Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_08 25 2003LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES AUGUST 25, 2003 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 July 28, 2003 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present: Members Absent: William Ruck, Chairman Scott Richburg, Vice Chairman Fred Gray Terry Burruss Andrew Francis City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA AUGUST 25, 2003 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Z-7404 B. Z -6689-D C. Z-7414 D. Z-7437 II. NEW ITEMS: 1. Z -1428-C 2 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 Z -4854-B Z -6407-C Z -7037-A Z -7057-A Z-7453 Z-7454 Z-7455 Z-7456 Z-7457 Z-7458 1915 Shadow Lane 300 President Clinton Avenue 3719 West 11 t" Street 10 Rosewood Drive Northeast corner of West Markham Street and Rodney Parham Road 8201 Frenchman's Lane North side of West Markham Street, 200 feet east of Bowman Road 601 Main Street 2106 Beechwood Street 5524 Kavanaugh Blvd. #2 Otter Creek Court 1605 S. Taylor Street 10 River Ridge Circle 428 Midland Avenue 4303 Woodlawn Avenue Agenda, Page Two II. NEW ITEMS: 12. Z-7459 13. Z-7460 14. Z-7461 15. Z-7462 16. Z-7463 17. Z-7464 18. Z-7465 19. Z-7466 20. Z-7467 (Cont.) 1815 N. Monroe Street 5124 "P" Street 2300 Country Club Lane 141 Jewell Road 6425 S. University Avenue 1724 N. Tyler Street 10201 Kanis Road Northwest corner of West 7t" and Gaines Streets 18 Greathouse Bend Drive 2 August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: A 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-7404 Henry and Mary Hodges 1915 Shadow Lane Lot 126 and the South Y2 of Lot 127, Shadowlawn Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the fence height provisions of Section 36-516. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 1915 Shadow Lane is occupied by a two-story rock and stucco single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from Shadow Lane which serves as access. There is an existing eight (8) foot high wood fence along the north property line. The applicants propose to continue the eight (8) foot high wood fence along their rear (east) property line and a portion of the side (south) property line. Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet in residential zoning. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the eight (8) foot high fence. August 25, 2003 Item No.: A (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. As noted above, there is an existing eight (8) foot high wood fence along the north property line. To staff's knowledge this eight (8) foot high fence is nonconforming, however, there have been other variances granted in this general area for fences which are eight (8) feet high or higher. This proposed fence will only enclose the rear yard of the property and not extend into any portion of the front yard. Therefore, staff feels that the requested fence will not be out of character with other properties in this general area. The proposed fence should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The fence will have a maximum height of eight (8) feet. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 28, 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 28, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the August 25, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 25, 2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. KA August 25, 2003 Item No.: A (Cont.) 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. 3 14-e, A Variance Request _ -7 �4o 4 Friday, April ?5, 206.03 From: Mary Penick Hodges To: Little Rock Board of Adjustment We are requesting a variance allowing the addition of an eight -foot high wooden privacy fence across the back and down the south side of our property. The attached survey shows a rock wall on the north side of the property. Adjacent to chis wall is an eight foot high wooden privacy fence running the length of the adjoining property. We would like to continue this fence across the back and up the south side of our property. The property to our rear already has a privacy fence in place. There are no windows on the north side of the house to our south. There is a dog run between that house and our existing chainlink fence. I have already approached these neighbors and they have no reservations about the fence as long as they can attach kennel gates in order to maintain their dog run. We have no problem with this request. Thank you for your tirne with this issue. Sincerely, Mary Penick Hodges August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z -6689-D Owner: Paul Johnson Address: 300 President Clinton Avenue Description: Northeast corner of President Clinton Avenue and LaHarpe Blvd. Zoned: UU Variance Requested: A variance is requested from Section 36-342.1 to allow an outdoor bar/restaurant use in the UU Zoning District, Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT 1. Public Works Issues: No Comments. 2. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Restaurant/Bar Restaurant/Bar Insufficient building expansion to require a landscaping upgrade. 3. 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. August 25, 2003 Item No.: B (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 facade 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. 4. 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 August 25, 2003 No.: B (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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 28, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the August 25, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 25, 2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The Board noted that this would be the final deferral for this item. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 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. 3 H+W Heiple Wiedower Architects 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'&TAargarita 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, 7— Tim A. Heiple, A.I.A Heiple + Wiedower Architects Encl: 319 President Clinton Ave.; Ste. 201 + Little Rock, AR 72201 + (t) 501-707-0115 + (0 501-707-0118 L1­--e,s River Market Greg Hart, Chairman Design 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 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,vc Brian Minyard River Market DRC Staff August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: C 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 R-3 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 h 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 August 25, 2003 Item No.: C (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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 28, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the August 25, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 25, 2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The Board noted that this would be the final deferral for this item 2 August 25, 2003 Item No.: C (Cont.) STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a revised cover letter to staff on August 1, 2003. The applicant has added the request to allow an existing fence along the front property line and a portion of the side (east) property line which exceeds four (4) feet in height. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet within the front 25 feet of this lot. The existing chainlink fence is approximately five (5) feet in height along the north (front) property line and six (6) feet in height along the east (side) property line. Staff supports the requested fence variance. Staff feels that the existing fence heights will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area as long as the fence remains chain link and not changed to on opaque structure. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) Victoria Avery was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of the proposed setback variance, and approval of the requested fence variance. Victoria Avery addressed the Board in support of the application. She noted that Brenda Avery, the property owner, had a disabled son who used the patio structure for recreation. She briefly discussed the patio cover structure. She noted that Brenda Avery needed the structure and explained. Chairman Ruck noted that he could not support the variance just because the structure was constructed as a mistake. He stated that the structure was not suitable with the neighborhood. Fred Gray expressed concern with having people use the structure with its close proximity to a street right-of-way. He noted that he would have a hard time supporting the variance. The issue was briefly discussed. There was a motion to approve the setback variance, as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent. The setback variance was denied. There was a second motion to approve the fence height variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The fence is to remain chain-link only, and not replaced with an opaque fence. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the fence. 3. A franchise permit must be obtained for the portion of the fence located in the public right-of-way. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The fence height variance was approved. 3 f4- 312003 J4 L 4Aa~ 6 y at,3799 C� /,/ M4,19a Pie Aded ii z ufidz 4�6, a 6f j6w rafiie/ a &n6ta �Iedon, t/e n&,- i ea&,id, and al, a cfence &wa§e d &i z, t/ie 6�ma &Ww yP"u�i Am a� `� um & Ar/oi mviiw � l � iin&Wkd na �W />eeaude a a a &ngk 69ex4- J'A' ~ aAwu&,q d &m andAe�qa6 auk aindde & -e&x Witlout, f biexed �� die dtOV4. a & a mmwn&e -A- mf de�dae td m� Gaol ��r.� leenm a&-,bxe� c/"wmmfxo�m axau7 &a mer def G�e� C e1aticz Gae/ 25,A A. 9,jj, ,w urau/rz/6�e a� ' fox ufs a/G Ym,,edd nod 6e affe & wat4 mf Imne daax mler� ,Am "y m tfie ��J �� u�eG u� � 6 x�iniiru� , aZodrr� tee, t/e�atci�. my4eflwig airwl,airy <c5� A me & moue it A%c �m t/ze e�����i�7,atox of a ��%/,�ena��a��fox m� c/u�f �aix�ratr� 6.xUre� t% ciul�/i�rz oeww &Ame&w oiw� bale, aindd/ e 6dG c6 done t/�ee &~4 a wee! - tuu� /roaird a �' O)Ky�,fl, 4dmnd, 3K e/.,4 wind b% ef". cool/enation � tlu� r:�zattez. August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: D File No.: Owner: Address: Description- Zoned- Variance escription:Zoned:Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7437 Tabitha M. Henderson 10 Rosewood Drive Lot 120, Brookwood Addition I' J Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow construction of a carport structure with a reduced front yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 10 Rosewood Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from Rosewood which serves as access. The property slopes slightly downward from north to south. The applicant proposes to construct a 12 foot by 18 foot metal carport structure over a portion of the existing driveway. The carport structure will be supported by two (2) metal poles and permanently attached to the front of the residential structure. The proposed carport structure will extend over a platted front 25 foot setback line by approximately 10 feet, resulting a front setback of 15 feet. t August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: D (Cont. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that variance for encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the carport addition with a reduced front yard setback; and crossing a platted building line. Staff does not support the variance request. Staff feels that the front yard encroachment as proposed will be out of character with this single family neighborhood. When staff made a site inspection of this property, a close look was taken at all of the houses along Rosewood Drive, Glendale Drive and portions of Brookview Drive and Windsor Drive. Staff could find no other existing houses with front yard encroachments similar to the one proposed. Staff feels that the proposed carport structure will have an adverse visual impact on the surrounding properties. 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 carport 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 denial of the requested setback and building line variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 28, 2003) Tabitha Henderson was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Tabitha Henderson addressed the Board in support of the application. She stated that she wished to have the carport structure to protect her vehicle from the weather. Fred Gray asked how many cars could be parked under the carport structure. Ms. Henderson responded that it would provide parking for one vehicle. Ms. Henderson stated that she needed the 18 -foot length for the carport, but could possibly make it narrower. 2 August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: D (Cont. Fred Gray asked if the carport structure could be redesigned and tied into the building's architecture and be less noticeable. Ms. Henderson stated that she has not explored that option. Fred Gray asked if the parking structure could be located in the rear yard. Ms. Henderson stated that it would be cost prohibitive. Andrew Francis stated that he would also like to see a carport structure which would blend into the residence. He stated that a deferral might be in order to allow Ms. Henderson time to redesign the parking structure. The issue of a deferral was briefly discussed. Staff asked the Board if building elevations should be provided by the applicant. Fred Gray stated that the applicant should submit some visual representation. Linda Ray briefly addressed the Board in support of the application. There was additional discussion of a deferral. There was a motion to defer the application to the August 25, 2003 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) Tabitha Henderson was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff noted that the applicant had amended the application to be a "stick -built" carport structure with a gable end attached to the house. Tabitha Henderson addressed the Board in support of the application. She noted that she had met with a contractor and the carport structure would be stick -built with dimensions of 11 feet by 18 feet — 4 inches. Fred Gray asked Ms. Henderson if the structure could be shorter than 18 feet. He noted that he could support the variance for the stick -built carport, if it were shorter than 18 feet. Chairman Ruck and Vice -Chairman Richburg both noted that they could support a 16 -foot carport. How the 16 feet should be measured was briefly discussed. Fred Gray supported a 16 -foot total depth including overhang. This issue was briefly discussed. Tabitha Henderson amended the application to be a stick -built carport structure with dimensions of 11 feet by 16 feet. 9 August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) There was a motion to approve the front yard setback and building line variances for a stick -built carport structure with an overall depth not to exceed 16 feet, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained. 2. The carport structure must remain unenclosed on the east, west and south sides. 3. A replat must be completed to change the front platted building line for the carport structure. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The variances were approved. 4 June 24, 2003 To the Members of the Board: This is a proposal to build a carport on the house located at #10 Rosewood in Little Rock. The original carport was closed in and made into a bedroom by the previous owners. The purpose of the carport will be to provide protection for my vehicle from exposure to adverse weather conditions. The proposed carport will be an extended structure adjoining the house where former carport was located. It will be 7 feet in height, 12 x 18 in length and width, with an aluminum awning cover, supported by 2 metal poles. It will be permanently attached to the front of the home, covering a portion of the driveway. For your convenience I have included a copy of the proposed structure. Thank you for your time and kind consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Tabitha Henderson August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Owner: Address: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Z -1428-C Mayer Family Trust Northeast corner of West Markham Street and Rodney Parham Road C-3 A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-502 associated with a new branch bank development. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Commercial Commercial with new branch bank development 1. Public Works supports the general plan with some revisions to be provided during the building permit process. 