussion related to this issue. There as a motion to approve the requested rear yard setback variance, as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. The application was approved. 3 Transmittal To: Planning Department, City of Little Rock (Hand Del.) From: Tim Daters CC: Date: June 23, 2003 Re: Zoning Variance, Lots 5,6 & 7, Newton's Addition Gentlemen, -7 Attached are six copies of a survey showing the proposed zoning variance for the property described above. Please place this item of the agenda for the June 30, 2003 Board of Adjustment meeting. The applicant lives in and owns the existing residence on Lot 5. The applicant owns lots 6 & 7 that are vacant. The addition to the existing residence has been designed to preserve as much as the existing residence as possible while maintaining a large yard area in front of the residence at the intersection of Country Club and Taylor. The applicant will continue to occupy the existing residence during construction of the addition. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Thank you for your assistance. Tim Daters 0 Page 1 rl io L i. I., ro z w co m Q a W Z i 1 W W {— F.. w ozf aaCW( ocnQ J ro � LL r� i m F- u m ll� ll� LLJ rr ~ O CC C Z 0 UJ cn Q W C6� W 21mCD0� Q � U Q� io L i. I., ro z w co m Q a W Z i W W {— F.. w ozf aaCW( ocnQ J Z � LL m F- u m ll� ll� io L i. I., ro z w co m Q a W Z June 30, 2003 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:42 p.m. L".2 (k /, 2L Chairman