2. The additional lane should be 11' wide as measured from the existing edge of gutter. 3. The right turn lane on Markham should extend east to the property boundary to allow for further extension to the east in the future. 4. A 35' curb radius should be provided at the intersection. 5. Master Street Plan requires a five foot sidewalk at the back of curb. 6. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (John Barr, 371-4646) for the improvements located in the new right-of-way. August 25, 2003 No.: 1 (Cont. 7. Any traffic signal equipment or utility relocation is the responsibility of the developer. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The proposed southernmost parking space projects over into the nine (9) foot wide minimum on-site perimeter landscape strip required by both the zoning and landscape ordinances. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to obtaining a building permit, it will be necessary to provide Approved Landscape Plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. C. Staff Analysis: The C-4 zoned property at the northeast corner of West Markham Street and Rodney Parham Road is occupied by a mixed commercial development. There is a large commercial strip center building at the northeast corner of the property and a vacant restaurant building at the southwest corner of the site. There is a drive-thru prescription kiosk near the northwest corner of the property which was recently approved by the Board of Adjustment. There is existing paved parking on the site, with access drives from West Markham Street and Rodney Parham Road. The applicant proposes to remove the existing restaurant building and construct a new 4,400 square foot branch bank facility within the southern section of the property. The existing paved parking areas will be restriped, with new interior landscape islands constructed. The two (2) existing southernmost access drives from Rodney Parham Road will be combined into a single drive and moved slightly to the north. With the proposed redevelopment of the southern portion of the property, the applicant is requesting one (1) variance. There will be a total of 183 parking spaces on the site after the redevelopment occurs. Section 36- 502(b)(3)h. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a total of 270 parking spaces for this development. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The existing development has fewer parking spaces than required by ordinance and has been considered nonconforming. The proposed branch bank is a less intense use than the existing restaurant use, and requires fewer parking spaces. Therefore, staff feels that it is reasonable to allow the new branch bank development, while maintaining essentially the same overall number of 2 August 25, 2003 Item No.: 1 (Cont. parking spaces on the site. The applicant has revised the site plan to provide the required street landscape strips and buffers, as noted in paragraph B. of this report. The proposed redevelopment of this site should have no adverse impact on the general area. D. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the approved site plan. 2. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of this report. 3. Compliance with the landscape and buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of this report. 4. Any dumpster area must be approved by staff, and screened according to ordinance standards. 5. All signage must comply to ordinance standards. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 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. M I WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. M 24 Rahling Circle 0 Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 July 25, 2003 Mr. Monte Moore, Zoning Administrator City of Little Rock Planning Department 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Midtown Center Mr. Moore, Please find attached six copies of the site plan for the above referenced project. The developer would like to submit fore multiple building site plan review with two variance requests. The proposal would redevelop the burned -out Burger King with a branch bank. The existing mail kiosk would be removed. The rear commercial buildings would remain intact with the earlier approval of the drug kiosk. Markham and Rodney Parham would have an additional 15 ft. of right-of-way dedication bringing these streets to MSP standards. A 10 ft. right turn lane would be constructed on Markham St. The existing driveway on Markham would be moved to the east away from the existing traffic signal. The two most southerly driveways on Rodney Parham would be consolidated into one driveway and moved to the north away from the existing signal. The proposed bank would not have a separate driveway on either street, but would take access from the interior driveways within the center. The developer will request a franchise agreement on the existing parking along Rodney Parham on the north portion of the site. The paved area east of the bank would be redeveloped with parking. The proposed bank site would have the required perimeter and interior landscape areas. The two variance requests, are parking minimums using a shopping center designation and the perimeter landscape requirements on Rodney Parham Please place this item on the next available Board of Adjustment agenda. Do not hesitate to call should you have any questions or require additional information. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. Cc: Dickson Flake — Dickson Flake Partners CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING August 25, 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: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: First Church of God 8201 Frenchman's Lane Northwest corner of Frenchman's Lane and West 83rd Street M A variance is requested from Section 36- 553 to allow a ground -mounted sign which exceeds the maximum height allowed. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Church Church The R-2 zoned property at 8201 Frenchman's Lane is occupied by the First Church of God facilities. The multiple buildings associated with the church development are located near the center of the property, with paved parking between the buildings and Frenchman's Lane. There are access drives from Frenchman's Lane and West 83rd Street. There is currently a small ground -mounted sign (brick with metal letters) located near the center of the property along Frenchman's Lane, and a small ground -mounted sign at the southeast corner of the property. The church proposes to remove the ground -mounted sign at the southeast corner of the property and install a new sign within the northeast section of the property. The new sign will have a height of 16'— August 25, 2003 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) 83/4" and an area of approximately 43 square feet. The sign pole and structure has been donated to the church by a convenience store/service station owner who no longer needs it. Section 36-553(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows one (1) ground -mounted sign per premises, with a maximum area of 64 square feet and a maximum height of six (6) feet. Section 36-553(a)(3) states that a property located on a corner can have one (1) additional ground - mounted sign on the additional frontage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the increased sign height (16 feet) and to have two (2) signs on the same street frontage. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The church development is located in an area of mixed uses and zoning. The church proposes to locate the new ground -mounted sign in an area of the property which is adjacent to commercial uses and zoning to the north and east. There are other signs within these commercial sites which are as large or larger than the sign proposed by the church. Based on the proposed location of the sign at the northeast corner of the church property, staff feels that the sign will have no adverse impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variances, subject to the following conditions: The sign will have a maximum height of 16'— 8 W. 2. The sign area must not exceed 64 square feet. 3. The sign must be set back at least 5 feet from any property line. 4. A sign permit must be obtained for the sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 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. 04 FROM PHONE NO. Tul. Zv 20( :2nPM F2 First Church of Good 8201 Frenchman's Lane Little Rock, Arkansas 7221.9 City of Little Rock Metropolitan Planning Commission 723 Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Leat Planning Commission, This is a letter requesting a variance for the sign described in the materials that accompanies this letter. We are located one block west: of Geyer Springs. Our facilities are difficult to see because of all of the businesses can Geyer Springs and the Hampton Inn and Super 8 that are multi- storied buildings between ons• location and lnte:state 30. We have needed more appropriate signage for the 25 years that this church has been here. The proposed sign is I7 feet tall from the ground to the top. Mazio's Pizza has the same sir, on Geyer Springs. It is a lighted sign that wail help illuminate an area that needs more light. The area businesses that have signed the paperwork have all cornmented that they like the additional light that this will provide, There are presently two sigm on our property. One is a brick sign that can be seen from :nova Street. It is not adequate for our need, Too many community people have driven by our church and never noticed this sin . There is a 3 foot by 4 foot sign that is on the corner of Frenchman's Larne and 83rd Street. It too is very inadequate. This sign will be atTected by the widening and new sidewalks that the City of Little Rock will install this Fall. This will be an attractive landscaped site and not just a sign. planted in an open area. I+ will improve the appearance of our property and be in line with our investtnents that businesses are making in Southwest. Little Rock. Our congregation Inas chosen to stay in this location while many others have moved to suburbs. We have played an active role in this area for over 25 years. Thank you for giving this request your consideration. Sincere���?�''` Rev. dill Vel. Phillips, Pastor August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 3 I911301156% Owner: Z -6407-C Walgreen Company Address: North side of West Markham Street, approximately 200 feet east of Bowman Road Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: C-3 Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Sections 36-530 and 36-555 to allow an off -premise sign. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Undeveloped Off -premise sign Long term plans are to add additional lanes at the Markham and Bowman intersection. A right turn lane is planned that will run parallel to the creek, just north of the Central Arkansas Water property at the corner. If approved, the sign should be moved 40' west to avoid future traffic. B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property on the north side of West Markham Street, approximately 200 feet east of Bowman Road, is undeveloped and grass covered. The property is approximately one-half acre in size, and is owned by the Walgreens Company, who has a store across the 100 foot wide dedicated floodway to the north. The Walgreens Company proposes to construct an off -premise ground -mounted sign on this property for the store to the north. August 25, 2003 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) The proposed sign will be located along the West Markham Street property frontage, as noted on the attached site plan. The sign will have a height of 23 feet — 8 inches and an overall area of approximately 94 square feet. The sign will contain an electronic readerboard. There will be a landscaped planter area around the sign's base. Section 36-555(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows one (1) freestanding sign per premise in commercial zoning. Section 36-530 defines an on -premise sign as "a sign which pertains to the use of the premise on which it is located." The City's Zoning Ordinance does not allow off -premise signs. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the off -premise sign as described. Staff does not support the variance request. Staff does not feel that the request is reasonable. Staff feels that the Walgreens Store has adequate visibility from West Markham Street. On July 27, 1998, the Board of Adjustment approved a wall sign without street frontage on the south side of the Walgreens building, to aid in identifying the business from West Markham Street. As a condition of approval, no other ground -mounted signs were to be placed on the property. Although Board of Adjustment approvals do not set precedences, staff feels that if this type of off - premise signage is approved, other businesses will want to follow suit. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) David Ashley was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. David Ashley addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that Walgreen owns the property. He noted that the sign on the south side of Walgreen's building would be removed if the new ground -mounted sign were approved. Terry Burruss discussed the requested turn lane location in relation to the location of the proposed sign. Staff explained the future location of the turn lane and noted that there was a water works utility easement at the southwest corner of the property which could not be encroached upon. 2 August 25, 2003 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) There was a brief discussion of other locations on the property where the sign could possibly go. Chairman Ruck noted that he would have a hard time supporting the application. He stated that there was much visual clutter in the area of this property. Vice -Chairman Richburg asked if this property and the other Walgreens property (across the drainage easement) were one (1) property, how many signs would be allowed. Staff noted that one (1) sign per street frontage would be allowed. There was a brief discussion related to the past attempts to develop the property. Mr. Ashley noted that from Markham Park Drive to Bowman Road (north side of West Markham) there were no signs. Al Harkins, owner of the property at the southeast corner of West Markham Street and Bowman Road, noted that he approved of the proposed sign. He stated that he did not want this sign request to have an effect on him having a sign on his property. Marie Dugan, of Central Arkansas Water, stated that the sign should not be moved as to encroach into the existing water utility easement. There was a motion to approve the variance, as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent. 3 July 10, 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals City of Little Rock, AR Re: Sign Variance 111 North Bowman Road Little Rock, AR Dear Sir or Madame: Please accept this letter as a request for variance from your sign code. We feel that the following points for variance approval justify installation of one electronic readerboard pylon sign on our site while the rear Walgreens script sign shall remain. Without an exterior readerboard on the West Markham Street frontage, Walgreens is not easily visible and unable to communicate essential services to the community. The floodway and rock creek divides our property and therefore offsets our building from the main intersection of Bowman Road and West Markham Street. Walgreens has a strong commitment to quality products and services while maintaining competitive pricing. An exterior readerboard on the West Markham Street frontage would enable us to more effectively inform customers of offers unique to Walgreens, special sales, medical information and new services we may provide. For example, members of your community maybe driving across town to fill prescriptions, not knowing the Walgreens at this location recently started accepting their form of insurance. The lack of a readerboard represents a hardship because most Walgreens locations across the nation operate with a standard signage package that includes a readerboard at the main intersection and visible building signage. This unique site warrants secondary signage to inform customers of the location of our building. Due to the distance the pylon sign would be from our building and since our front elevation signage is not visible from West Markam Street, the visible rear Walgreens script sign is necessary to identify our building to customers. Walgreens has built its reputation on the standardization of services, physical layout, signage, etc. This standardization raises public expectations of the services Walgreens offers and is a cornerstone of the full service commitment Walgreens makes to each community it serves. The use of signage in every community we serve promotes an efficiency of management and economy of effort that enables a greater investment in customer service. Without it, more management attention and staff time is devoted to the implementation of customized operating procedures unique to the store, than is customary for other stores. Therefore, it is my request that the Walgreens sign variance request is considered favorably in light of these reasons. Sincerely, Christina J Schra r Architectural Planner Walgreens Co. August 25, 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 -7037-A Arkansas Repertory Theater 601 Main Street Southeast corner of West 6th and Main Streets UU A time extension is requested for previously approved sign variances. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Professional Live Theatre Professional Live Theatre On May 21, 2001 the Board of Adjustment approved variances to allow banner signs to be located on the Arkansas Repertory Theatre building and on a street light pole at 601 Main Street. Five (5) banner signs (3 feet by 5 feet) attached to the second level of the building, two (2) banner signs (4 feet by 12 feet) attached to the corner of the third floor, and a banner attached to the street lamp pole outside the Rep's front door were approved. The banner signs were approved for a period of two (2) years with the following conditions: 1. A franchise must be obtained to coincide with the Board's approval. 2. The banners must be maintained in good condition, otherwise they must be removed. August 25, 2003 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) 3. The banner signs are to contain no commercial message and are to only include the identification of the location as "The Rep, Share the Experience." A copy of the May 21, 2001 minute record and previous staff analysis is attached for Board review. The Arkansas Repertory Theatre is requesting a two (2) year time extension on the previous approved variances. Staff is supportive of the requested two (2) year time extension. Staff continues to be hopeful that similar revitalization as has occurred in the River Market will begin to occur along Main Street. The banner signs will continue to add "increased visibility and enhanced visual atmosphere" for the Arkansas Repertory Theatre. A recent inspection of the site by staff revealed that the banner signs were in very good condition. Staff's previous and current support is based on the Repertory Theatre being a cultural attraction and the banners not containing a commercial message. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested two (2) year time extension for the use of the banner signs for Arkansas Repertory Theatre at 601 Main Street, subject to compliance with the three (3) conditions of the previous approval, as listed in paragraph B. of this report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 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 Arkansas Repertory Theatre Robert Hupp Producing Artistic Director P.O. Box 110 601 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72203-0110 501.378.0445 Administration 501.378.0405 Box Office 501.378.0012 Fax www.therep.org --7a3"?—►4 July 17, 2003 Mr. Monty Moore City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Moore and other concerned parties: Arkansas Repertory Theatre respectfully requests an extension on a previously granted zoning variance that allows us to hang decorative identification banners from our building. The original variance, valid for two years, was granted in the summer of 2001. We would like permission to leave them up for another two years. The banners still look brand new and we often receive compliments on them. They are an enhancement for us, but also for this section of Main Street. I have enclosed some of our collateral material that shows the banners. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Kelly F Cr Director of Marketing (501) 378-0445 ext. 206 May 21, 2001 -- -7o-3-7-4 Item No. 11 3", ) File No. Z-7037 '3 Owner: Arkansas Repertory Theater Address: 601 Main Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: Long Legal, Original City Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-557 and the Development Criteria of Article V, Division 6 of Chapter 36. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Professional Live Theatre Professional Live Theatre Franchise will be required for banners extending over or located within the public right-of-way. B. Staff Analysis: The Arkansas Repertory Theatre is located in the building on the UU zoned property at 601 Main Street. In an effort to increase the theatre's visibility and to enhance the visual appeal of the block, the theatre proposes to hang decorative banners on the building's fagade. The theatre proposes to hang five, 3 feet by 5 feet banners to hang perpendicular to the building on the second level; two, 4 feet by 12 feet banners to hang at the corner on the third level and one banner to hang on the street lamp pole outside the front door. Article V, Section 6 of Chapter 36, the UU District, prohibits ground -mounted signs but states that otherwise, signs are to be regulated and permitted as elsewhere in the City. Section 36-557 of the Code limits the placement of May 21, 2001 Item No.: 11 (Cont.) banners to one per street frontage, for a specific length of time. Permit guidelines require the banners to be mounted flush against the wall. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The Repertory Theatre is a cultural attraction that will benefit from the increased visibility and enhanced visual atmosphere created by the banners. The banners will not advertise hours of operation or individual events. Each banner will simply read "The Rep -Share the Experience." Encouraged by the success of the River Market District, staff is hopeful that similar revitalization can begin to occur on the north/south streets, particularly Main Street. There is a large "gap" in activities available on Main Street, between the Markham intersection and the South Main area that includes Juanitas and Community Bakery. The recent announcement that the Center Theater will be renovated and reopened adds to the hope that the "Mid -Main" area is on the verge of rebirth. Staff would suggest that the banners be approved for a period of 2 years, with Board of Adjustment review for possible continuation. The Board can then review the issue in the context of any changes which may occur along Main Street. All of the proposed banners are located either over or in the public right-of-way and a franchise will be required to coincide with the Board's approval. Again, staff's support is based on the Repertory Theatre being a cultural attraction and the banners not having a commercial message. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances to allow the Banners for a period of two years only, with additional Board action required to allow placement beyond that point subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. A franchise must be obtained to coincide with the Board's approval. 2. The banners must be maintained in good condition, otherwise they must be removed. 2 May 21, 2001 Item No.: 11 (Cont.) 3. The banners are to contain no commercial message and are to only include the identification of the location as "The Rep, Share the Experience." BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z -7057-A Owner: Cathy Cook Pursell Address: 2106 Beechwood Street Description: Lot 2, Country Club Heights Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 and the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow accessory and fence additions. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT 0 Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 2106 Beechwood Street is occupied by a two- story frame single family residence. There is an accessory garage (one- story) at the northwest corner of the property. An alley right-of-way along the west property line serves as access. A swimming pool/hot tub structure is under construction along the south property line, at the southwest corner of the residence. There is an existing masonry wall/wood fence structure along the south property line which has an overall height of approximately 8 feet as viewed from the south. As part of the swimming pool structure, a 6 foot high masonry wall was constructed along the south portion of the pool. The pool/wall structure has an overall height of approximately 11 feet as viewed from the south (3 feet visible above existing wall/fence structure). August 25, 2003 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) The Board of Adjustment approved variances associated with the pool structure on June 25, 2001. A two (2) foot building setback was approved for the pool structure, from the south property line. Additionally, a variance was granted from the rear yard coverage standards, as the pool brought the rear yard building coverage to approximately 63%. As noted previously, the swimming pool structure is currently under development. The applicant is back before the Board to request an additional variance associated with the pool structure and additional variances associated with a proposed fence and deck. When the pool structure was constructed, it was enlarged slightly to the east to add a hot tub. The structure maintains the two (2) foot side yard setback, as was previously approved, but is located approximately five (5) feet from the southwest corner of the house. Section 36-156(a)(2)b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum separation of six (6) feet between an accessory structure and a main structure. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. The applicant is also proposing to construct a 10 foot by 13 foot wood deck at the west end of the pool structure. The deck will be set back two (2) feet from the side (south) property line. The addition of the deck structure will bring the rear yard building coverage to approximately 73%. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. allows a maximum rear yard coverage of 30% for accessory structures and Section 36-156(a)(2)f. requires a minimum side yard setback of three feet for accessory buildings. The applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the deck structure. The deck structure will have a six (6) foot fence along its south and west sides which will be part of the structure and have the same overall height as the masonry wall that is part of the pool structure. Additionally, a portion of the deck structure will be covered by a trellis roof. The applicant is also proposing to construct an 8 foot tall wood privacy fence within the side yard area south of the main residential structure, as noted on the attached site plan. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is also requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. Staff supports the requested variance to allow the pool structure to be within five (5) feet of the house. This variance is very minor and should have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or general area. Staff does however recommend denial of the other requested variances. Staff feels that the addition of the deck structure with fence and trellis represents an overbuilding of the site. The rear yard coverage is currently at approximately 63% as approved previously by the Board of Adjustment, 2 August 25, 2003 Item No.: 5 (Cont. over twice as much as allowed by right. Staff also feels that an eight (8) foot high fence between this house and the house to the south is not appropriate. The house to the south is located within a few feet of the south property line, and staff feels that an eight (8) foot tall fence between the two (2) houses would have a negative impact on the adjacent residence. A six (6) foot high fence would be allowed by right. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the extension on the north side of the swimming pool structure, subject to a building permit being obtained. Staff recommends denial of the variances associated with the proposed deck structure and the proposed wood fence within the side yard on the south side of the residence. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) Cathy Pursell was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval of the pool separation variance. Staff recommended denial of the variances related to the proposed deck and fence construction. Cathy Pursell addressed the Board in support of the application. She presented letters of support from neighbors and photos to the Board. She briefly discussed the requested variances, and explained the photos which she presented. She explained that the deck structure was always part of the pool plan, but was inadvertently omitted from the previous variance request. There was brief discussion related to the proposed deck structure. The applicant revised the fence variance to delete the eight (8) foot high fence between the two (2) houses, and only have an eight (8) foot high fence section from the southwest corner of the home running south to the existing fence/wall. Staff supported the requested revision. There was a motion to approve the variance for reduced separation between the pool and house. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The variance was approved. There was a second motion to approve the rear yard coverage variance. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The variance was approved. 3 August 25, 2003 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) There was a third motion to approve the deck setback variance. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The variance was approved. There was a fourth motion to approve the fence height variance, as revised by the applicant. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The variance was approved. C! i - 7 0, "7 A To All, I am requesting approval of several variances that I now understand need to be granted for the completion of our swimming pool at 2106 Beechwood St. We were granted a variance to build the pool (Z- 7057 File Copy) in June, 2001. We began construction earlier this summer but our pool plans changed and after conversations with the Planning and Development Dept., I now need to apply for additional variances. We were approved for a set back variance of 2 feet from the property line. We have complied with that variance and built the pool 2 feet from the property line. We incorporated a hot tub as part of the pool and complied with the 2 foot variance but we now understand that we are too close to the back of the house. The survey enclosed with this letter illustrates this. Our hot tub is 5 feet from the corner of our house and it is my understanding that 6 feet is required without an additional variance. This work has been completed. Please approve this variance retrospectively as we had no idea we weren't in compliance with the zoning requirements. When our original variance was approved, we had not completed our plans for the surrounding deck and other areas. We have built a 6 foot wall on top of the pool with more than adequate footing. This wall sits on top of the pool apron and extends to the end of the swimming pool. We are proposing to build a small deck on the back of the pool and to build a 6 foot privacy fence on top of the deck that would match the height of the existing 6 foot wall on the pool. The wall height from the finish grade to the top of the wall is 9 foot 6 inches. The proposed fence and deck would complete the pool, allow for privacy, safety, and match the existing height of the pool wall. Although the proposed deck would extend the coverage of our yard, we have already been approved a coverage variance and from the alley view (the only visible view of the proposed fence), it is very consistent with the other property adjoining our alley. There are several fences and multi -car garages on our alley and our request is very much in keeping with the neighborhood. I would also like to request a variance for an 8 foot tall fence along the south side of our property. Our neighbors to the north have installed an 8 foot fence and we would like to match that height on the other property line. We feel this would lend a very pleasing aesthetic look to the entire property and complete the changes we have already made to the property. Thank you very much for your consideration. We are very hopeful that we have covered all the necessary details that you might need to make this decision. Please call if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Cathy Pursell August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-7453 Owner: Waller Investments Address: 5524 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lots 8 and 9, Block 22, Newton's Addition Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-301, the parking provisions of Section 36-502, and the sign provisions of Section 36-557, associated with awning and sign additions and an outdoor restaurant seating area. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Restaurant Restaurant with outdoor seating Because of the type and size of additions proposed, no upgrade in landscaping is required. C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 5524 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by a one- story brick and frame restaurant building. There is an existing storage building in the rear yard. There is paved parking on the north, south and west sides of the building, with a total of 15 parking spaces. There are existing access drives from Kavanaugh Blvd. and Taylor Street. There is August 25, 2003 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) an existing canopy structure which extends from the building to within 7.5 feet of the front (Kavanaugh Blvd.) property line. The applicant (U.S. Pizza) proposes to close in the canopy area with a short iron fence and use the area for outdoor dining. The applicant also proposes to install awnings on front of the main building and the south, east and west sides of the canopy structure. Each awning will have a sign on it advertising the restaurant. The applicant is proposing three (3) variances with this proposal. The first variance is from Section 36-502(3)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance. This section requires a minimum of 18 off-street parking spaces for the restaurant, after the addition of the outdoor seating area. The site currently has 15 off-street parking spaces. The second variance is from Section 36-301(e)(1). This section requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet for C-3 zoned lots. The proposed awning on the south side of the canopy structure will extend 2.5 to 3 feet from the canopy face, to within 4.5 to 5 feet from the front (south) property line. The last variance is from Section 36-557(a). This section requires that all on -premise wall signs fact street frontage. The proposed awning sign on the east side of the canopy structure does not have street frontage. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the requests are reasonable. There are several commercial buildings along Kavanaugh Blvd. in this general area that are located on or very close to the front property lines. Therefore, the proposed front setback will not be out -of -character with the area. Additionally, there is on -street parking along Kavanaugh Blvd., which will aid in any overflow parking for this business. There are several businesses in the area that have no off- street parking, unlike this business which has 83 percent of the off-street parking requirement. The sign located on the east side of the canopy structure will help identify the business by west -bound traffic along Kavanaugh Blvd. Staff is comfortable with the variances as requested. Staff feels that the proposed outdoor seating area and awnings (with signage) will have no adverse impact on the general area, and will be a nice upgrade for this property. D. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 2 August 25, 2003 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) 1. A building permit must be obtained for the awning construction. 2. A sign permit must be obtained for each sign. 3. The awnings must have a minimum clearance of eight (8) feet above pedestrian use areas. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant completed the required notification to surrounding property owners, but did not use a list from an abstract company. Staff noted that it appeared all of the property owners within 200 feet were notified in a timely manner. With a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent the Board voted to waive their bylaws and accept the notification as completed by the applicant. 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. 3 Y U.S. P'zza CompanP.O. Box 15788 • North Little Rock, AR 72231-5788 d 501/835-0411 Department of Planning and Development Little Rock Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR July 23, 2003 To Whom It May Concern: We are proposing the addition of a patio for outdoor dining. t -V-e"--44 ;Z- 7�-53 The purpose for this proposal is the eventual change of the main restaurant to a "No Smoking" atmosphere. Therefore necessitating a designated smoking area, which will be the outside patio area. Thanks for your help, Paul Harris Maintenance Supervisor U.S. Pizza Co., Inc. Authorized Agent August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-7454 Owner: Otter Creek Land Company Address: #2 Otter Creek Court Description: Lot 1, Otter Creek Commercial Subdivision Zoned: C-1 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the temporary building provisions of Section 36-202 to allow a time extension. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Temporary Office Building Temporary Office Building, with future permanent office building The C-1 zoned property at #2 Otter Creek Court is occupied by a one- story temporary office building, located near the center of the lot. There is a small paved parking area on the east side of the building. A paved driveway from Otter Creek Court serves as access. Section 36-202 of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows for the placement of temporary buildings as follows: "(a) The director of the city department having planning authority and responsibility may allow a temporary building, preregulation mobile home or August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) manufactured home for commerce, or industry in any district where such building is used. (1) Incidental to construction on a site or development of a residential subdivision, or (2) As a temporary office, store, or other facility while the primary structure on the same site is being remodeled or constructed. (b) Such temporary building, mobile home, or manufactured home may be allowed for any period of time up to one (1) year, after which the board of zoning adjustment must rule on an extension of time." Staff became involved in this case a little over a year ago, by way of a citizen inquiry about the temporary building. On May 28, 2002, staff administratively allowed the property owner one (1) year to remove the structure. Staff was unable to determine how approval was originally given for placement of the structure. Tommy Hodges, the property owner, recently submitted a letter to staff, requesting an additional year to remove the structure. Based on the fact that staff has already given a time extension, the Board of Adjustment must approve any additional time. Mr. Hodges notes that a building plan has been proposed for a permanent building and a contractor has been selected. He expects to have the new building completed in one (1) year. Staff recommends approval of the requested time extension. Staff feels that an extension of time to remove the temporary office building is reasonable, however, one (1) year is the maximum time staff will support. Even though the temporary office building has proven to be a good holding use for the property, staff feels that it is time to begin construction of the permanent building and remove the temporary structure. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested one (1) year time extension for the placement of the temporary office building. The temporary building must be removed from the property no later than August 25, 2004. K August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the Otter Creek Neighborhood Association had requested that the application be deferred so that they could meet with the applicant and discuss the issue. Staff noted that Tommy Hodges, the applicant, had expressed no problem with a deferral. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 29, 2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. W OTTER CREEK July 7, 2003 Mr. Monte Moore Little Rock Planning Department 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR. 72201 Dear Monte: I have been notified by the city code enforcement office that the time has expired on moving out of our temporary structure. To be honest, I thought we had more time. During the past year, we were so focused on the Bass Pro project that I simply lost track of time. We have prepared plans and have selected a contractor for our building. I am enclosing a copy of the elevation and floor plan. This is a request that the city give us an additional extension of one year to complete the building. Please let me know what is required and I will comply. Otter Creek Land Company • =2 Otter Creek Court • Little Rock, AR 72210 • Phone: (501) 455-3000 Fax: (501) 455-0525 E-mail: tlhodges@swbell.net • www.ottercreek.net f August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7455 Helena D. Jackson 1605 S. Taylor Street Part of Lots 10 and 11, Block 3, Cherry and Cox Addition M. 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. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-3 zoned property at 1605 S. Taylor Street is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from Taylor Street which serves as access. There is a two -car garage in the rear yard, near the northeast corner of the property. There is an existing six (6) foot high wood fence along the south and east property lines. The applicant recently began constructing a 10 foot high wood privacy fence along a portion of the north property, as noted on the attached site plan. The fence runs from the northeast corner of the property to near the August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) front corner of the house, along the existing driveway. The applicant notes that the fence is needed for security and privacy. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet for residential properties. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the 10 foot high wood fence. Staff does not support the variance, as requested. Staff does not believe that a 10 foot high fence is reasonable in this case. The house immediately to the north is located only a few feet from the dividing side property line, and staff feels that the 10 foot high opaque fence will not allow a reasonable amount of light and air passage between the proposed fence and this residential structure. Staff believes that a minimum of two (2) feet should be cut off the overall fence height. Therefore, staff will support a variance for an eight (8) foot high fence. Staff believes that this will allow the applicant the security and privacy desired, and not be detrimental to the adjacent property. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested fence height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) The applicant was present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had amended the application to be an 8 -foot high fence instead of a 10 -foot high fence. Staff supported the revised application for an 8 -foot high wood fence, subject to a building permit being obtained. There were no objectors present. 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 August 5, 2003 City of Little Rock Dept of Planning & Dev 723 W Markham St Little Rock, Ar 72201 T4zvl- g �2 %' jV RE: 1605 S Taylor St 10 Ft fence Installation I am applying for approval for a 10 ft high fence that runs from The alley to about 3 ft from the front corner of house along beside my driveway. My reason for installing this fence is for my privacy and security. This fence will separate our back yard from our neighbors. The 10 ft highness will keep the nosy neighbors from looking out the window over the fence. My neighbors walk up my driveway to get to their back yard, instead of going around another way and this fence will detour Part of that. Right beside the driveway, my neighbor has a place where he keeps his baits in the ground and the big water bugs feed on that And have began crawling over my fence when the lights come on. Has a lot of junk piled up about a ft from my property and the Fence separates that. A few years ago, he tied his dog close enough to my drive that his dog could walk half way my driveway when going to get in my car And I stopped that. All the trash and leaves he has is only accumulating mosquitoes And may be some snakes around. The area was open in the back yard and the neighbors would just Come over on my property whenever they felt like it and let their Grandchild visit without asking if it was okay even when they don't speak to us. Across the street on the opposite corner, another neighbor sent his Wife to look in my back yard and I asked her why did she do that And she said she was doing something for her husband and never Told me why. Also my neighbor was known for climbing on his roof at night and listening at us when we were in the front yard. I am a working, law abiding citizen and was not aware that I was Violating an ordinance until you showed up. This fence is really making a difference in my back yard. My Privacy means a lot to me. A neighbor 1 house over to the left of me was broken into about two weeks ago and he told me this when I went by to notify him Of me installing a fence and of the meeting on 8/25. He had begun Installing a fence across his back yard. A 6 ft fence was here when I moved in that ran from the left corner Of house & across back yard near alley. I'm just bringing it from The back corner between my house and the neighbor. My dog was stolen from my back yard about a year ago. I could go on and on but the bottom line is my privacy and security. Thank you for your time and consideration. Helena D Jackso Lepolen Sanders s, -:;,/cep August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7456 Owner: William B. Brady Real Estate Trust Address: 10 River Ridge Circle Description: Zoned: Lot 5, River View Manor M Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence/wall provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a fence/wall which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: This building plan was previously reviewed and approved by Public Works on 7/15/03. The plan is acceptable provided all original conditions for approval are met as follows: 1. Neighbor to the east to agree. 2. R.C.P. pipe to be Class III, bedded and backfilled per Little Rock Code — (select natural arterials). 3. Headwall to be comparable in size, reinforcing and concrete strength as existing one. 4. Call inspector at 371-4856 before backfill. August 25, 2003 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 10 River Ridge Circle is occupied by a two- story frame single family residence. There is a driveway from River Ridge Circle which serves as access. The property has a very steep slope downward from front to back (south to north). There is an elevated concrete parking pad on the east side of the residential structure. There is a large drainage structure which runs along the east property line. The applicant proposes to remove and rebuild the driveway and parking pad, extending the parking pad to the east property line. As part of the project, the applicant proposes to improve the drainage area along the east property line. In addition, construction of a 12 foot high masonry wall/fence on top of and along the east edge of the parking pad is proposed. The applicant has noted that the wall and fence will be designed by a licensed engineer. A letter from the adjacent property owner to the east approving of the project has been submitted to staff. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence/wall height of six (6) feet in residential zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the 12 foot wall on top of the new parking pad. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff typically does not support fence/wall heights in residential zoning exceeding eight (8) feet in height. However, given the uniqueness of this case, staff will recommend approval. Given the steep slope of the property, the need to improve the drainage area and make it safer, and the approval of the adjacent property owner, staff is comfortable with the project. With compliance to the Public Works requirements (as noted in paragraph A.) and plans certified by a licensed engineer, the project should be a quality one and 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 masonry wall/fence must not exceed a height of 12 feet above the parking pad. 2. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of this report. 3. Plans for construction must be certified by a licensed engineer. 2 August 25, 2003 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 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. 3 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The application that is attached hereto is for a permit or city approval to do three things. * Extend a drainage pipe along side of my property by 21 feet, rebuild the headwall and cover the pipe, all in accordance with specification given me by Mr. Hamilton, an engineer in the City Planning Department; * Remove and then rebuild our driveway and parking area and extend it over to the east property line, per the survey that is attached, and * Construct a wall atop the driveway and parking pad., just to the inside of the property line, a wall that will be built in accordance with a plan designed and approved by a structural engineer (Jim Summerlin, PE) and which will have as its maximum height twelve (12) feet. A drawing by the contractor is included in this application package and a more defined, professional drawing, with specifications, will be submitted within two weeks (as soon as Mr. Summerlin finishes it). The purpose of this project is both safety and esthetics. The open ditch provides a very dangerous situation and I feel that filling it to the extent of my parking pad will increase the safety of the area and eliminate a potential hazard on my property. I also feel that a wall, as proscribed by the plans, will make my property more attractive and, thus, enhance its value. I have discussed this project in great detail with my immediate neighbor to the east, Mr. Bruce Colclasure, the only one that will be directly affected. He fully understands my plans, which include having the block wall made smooth so as to not create an inappropriate and unsightly situation on his side. You 'Will find a letter or document in this application signed by him attesting to his understanding and lack of objections.. We hope to get this approval at the August 25 meeting of the Board in order that construction can begin in early September. And, we will appreciate your favorable consideration of this request and application. Sin erely, William B. Br y, Owner 10 River Ridge Circle 223-9994 July 24, 2003 - TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, I am totally familiar with the plans of my neighbor, Mr. Brady at 10 River Ridge Circle, to extend the drain pipe and fill the 21 foot open ditch that is in the easement between our properties; to extend his driveway and parking pad to his property line adjacent to mine and then construct a twelve foot high privacy fence on the property line between our respective lots. I have seen the survey, the contractor's drawing, the instructions given Mr. Brady by Mr. Hamilton, a city engineer. Mr. Brady and I have discussed his project and his plans at length and I am quite satisfied that the project will not negatively impact me and my property in any way and I have no objections to his being issued a permit to proceed as planned. Sincerely, Ze�Colclasure, Owner 14 River Midge Circle Little Dock, AR 72227 August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Z-7457 Owner: John and Debbie Boyd Address: 428 Midland Avenue Description: Part of Lots 14 and 15, Block 12, Midland Hills Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the easement provisions of Section 36-11 and the area provisions of Section 36-156, associated with a proposed accessory building. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-3 zoned property at 428 Midland is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. There is an existing accessory storage building at the northwest corner of the property. There is an alley right-of- way along the west property line which serves as access. The property slopes downward from back to front (west to east). The applicant proposes to remove the existing storage building and construct a new 24 foot by 30 foot carport/storage building (one-story). The proposed structure will be set back from the rear property line approximately six (6) feet and have side yard setbacks ranging from four August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont. (4) feet to eight (8) feet. The structure will cover approximately 52 percent of the required rear yard (rear 25 feet). Additionally, part of the building will be located within a 15 foot wide temporary sewer easement which runs along the rear property line. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum rear yard coverage of 30 percent for accessory buildings in R-3 zoning. Section 36-11(f) requires that the Board of Adjustment review and approve any proposed building encroachments into easements. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow construction of the accessory carport/storage building. Staff is supportive of the variance requests. Staff views the requests as very minor. The Little Rock Wastewater Utility has submitted a letter stating they have no objection to the proposed construction, as the utility no longer has a need for the easement. The increased rear yard coverage associated with the proposed accessory structure will not be out of character with other properties in this general area. The fact that the applicant is locating the structure six (6) feet from the alley will provide increased maneuvering area for the carport. The proposed structure exceeds all of the minimum ordinance required setbacks. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to a building permit being obtained for the construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 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 7V57 Letter of Justification Date: July 25, 2003 To: Little Rock Board of Adjustment From: JoLm W. Boyd, 428 Midland, ittle Rock, AR 72205 Re: riance Request for Construction at the Rear of 428 Midland, Parts of Lots 14 and 15, Block 12, Midland Hills Addition My justifications for seeking a zoning variance to build a 30 ft by 24 ft carport/storage building are: (1) The lot is too -narrow at the rear to install a 30 ft wide structure and maintain a 6 ft setback from the adjoining neighbor's property lines. My proposed plan would leave a 4 ft setback on each side at the rear of the structure and 7 and 8 ft setbacks at the front of the structure. (2) Due to the rapid elevation change from back to front and the presence of an existing retaining wall; I would like relief from the requirement that 70% of the square footage of the structure be inside a 25 ft set back from the alley. I propose that my building be allowed to start 6 ft from the edge of the alley. There are several existing buildings along the alley located 6 ft or less from the edge of the alley. Little Rock Wastewater 11D Utility July 25, 2003 Mr. John Boyd Hand Delivered Administration Facility Department of Engineering Services New Mains/Relocations Section 221 East Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Bus. 501-688-1414 Fax. 501-376-3541 °-- I --745-7 RE: Variance Request — Construction Within Rear Easement #428 Midland Avenue — Part of Lots 14 k 12 Midland Hills Addition to the City of Little Rock Dear Mr. Boyd: Little Rock Wastewater Utility has reviewed the variance you requested on the above referenced property and have approved the variance with the following comments: 1. Little Rock Wastewater Utility has no need for the temporary easement the Utility used during the repair of the sewer main located in the alley at the rear of this property. If you have any questions concerning this matter, I may be reached by telephone at (501) 688-1414. Sincerely, LITTLE ROCK WASTEWATER UTILITY ZJames�Bo�yd, P.E. Engineering Supervisor New Mains/Relocation Section Department of Engineering Services cc: Thad Luther, P.E., Director of Engineering Rick Simmons, Engineering Assistant August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 11 File No.: Z-7458 Owner: Patty Kymer and B. J. Davis Address: 4303 Woodlawn Avenue Description: Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 6, Pulaski Heights Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the accessory building provisions of Section 36- 2 and the area provision of Section 36-156, associated with a proposed accessory building. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 4303 Woodlawn Avenue is occupied by a two- story frame single family residence. There is an existing frame accessory building at the southwest corner of the property, as well as a hot tub/deck area and a small accessory building along the south property line. The property currently has only on -street parking. The overall property consists of three (3) platted lots, oriented east -west. The house is situated on the north two (2) lots, with the accessory structures on the southernmost lot. August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) The property owners propose to construct a 26.5 foot by 46 foot (1 Y2 story) garage at the southeast corner of the property, located on the southernmost lot. The garage will allow for the parking of four (4) vehicles and storage. The structure will be located 20 feet from the east property line, with vehicular access from Rose Street. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 60 feet for accessory structures on R-2 zoned property. Because of the lot orientation, staff must view the east property line as the front property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. Additionally, Section 36-2 requires that an accessory building be located on the same lot as the principal structure it serves. The applicant is also requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. As noted previously the proposed new structure, as well as the existing accessory structure, are located on a separately platted lot. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the variance request as reasonable. The three (3) lots as developed are tied together as a single zoning lot, and will be unable to be sold separately in the future. The proposed garage structure is located 20 feet from the east (Rose Street) property line. If the lots were platted north -south, the minimum required street side yard setback would be 15 feet. Additionally, the structure will be located approximately 40 feet from the edge of Rose Street, and will have adequate maneuvering area for vehicles. The proposed accessory garage is indicative of those in the general area and should have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to a building permit being obtained for the proposed construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 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. Vj j47 ARCHITECTS P.A. �7 July 24, 2003 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Residential Zoning Variance 4304 Woodlawn Avenue Dear Mr. Moore: Enclosed please find an executed application for a residential zoning variance as well as a check for the filing fee. I am making this application on behalf of the property owners and residents, Ms. Patti Kymer and Mr. B.J. Davis. The Kymer/Davis' came to us to assist them in the design of a garage to be located behind their historic home on Woodlawn Avenue. They desired to have a new garage that was functional as well as designed to be an architectural compliment to their property. They have three cars and a boat and therefore desired the equivalent of a 4 car garage. The property's original small carriage house/out building had been previously converted to a small apartment prior to their purchase of the property. Currently the family utilizes on-streef parking only. Although the program called for a rather large structure, the Owners desire to minimize the size of the new garage as seen from. Rose Street. Therefore the structure has been designed to be the equivalent of two cars wide and two cars deep. When combined with the carriage house apartment, the existing and proposed structures exceed the back yard building area by approximately 25%, thus the request for a variance. If the garage was rotated 90 degrees, it would meet the zoning requirements, but would virtually build out the side yard. In the Owner's view, the current backyard landscaping presents a more desirable street appearance for the public. I hope you find the application satisfactory. Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please call. Cordially, JAMESON Architects PA Tomr Encic 300 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-666-6600 FAX 501-666-5177 August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 12 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7459 Michael and Stephanie Vanderford 1815 N. Monroe Street Lot 73 and part of Lot 72, Shadowlawn 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 1815 N. Monroe Street is occupied by a one- story frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from Monroe Street which serves as access. There is a frame garage structure at the southeast corner of the property. The applicants propose to construct a 24 foot by 54 foot (one story) addition on the rear (east side) of the existing residential structure. The addition includes extending the side walls of the house straight back, in order to maintain the architectural integrity of the structure. The northeast corner of the existing house is located 4.5 feet from the side (north) property line. The northeast corner of the proposed addition will be three August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) (3) feet from this property line. The existing house and addition are located 15 feet plus from the south side property line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow the building addition three (3) to 4.5 feet from the north side property line. The proposed building addition conforms to all other building setbacks. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff views the variance request as very minor. The existing house is positioned on the lot at a slight angle to the side property lines, resulting in a decreasing side yard as moving from the northwest corner to the northeast corner of the structure. The three (3) foot side yard setback as proposed for the building addition should allow for construction and maintenance of the structure without encroaching onto the adjacent property to the north. Additionally, the existing house on the lot to the north is located 18 to 20 feet from the common side property line, and the accessory building on that lot is located 10 to 12 feet from the side line. Therefore, staff believes that there is more than adequate separation between the proposed building addition and the existing structures on the adjacent property. Staff believes that the proposed building addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Guttering must be provided, if the roof angle is such that there would be water run-off onto the adjacent property to the north. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 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 July 23, 2003 Dear members of the Board of Adjustments, My name is Michael Vanderford. My wife and 1, together with our three children, have lived at 1815 N. Monroe for the past ten years. As our growing family is in desperate need of more space, we would like to build an addition to our home. In order to maintain the architectural aesthetics of the existing home, we need a variance to the side set back. We plan to add a room straight back from the existing corner of our home. Due to the configuration of the existing home and the property line, the rear corner of the planned addition will be 3 feet from the side property line. The rear corner of the existing home is 4.5 feet from the side property line. Accordingly, the addition will move the rear corner of our home 1.5 feet closer to the side Property line. 1 have enclosed a copy of the plans that show the requested variance. The home nearest the property line at issue is separated by 20 feet of green space and a 10 -foot wide driveway. Accordingly, we do not intend to `build on top" of our neighbor. In the planning stage of our addition, we have made a great effort to maintain the architectural imtegrity and aesthetics of the home we love very much. Without the requested variance, any addition would become impractical in terms of use and cost and would be at best, aesthetically challenged. Your consideration of our request is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, 7L, �), Michael P. Vanderford August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 13 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7460 Alexandra Ifrah 5124 "P" Street Lot 19, Block 3, McGehee Addition Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow additions with reduced side and rear yard setbacks. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 5124 "P" Street is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from "P" Street which serves as access. An alley right-of-way is located along the north property line. The applicant proposes to construct a 34.5 foot by 39.5 foot building addition on the north side of the existing house. The addition will contain a new den, kitchen and master bedroom with bath. An uncovered, unenclosed deck with steps will be constructed on the north side of the room addition. The deck will be located 21 feet from the rear (north) property line, with the steps being 19 feet from the rear line. August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) The applicant also proposes to construct a 10 foot — 8 inch by 23 foot carport addition along the west side of the house, covering a portion of the existing driveway. The carport structure will be located one (1) foot from the west (side) property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the 19 foot rear yard setback for the deck/steps, and the one (1) foot side yard setback for the proposed carport. The applicant has obtained a letter from the property owner immediately to the west, expressing no objection to the requested one (1) foot side setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variance to allow a reduced rear yard setback. If the deck remains uncovered and unenclosed, the structure should have a minimum impact on the adjacent properties. The main building addition on the rear of the house exceeds all of the required setbacks. Staff does not support the requested variance to allow a one (1) foot side yard setback for the proposed carport structure. Staff believes that even if the structure is unenclosed, there will not be adequate room to construct and maintain the structure without encroaching onto the property to the west. There is a two (2) foot wide flower bed along the west side of the house. If the applicant could extend the driveway into this area and cut the width of the proposed carport to 8 feet — 8 inches, thereby providing a three (3) foot side yard setback, staff could support the setback variance. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The deck structure must remain uncovered and unenclosed. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the construction. Staff recommends denial of the side yard setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) Alexandra Ifrah was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of 2 August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) approval of the requested rear yard setback variance. Staff recommended denial of the requested side yard setback variance associated with the proposed carport structure. Alexandra Ifrah addressed the Board in support of the application. She described the proposed construction. She noted that reducing the width of the carport structure would make it very difficult to open the car doors next to the house. She stated that her contractor informed her that the carport structure could be constructed and maintained without encroaching onto the property to the west. She discussed the maintenance easement deed which the property owner to the west had signed. She noted that the deed would run with the land and only terminate if the carport were closed in. Fred Gray asked about the height of the existing fence along the west property line. Ms. Ifrah stated that the fence was six (6) feet in height. She noted that there would be space between the fence and the roof of the carport structure, and that it would not have the appearance of being closed in. There was a motion to approve the rear yard setback variance, subject to the conditions as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The variance was approved. There was a second motion to approve the side yard setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The carport structure must remain unenclosed on the north, south and west sides. 2. The maintenance easement must run with the property and be properly recorded. 3. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the west. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The variance was approved. '43 Alexandra Ifrah 5124 P. Street Little Rock, AR 72207 July 20, 2003 Board of Adjustments The Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Application for Zoning Variance Dear Sirs and Madams: I am respectfully requesting zoning variances for my residence. I am planning an addition to my existing house as described on the enclosed survey which consists of a new family room, kitchen, master bedroom and bath (the "Addition"). The Addition is within the prescribed allowable side yard and rear yard setbacks and does not require a variance waiver. The following, however, are the requested variances in conjunction with the Addition: (1) The addition of a carport on the west side of the house which is to be located one foot from the property line. (2) The addition of an unroofed deck which extends into the rear yard setback 4 feet and steps which extend 6 feet. There is not enough room on the property to accommodate the functions without a waiver of the setback requirements. The house is very elevated off the ground and a deck is necessary to be able to step down into the yard. Also, enclosed is a letter from the property owner on the west side of the house where the proposed carport is sought stating that he has no objection to the proposed variance request. The rear of the house faces an alley. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Alexandra Ifrah -I*,- --& / 3 July 20, 2003 Jay Bassett 5126 P. Street Little Rock, AR 72207 Board of Adjustments The Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Application for Zoning Variance/ 5124 P. Street- Alexandra Ifrah Dear Sirs and Madams: I am the immediate neighbor of the Mrs. Alexandra Ifrah, 5124 P. Street, Little Rock, AR 72207. This letter is to inform you that I have reviewed the variance request for such property regarding the addition of a carport on the west side of the property, 1 foot from the property line, and I have no objection to such request. Sincerely, Ja a ett August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 14 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7461 Sidney M. Thom 2300 Country Club Lane Lots 7 and 8, Block 11, Country Club Heights Addition IM Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with reduced side and rear yard setbacks. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 2300 Country Club Lane is occupied by a two- story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from Country Club Lane which serves as access. There is a two -car carport located at the northwest corner of the house, accessed by the driveway which runs along the north property line. The applicant proposes to construct a 24 foot by 46 foot (one-story) building addition on the rear of the house and a 24 foot by 22 foot attached garage (1 Y2 stories) at the northwest corner of the property. The additions will have a four (4) foot setback from the north (side) property line and a five (5) foot setback from the west (rear) property line. The five August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) (5) foot rear yard setback is by way of an alley right-of-way along the west property line which is noted as "closed" on the survey provided by the applicant. The 24 foot by 46 foot building addition will include a bedroom, sitting room and bathroom. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36- 254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements for the proposed building addition. Staff is not supportive of the proposed variances. Although staff is not necessarily opposed to the proposed side yard setback, staff cannot support the requested five (5) foot rear yard setback. The existing house to the west is located only approximately 10 from the common rear property line, providing for a separation of only approximately 15 feet from the proposed addition. Staff feels that given the large size of the houses in this general area, this type of reduced setback and separation proposed will have a negative impact on the property to the west. Staff feels that the applicant should re -design the building addition and utilize some of the yard space within the southwest portion of the lot. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred based on the fact that two (2) of the four (4) Board members present were going to abstain from the voting. Staff suggested deferral to the September 29, 2003 agenda. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 29, 2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 Sidney and Emily Thom 2300 Country Club Lane Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Variance Request, 2300 Country Club Lane Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Board Members: a -4 e, - --d- / � ( Z- pc-�) July 22, 2003 My wife and I respectfully request that the Board of Adjustsment grant a variance on the above captioned property for the purpose of constructing a one story bedroom, sitting room, bathroom and attached 1 and %2 story two car garage. The proposed variance would maintain consistency with other properties in the neighborhood. A variance is requested because of my inability to negotiate steps in our present two story plus finished attic. My doctor, Dr. Lowry Barnes, has recommended a one story living situation following replacement surgery on both knees. We intend to use the existing carport location to construct the new addition to make appropriate use of available space. The proposed addition, as shown on the enclosed survey, mandates that the present driveway remain in place so as to accomodate the ingress and egress of our neighbor on the north. We presently have adjoining driveways which enables our neighbor to use our deriveway to turn into his garage and also enables us to use his driveway in order to leave our premises. Page 2, Variance Request The current driveway construction has been in place for 75 years, and our neighbor recently constructed a new home utilizing the original plan. It is not feasible to move the present driveway to the south side of the property because of physical characteristics and placement of the home, brick wall and mature landscaping. More importantly, it would take away our neighbors ability to negotiate the turn northward into his newly constructed home and garage. Please also note on the survey that the 10 foot alley is officially closed providing an additional five feet for our benefit that we are not currently using. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, !SidtneM. Thom Enclosure EST August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 15 File No.: Z-7462 Owner: Gil and Elaine Wootten Address: 141 Jewell Road Description: Lot 451, Kingwood Place Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a porch and deck 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 issues. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 141 Jewell Road is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence with basement. There is a one - car driveway from Jewell Road which serves as access. The property slopes downward from front to back, to a rather wide drainage easement which runs along the west property line. The single family structure is one-story as viewed from the front, with a two-story height as viewed from the rear yard. There is an existing lower level deck structure at the northwest corner of the house. The applicants propose to construct a 14 foot by 18 foot screened -in porch and a 14 foot by 10 foot deck (uncovered and unenclosed) on the rear of the house to serve the upper-level. A double set of windows which August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) are in the upper-level dining room will be removed with a French door installed to access the porch and deck structure. The porch/deck structure will be located 16.5 to 19.5 feet from the west (rear) property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance from this requirement for the proposed porch/deck structure. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. As noted previously there is a rather wide drainage easement (80 -plus feet wide) along the west property line, between this house and the houses to the west. Because of the drainage easement, staff feels that the proposed porch/deck structure will have no adverse impact on the properties to the rear. Additionally, the house is located approximately 40 feet back from the front property line. If the house had the typical 25 foot front setback, the requested rear yard setback would be no issue. Staff feels that approval of the requested variance will not adversely affect the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to the following conditions: The 10 foot by 14 foot deck structure must remain uncovered and unenclosed. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the proposed construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 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 July 20, 2003 City of Little Rock Dear Board of Adjustment, We, the owners at 141 Jewell Road, are requesting permission to build a covered porch and deck on the back or west side of our residence. It is our understanding after meeting with the Department of Planning and Development of the City of Little Rock that there is in effect a 25 -foot building setback requirement for new construction from the back property line. This setback requirement comes within 4 feet of our house at the northwest corner. There are no residences directly behind our house. The property behind our house belongs to the City of Little Rock and is a wooded area with many old growth trees. The area was originally labeled as a park on the original plat for Kingwood Place. We are providing the required documentation with the application for zoning variance. Our lot is a pie shaped lot with the narrow end towards Jewell Road and the wide end toward the .back of the lot. Therefore, when the house was built, it was located toward the back to better fit the lot. Our lot also has a steep slope from the front of our residence to the back. In other words, it was built as one story off of Jewell Road and is approximately two stories in the back. We have a basement area downstairs as shown on the survey. It is our hope that we may receive permission to build the covered porch and deck off of the top story, which would make it approximately 14.5 feet above the ground in the back of the house. We have provided pictures to show this with our application. The proposed porch and: deck extend 14 feet out from the back of the residence and 27 feet along the length of the back wall. The covered porch is 17 feet off of the back property line at the north end and the attached deck is 20 feet, off of theproperty line at thesouth end. At its closest point, the covered porch is 7 feet away from the 10 -foot wide easement along the back property line as shown on the survey. The covered porch dimensions are 17 feet by 14 feet and the attached deck is 10 feet by 14 feet. As a registered professional engineer in the state of Arkansas, I will ensure that the porch and deck are structurally sound and meet applicable building code requirements. Having owned the home for over ten years, we have good relationships with our neighbors and have provided their signatures that they have been notified of the request for zoning variance. Our neighbors Have been supportive of our request. The addition would have little or no impact on our neighbors and would only add to the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Please consider approving our request and we will be happy to answer any questions the Board may have. Sincerely, Gil and Elaine Wootten f August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 16 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7463 Paul Mark Southern, LLC 6425 S. University Avenue Northeast corner of S. University Avenue and West 65th Street C-4 A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-530 to allow a mansard sign which extends more than 18 inches form the mansard roof line. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Restaurant Restaurant The C-4 zoned property at 6425 S. University Avenue is occupied by a newly constructed Bojangles restaurant. The restaurant building is located near the center of the lot, with paved parking on the north and south sides. There are access drives from S. University Avenue and West 65th Street. On December 2, 2002, the City's Planning Staff issued sign permits for two (2) ground -mounted signs and one (1) mansard sign. The mansard sign is located on the west side of the building and has a height of 5'— 7 %" and a length of 14'— 2 Y4", for a total area of 53.66 square feet. The raceway on which the channel letters are attached is 14 inches tall. The August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) mansard sign extends approximately four (4) feet from the surface of the mansard roof. Based on the fact that the sign extends more than 18 inches from the mansard roof surface, the sign was to be "boxed -in" on the front, sides and top. This was the only reason the sign permit was issued. Section 36-530 of the City's Zoning Ordinance defines a "wall sign" as follows: "Wall sign means a sign attached parallel to and extending not more than eighteen (18) inches from the wall of a building. "Wall sign" includes painted, individual letter and cabinet signs and signs on a mansard." Evidently, miscommunication between the restaurant owners and the sign contractor resulted in the sign not being "boxed -in". Therefore, the restaurant owners are requesting a variance from the above listed ordinance section to allow the sign to stay as is. Staff does not support the requested sign variance. Had staff known the sign was not going to be "boxed -in", the sign permit would not have been issued. The existing mansard sign is rather large as compared to the same type signs which have been approved for other restaurants. Staff feels that the sign is too large for the mansard roof, as it extends the entire height of the mansard roof structure. Staff believes that the sign should be "boxed -in" or removed and placed on a vertical wall surface. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) Mark Zoeller and David Ashley were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Mark Zoeller addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that it would take $2,000 to $5,000 to "box -in" the sign. He said that he could not afford to do it at this time. K August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont. Chairman Ruck asked if there was a miscommunication that caused the sign not to be boxed -in. Mr. Zoeller stated that there was a miscommunication between the two (2) sign companies. He stated that he as the property owner did not know of the requirement to box -in the sign. Fred Gray asked Mr. Zoeller why he did not wish to box -in the sign. Mr. Zoeller noted that he wanted to maintain the corporate image of the business. He also noted that the lights behind the sign would be lost if the sign were boxed -in. He noted that he did not want the sign to look different from other Bojangles signs. Fred Gray stated that a solid background should make the sign standout more. The issue of sign lighting was briefly discussed. Terry Burruss expressed concern with the size of the sign and how the building would look if the sign were boxed -in. Chairman Ruck stated that he had no problem with the sign as installed. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, reiterated the fact that staff did not support the application. He stated that the mistake was made by the applicant and not staff. He stated that modifying the sign would not adversely affect it. There was a motion to approve the sign variance, as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 1 aye, 3 nays and 1 absent. The variance was denied. 0 Little Rock Franchisee: PaulMark Southern, LLC P.O. Box 2478 Little Rock, AR 72203-2478 To: Dept. of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR Planning Department, t --7463 July 23, 2003 This letter is to inform you of our request for a sign variance. The sign in question is located on the front of Bojangles' Restaurant, located at 6425 S. University Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72209. Details of the sign are as follows, and pictures have been included for your review. -Open Face Channel Letters on Race Way mounted through awning to bracing and bracket system attached to building. -Overall Height of Channel is 5'- 7 1/4 " -Overall Length of Channels is 14' — 2 1/4 " -Raceway is 14" Tall. -Total Square Footage of the sign is 53.66. This request for variance is based on a corporate image portrayal. One of the most important issues for a new Franchisee bringing a franchised system into a new market is image. While in the development stages of our first restaurant, we wanted to establish guidelines that met the corporate image package while at the same time using local contractors, for as many aspects of the job as possible. Currently, Bojangles' Restaurants are mostly developed and concentrated in the Southern United States. Due to this fact, most of the contractors and people involved in getting one of these building built from start to finish are all located in the Southeast. We felt that because of our interest in building many restaurants in the State of Arkansas that we should try to establish relationships with local contractors and vendors to benefit the State, versus vendors and contractors out of state. As a result, we used a local General Contractor to construct our building, and attempted to have most everything else done locally as well. To our dismay during the planning process, many local vendors were not willing to take on many aspects of our project. We felt that using local vendors would do many things. First of which was helping the local economy, and secondly that shipping expenses would be a lot less than having items fabricated out of state, and shipped in for this project. We tried to have our sign package produced locally, but that did not work. We tried to have our awnings fabricated locally, and installed locally, but no one was willing to take on the job. As a result, we used a team from North Carolina that fabricate and build these from New York to Florida. The awning team traveled from North Carolina and constructed the awnings on site according to specifications and plans that are used in multiple states. In using one of the current Sign production vendors, currently out of North Carolina, they subcontracted the installation of the sign package to a local company to Little Rock. We thought that everything had been done by the book, but want to reiterate our need for image establishment and uniformity. Bringing a new business into a location that had not seen one in many years; our main goal was to portray, to the best of our ability, the Bojangles' Image. Our building design, our menu boards, our Logo's, our food quality, carpet design and Sign Package establish this image, and will be one that we talce with us as we build more in Little Rock and around the State of Arkansas. This image is just as important, if not more so, than those established by other Quick Serve Restaurants in the State such as McDonald's, Burger King, Church's Chicken and KFC. Everyone has a corporate image to uphold, and in bringing Bojangles' back to Arkansas after a 15 year absence, our image is everything. Our disadvantage in bringing this Restaurant back to the area is that we do not have near the notoriety a restaurant chain such as McDonald's has. We have to establish and maintain our image in the eyes of every customer that we attract. We are asking that the Board of Adjustment allow us, Bojangles', to use our Sign Package as it is meant to be used, as a way to establish our name and image in the minds of so many customers new to Bojangles'. Thanks for your time and consideration, Marls Zo er Owner/Partner August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 17 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Z-7464 Cindi Sammartano 1724 N. Tyler Street Part of Lot 1, Block 19, Mountain Park Addition R-2 Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 and Section 36-254, associated with a proposed building addition and accessory building. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential 1. Public Works does not support reduced setbacks on Cantrell Road (State Highway 10). Any new structures should be set back at least as far as the existing home, or as allowed by right in the zoning ordinance. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 1724 N. Tyler Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one story frame accessory building at the northwest corner of the property. There is an alley right-of-way along the west property line which provides access. The applicant proposes to construct a new stoop and steps for a side door located on the south side of the residence. The new stoop and steps will be located two (2) feet from the side (south) property line. The new stoop will project no further into the side yard than the existing stoop. An August 25, 2003 Item No.: 17 existing deck structure along this side of the house will be removed and replaced with an on -grade patio. The applicant also proposes to remove the existing accessory structure and construct a new carport structure (for two cars) with storage. The new carport will be one-story in height, with a two (2) foot setback from the north (side) property line and located on the west property line. The carport structure will be unenclosed on the north and west sides and accessed from the alley right-of-way. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setbacks of 4.65 feet for the principal residential structure. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for the proposed 2 foot setback associated with the new stoop and steps. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. requires a minimum street side yard setback of 15 feet and a maximum rear yard average of 30% for accessory buildings in R-2 zoning. The applicant is also requesting variances from these ordinance standards for the proposed accessory carport structure. As noted previously, the proposed carport structure will have a street side yard setback of two (2) feet. Additionally, the structure will occupy approximately 47 percent of the required rear yard. Staff is supportive of the requested side yard setback associated with the new stoop and steps and the rear yard coverage variance associated with the proposed carport structure. There is an existing stoop structure with the same setback from the side property line. As long as the stoop remains uncovered and unenclosed it should have no adverse impact on the adjacent property. Additionally, the proposed coverage associated with the carport structure will not be out of character with accessory buildings in this general area and should have no adverse impact on the neighborhood. However, staff does not support the variance for a reduced street side yard setback for the proposed carport structure. As noted in paragraph A. of this report, the Public Works Department states that the structure should be set back from the north property line at least as far as the existing house (approximately 12 feet). Although the applicant is trying to utilize the foundation of the existing accessory building, the planning staff concurs with the Public Works Department and feels that the building should be moved back from the very busy Cantrell Road right-of-way. This will help provide improved visibility for vehicles exiting the alley onto Cantrell Road. r August 25, 2003 Item No.: 17 (Cont.) C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances for reduced side yard setback for the new stoop and steps and increased rear yard coverage for the new carport structure, subject to the following conditions: 1. The stoop and steps must remain uncovered and unenclosed. 2. A building permit must be obtained for all construction. Staff recommends denial of the requested variance for reduced street side yard setback for the new carport structure. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) The applicant was present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had revised the application, moving the proposed carport structure to the southwest corner of the property. Staff noted that the revision eliminated the side yard setback variance for the carport. Staff also noted that the new survey showed that no variance was needed for the proposed stoop on the south side of the principal structure. Staff stated that the only remaining variance was for the rear yard coverage of the proposed carport structure. Staff recommended approval of the variance, subject to a building permit being obtained. There were no objectors present. 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. 3 Yeary Lindsey Architects July 24, 2003 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Neighborhoods and Planning 723 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Zoning Variance Application for Sammartano Residence, 1724 N. Tyler Dear Monte, We are requesting a zoning variance at 1724 N. Tyler to allow an encroachment into the south side yard setback with a side door stoop and steps which will reduce the sideyard setback to 2 feet at this location. Our proposed plan also includes a detached one story two -car carport and storage structure that reduces the sideyard setback to the north to 2 feet at this location and increases the maximum rear setback coverage to 44.5%. The new stoop projects no further into the setback than the existing stoop, although we are adding steps to the west as well as steps to the east. We are removing an existing deck within the setback to provide an on grade patio. We feel the new carport with open sides to the north and west, although larger than the existing enclosed garage, will actually provide more visibility from the alley for pulling onto Cantrell Rd. We are proposing to use the existing north and east edges of the existing garage slab as the carport north and east edges, enlarging to the south and west as shown on survey. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Carolyn Lin ey, AIA 319 President Clinton Ave., Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-5940 FX: 501-707-0118 August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 18 File No.: Z-7465 Owner: Arkansas Otolaryngology Center Realty, LLC Address: 10201 Kanis Road Description: Lot 1, Baptist Health — Kanis South Addition Zoned: O-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-553 to allow a ground -mounted sign in the public right-of- way. 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. Medical Offices Medical Offices 1. Prior to construction, obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (John Barr, 371-4646) for the improvements located in the right-of-way. B. Staff Analysis: The 0-2 zoned property at 10201 Kanis Road is occupied by a medical office building. There is existing paved parking on the site, and access drives from Kanis Road and Wilson Road. There is another medical office building on the property to the west, the Arkansas Baptist Foundation offices on the property across Wilson Road to the east, and undeveloped property to the south. The applicant, Arkansas Otolaryngology Center, proposes to install a monument -style ground -mounted sign along their Kanis Road frontage. August 25, 2003 Item No.: 18 (Cont.) The proposed sign will have a height of six (6) feet and an area less than 60 square feet. The height and area conform to the ordinance standards for office signage. However, the applicant proposes to locate the sign entirely in the public right-of-way of Kanis Road. According to information provided by the applicant, the sign would be located approximately 15 feet back from the curbline of Kanis Road and 5 feet north of the north (front) property line. This would place the entire sign in the right-of-way. Section 36-553(b) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that ground -mounted signs be set back at least five (5) feet from any property line (to the closest edge of the sign). Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the sign to be located in the right-of-way. Staff is not supportive of the variance request. The proposed sign will be located relatively close to the intersection of Kanis Road and Wilson Road. With this section of Kanis Road being very busy, staff feels that a sign located in the public right-of-way near the intersection could potentially create a blind corner situation. Staff feels that there is adequate space between the parking lot and the front property line to locate a sign and not be in the public right-of-way. Staff feels that the applicant should accurately locate the property lines and work with the existing landscaping and design a sign which is located out of the right-of- way and provides adequate identification of the property. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the September 29, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 29, 2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 10201 Kanis Rd. Little Rock, AR 72205-6203 501.227.5050 Fax 501. 227.5151 1.800.262.0142 Jeffrey Barber, MD . Joe Colclasure, MD, FACS John Dickins, MD, FACS Guy Gardner, MD, FACS Jeffrey Miller, MD Barbara Morris, MD J. Thomas Smith, MD, FACS Scott Stern, MD, FACS Adrian Williamson, III, MD ARKANSAS OTOLARYNGOLOGY CENTER, P.A. 27+.e,— --A= / �/ �-' -71/6,5 July 23, 2003 City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Dear Sirs: We at Arkansas Otolaryngology are applying for a zoning variance for a proposed sign to be placed at 10201 Kanis Road at the front of our clinic and ambulatory surgery center. Enclosed with this letter you will find a picture of the area and the proposed site at which we wish to place the sign. 500 S. University, #423 The main purpose for the sign is clear identification of our clinic and our ambulatory Little Rock, AR 72205 surgery center, location: Placing the sign nearer the right of way would accomplish this Graves Hearnsberger, III, MD and is also consistent with placements of other signs along the corridor on Kanis road. Frances Wilson, MD Enclosed you will find pictures of our neighbor clinics and other buildings, whose signs Emeritus are closer to the road than you are allowing placement of ours to be. We serve patients 2504 McCain Blvd., #127 from all over the state of Arkansas and often the patients from out of town have difficulty North Little Rock, AR 72116 locating our site. This is the reason for our investment in such a sign to identify our clinic Jerry Potts, MD and surgery center. 5 Medical Park Dr., #203 The drastic set back from the road which the city is recommending is detrimental to us in Benton, AR 72015 loss of identification of our clinic to our patients but will also contribute to hazardous Michael McGhee, MD driving conditions on Kanis Road when patients are attempting to locate us. Our surgery center begins surgery very early in the morning. During winter time, patients are attempting to find our site when it is still dark at 6:00-6:30 in the morning. Emeritus Ted Bailey, Jr., MD Additionally locating the sign further back from the road will require substantial clearing James Pappas, MD, FACS of a large portion of trees, detracting from the natural landscape consistent all along the Kanis corridor. I have provided pictures of this tree line which extends for several blocks in addition to our property. Locating the sign further back from the road will require Administration clearing a large portion of trees, detracting from the existing natural landscape that is Sharon Graham, MS, MBA consistent with the properties in the corridor. I also understand that the city will not allow Lynda Boguslawski the removal of such trees without some other type of permit. Ambulatory Surgery Center Joe Phillips, RN, Bs We plan to be good neighbors in the medical community along Kanis Road for many, Hearing and Balance Center many years and have carefully selected a tasteful, noncommercial sign specifically just James Rippy, MS, AuD to identify our clinic and surgery center for our patients. We respectfully request that the city allow us a variance to place this sign where it is easily read by our patients. Satellite Clinics Respe ully submitted Arkadelphia" Benton har , n S. Graham, MS, MBA / Bryant Camden Heber Springs Jacksonville August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 19 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property.- Proposed roperty:Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Z-7466 Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield Northwest corner of West 7 t and Gaines Streets Lots 5-8 and part of Lots 4 and 9, Block 177, Original City of Little Rock UU A variance is requested from the height provisions of Section 36-342.1 to allow construction of a parking deck which exceeds the maximum height allowed. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Surface parking lot Parking Deck 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. Some handicap ramps do not meet current ADA standards and may need to be replaced. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Landscaping is required to be in conformance with Urban Use District standards. These standards include minimum three (3) inch caliper trees thirty (30) feet on center around the perimeter of the site. Trees should not be closer than thirty (30) feet to street intersections. August 25, 2003 Item No.: 19 (Cont.) C. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at the northwest corner of West 7th and Gaines Streets is occupied by a paved surface parking lot. The parking lot serves the Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield office building which is located across Gaines Street to the east. The parking lot is enclosed with an ornamental iron fence. There is a driveway from Gaines Street which serves as access. The parking lot occupies the entire block bounded by Gaines Street, State Street, West 7th Street and West 6th Street. The applicant proposes to construct a multi-level parking deck within the south one-half of this block. The parking deck will serve the Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield building, providing secure, covered parking for employees. The proposed parking deck will have a skywalk over Gaines Street, connecting the deck to the Blue Cross office building. The proposed parking deck main structure will have a height of approximately 77 feet, with the elevator tower portion of the structure having a height of approximately 95 feet. The applicant has noted that the parking deck could have as many as seven (7) levels. Section 36- 342.1(e) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum height of five (5) stories or 75 feet in the UU Zoning District. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. To staff's knowledge, this is the only variance needed from the Zoning Ordinance for the proposed deck construction. Staff is supportive of the variance request. The proposed building height will not be out -of -character with other buildings in this general area. The Federal Building, Federal Courts Building and the Legacy Hotel all have building heights of five (5) stories or higher. Additionally, the Blue Cross building has a height equivalent to 12 stories. The proposed parking deck will provide additional needed parking for this area, and should have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties. If approved, the proposed skywalk over Gaines Street will have to be reviewed and approved by the City's Board of Directors. D. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the proposed height variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs A and B of this report. K August 25, 2003 Item No.: 19 (Cont.) 2. The proposed skywalk structure must be approved by the Board of Directors. 3. The proposed structure must comply with all other UU Zoning District development standards. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 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. KI fe DICKSON FLAKE PARTNERS INC.- R E A L E S T A T E July 25, 2003 Little Rock Board of Zoning Adjustment c/o Mr. Monte Moore Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Gentlepersons: Attached is an Application for a variance from the height limitation in the Urban Use Zone to permit multi-level, structured parking to serve the Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield offices. The deck is to be located at the northwest corner of 7th and Gaines Streets in Little Rock. Because of the elevator tower for the parking deck, the maximum contemplated height may be as much as 95 feet. Actually, the parking levels are not anticipated to exceed 77 feet, only 2 feet above the Ordinance limit. Because of the floor -to -floor height of a parking structure, however, there could be as many as seven levels, therefore exceeding the five -level limitation in the Urban Use district. Attached is a perspective which shows the height of the proposed parking deck relative to the existing Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield office building. At least 60% of the ground floor elevation of the parking deck will be open, thus complying with the intent of the Urban Use district. The purpose of the structure is to provide additional, secure, covered parking for Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield employees. Attachment 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE I200 POST OFFICE Box 3546 I= ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203 PHONE SOI-372-6I6I • FAX 50I -372-067I E-MML info@dicksonflakeparrners.com http://www.dicksonflakepartners.com *L. DICKSON FLAKE, CRE, CCIM, SIOR *MARK A. BENTLEY, SIOR GAINEs BONNER DENISE BOWERS DAVID B. CARPENTER DRU E. ENGLISH, CPM KAREN FLEMING MELANIE GIBSON, CCIM, CPM -PHYLLIS LASER GLAzF, CPM PHILIP GRACE Sincerely, L. Dickson Flake J. FLETCHER HANSON III *KEVIN H. HuC INGSON, CCIM, SIOR *GARY L. JONES KAREN KEATHLEY JEFF KENT DIANA G. LACY ANDY NEWBERG *NOLAN L. RUSHING *THOMAS J. RYsrnoM, CPM, CCIM LEAH M. SEARS *PPLYMALS INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE MEMBERSHIPS Counselor of Real Estate Commercial Investment Institute Institute of Real Estate Management International Council of Shopping Centers Little Rock Board of Realtors, Inc. National Association of Realtors Society of Industrial and Office Realtors August 25, 2003 ITEM NO.: 20 File No.: Z-7467 Owner: James Raczynski and Martha Phillips Address: 18 Greathouse Bend Drive Description: Lot 23, Greathouse Bend Estates, Phase II Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 and the height provisions of Section 36-254, associated with the construction of a new house. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Vacant lot Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 18 Greathouse Bend Drive is currently vacant. The property is in the process of being cleared, with site work being done in preparation for the construction of a single family residence. The property slopes downward from back to front (south to north). The applicants propose to construct a new single family residence on the property. The structure will have two (2) main levels, with a finished basement level and an observation level (4th story). The building will have an overall height of 42 feet, as measured from the finished floor of the basement to the mean roof line of the observation level. August 25, 2003 Item No.: 20 (Cont.) The proposed house will be located within the east half of the property, with a detached garage structure within the west half. The garage is connected to the principal structure by an unenclosed breezeway. The garage structure is located approximately 53 feet back from the front property line. The garage will be accessed by way of a private drive which runs within the south portion of the property. Section 36-254(c) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum building height of 35 feet for R-2 zoned property. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. requires a minimum front yard setback of 60 feet for accessory structures on single family lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow construction of the new house and accessory garage. The proposed buildings conform to all other setback requirements. Staff supports the variance requests. Staff views the requested variances as very minor in nature. The topography of the lot and the fact that the applicants wish to finish out the basement level of the structure, dictate the way that the building height is calculated. If the basement were not finished out and if the garage were connected to the house with an enclosed structure, no variances would be needed for the proposed development of the property. Staff feels that if the variances are approved, they will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties on the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to a building permit being obtained for the proposed construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) Chuck Fiser was present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present in opposition. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Ruck noted that the item was originally on the Consent Agenda. Chuck Fiser addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that the proposed height of the structure was based on the topography of the property. Barry McDaniel addressed the Board in opposition. He stated that he had no problem with the setback variance for the garage, but was only opposed to the proposed height of the residence. He expressed concerns that the proposed 2 August 25, 2003 Item No.: 20 (Cont.) height of the house would block his view of the river when he constructed his house. He noted that the increase in height was substantial. There was a brief discussion related to the issue of a building permit for the house. Chairman Ruck asked what the impact would be if the top floor of the observation tower were removed. Mr. Fiser noted that he was trying to maximize the view. He noted that the building permit was issued for the house, with the understanding that the basement level would not be finished -out if the height variance were not approved. This issue was briefly discussed. Vice -Chairman asked what stage the building construction was in. Mr. Fiser noted that the footings were in the process of being constructed. Chairman Ruck asked where Mr. McDaniel's property was in relation to this property. Mr. McDaniel stated that his property was immediately to the east at a slightly higher elevation. The height issue was further discussed. Chairman Ruck expressed concern with the proposed building height and explained. Terry Burruss asked how large the observation tower was (building footprint). Mr. Fiser noted that it was approximately 16 feet by 16 feet. There was a motion to approve the setback variance for the garage, as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The variance was approved. There was a second motion to approve the requested building height variance, as recommended by staff. The motion was briefly discussed. The motion failed by a vote of 1 aye, 3 nays and 1 absent. The variance was denied. 3 J/4-0-' -# Proposal for Zoning Variances Located at Lot 23, Greathouse Bend Estates Phase II in the City of the Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Presented by General Partners of FC Enterprises, Inc. Justin Cleveland and Chuck Fiser July 25, 2003 FC Enterprises, Inc. 1 Pinehurst Circle Little Rock, AR 72212 Page 1 Zoning Variance Summary The following document represents the proposal for (2) Zoning Variances for the property located at #18 Greathouse Bend Drive. Acting on behalf of the property owners, James H. Raczynski & Martha M. Phillips, FC Enterprises is requesting two zoning variances. The two variances deal with the proposed height of the single-family dwelling and the proposed setback of the detached garage. Height Variance: It has been communicated to FC Enterprises that the maximum height of a single family dwelling is 35 feet. Due to the topography of the property and the fact that the property is being constructed with the intent to `view' the Arkansas river, the property owners have designed a house plan that includes a basement, 2 levels and an observation tower. This design has therefore raised the height of the house to 42 feet, which is a-� foot variance to the maximum 35 feet. If the basement remains unfinished, the house will remain below the 35 feet requirement, but as suggested, the property owners would like to include this space as finished living area because the lot dicates that a basement be constructed for the foundation. Detached Garage Setback Variance: It has been communicated to FC Enterprises that the minimum front set back for a detached garage is 60 feet. Once again, due to the topography and the numerous easements on the property, the garage was situated on the property with a -2 foot set back. It is also important to note that the garage, although considered detached, is connected to the house via a breezeway as detailed on the included attachments. Page 2 rl 9 CL �® ao Q € Y l W W k m z w CO m � z 0 w UJ i~- O� o ❑ w ❑ Q F CO Q w zv=L�� Q W Z 0� m � = Y af D w U 2) August 25, 2003 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Date: 7/Z7/6175-