HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_05 20 2002LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
MAY 20, 2002
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being five (5) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The Minutes of the April 29, 2002 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman
Fred Gray, Vice Chairman
Scott Richburg
Gary Langlais
Andrew Francis
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
MAY 20, 2002
2:00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Z -7047-A
B. Z -2549-A
II. NEW ITEMS:
1.
Z -2554-B
2.
Z -3059-A
3.
Z -3520-A
4.
Z -4829-A
5.
Z -6924-C
6.
Z -7079-A
7.
Z -7124-B
8.
Z-7214
9.
Z-7222
10.
Z-7223
11.
Z-7224
12.
Z-7225
13.
Z-7226
14.
Z-7227
7102 Asher Avenue
6117 West 65th Street
5717 West 12th Street
9501 Lile Drive
7525 Cantrell Road
1901 N. Hughes Street
5500/5508 Kavanaugh Blvd.
8921 Fourche Dam Pike
101 Main Street
1428 Merrill Drive
4305 "1" Street
14 Huntington Road
915 West Capitol Avenue
9301 Rodney Parham Road
25 Hickory Creek Drive
824 S. Valmar Street
Agenda, Page Two
NEW ITEMS: (Cont.)
15. Z-7228 4004 Stannus Street
16. Z-7229 4 Coray Court
17. Z-7230 19717 Mallard Cove
2
,..
11
slmn
ETI
N
O
O
N
O
N
cts
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.:
File No.: Z -7047-A
Owner: Abdias and Rosalinda Montoya
Address: 7102 Asher Avenue
Description: North side of Asher Avenue at Oak Park
Drive
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the parking
provisions of Sections 36-507 and 36-511
to allow more than 25 percent of the
required parking to be off-site and to allow
parking spaces which do not comply to the
required parking design.
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Restaurant
Restaurant
The property at 7102 Asher Avenue contains a 1,200 square foot
restaurant building and a small area of asphalt parking. A driveway from
Asher Avenue serves as access to the property. There is a mixture of
commercial uses along this section of Asher Avenue.
On June 25, 2001 the Board of Adjustment approved a variance for a
reduced number of on-site parking spaces for this property. The variance
was granted conditioned on the fact that the restaurant use would be take-
out only. However, when the applicants opened the restaurant it included
full service sit-down dining in addition to take-out. Therefore, the City's
May 20, 2002
Item No.: A (Cont.
Zoning Enforcement staff recently issued a notice to the property owner to
reduce the restaurant use to take-out only, as approved by the Board of
Adjustment.
The applicants have recently worked out an agreement with Arkla Gas
Company, the property owner immediately east of the restaurant site, to
use seven (7) parking spaces on the Arkla property. Arkla has agreed to
grant Abdias and Rosalinda Montoya a parking easement for the use of
the additional parking.
The 1,200 square foot restaurant requires a minimum of 12 parking
spaces. There are currently seven (7) paved parking spaces on the
restaurant property and seven (7) gravel parking spaces on the Arkla
property for a total of 14 spaces. Four (4) of the parking spaces (2 or the
restaurant site and 2 on the Arkla site) are stacked spaces which the
applicant proposes to use for employee parking and are labeled as such
as the attached site plan.
Section 36-507(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that no more
than 25 percent of a site's required parking be located off-site. Section
36-511 requires that right angle parking spaces have a minimum of 20
feet of maneuvering area behind each space. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow more than 25 percent (42%) of the required
parking to be located off-site and a variance to allow four (4) parking
spaces (employee spaces) to have no maneuvering area.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the
applicant has done a good job in acquiring additional parking for the
restaurant use and working out a long-term agreement with Arkla for the
use of the additional parking. The additional parking should provide safe
pedestrian access to the restaurant and meet the parking needs for a
restaurant of its size. The parking variance should have no adverse
impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the parking variances subject to the
following conditions:
The property owners must maintain the parking easement
agreement with Arkla for the additional parking spaces, or the
restaurant must convert to take-out only. The owners must submit
a signed, recorded copy of the parking easement to staff within ten
(10) days of the Board's approval.
2
May 20, 2002
Item No.: A (Cont.
2. The four (4) stacking spaces must be used for restaurant
employees or valet parking only.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter on March 8, 2002
requesting that this application be deferred to the April 29, 2002 agenda. Staff
supported the deferral as requested.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 29, 2002
agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 29, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that this
application be deferred to the May 20, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the
deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the May 20, 2002
agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 20, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3
Rosalinda Montoya and Abdias Montoya
3008 Walker Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72204
501-225-3088
May 7, 2002
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Attention: Monte Moore
Hand Delivered
Re: Application For A Commercial Zoning Variance for El Viejo San Luis
7102 Asher Avenue, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
File Number Z -7047-A
Dear Mr. Moore:
7v V7 -
This letter is intended to supplement the referenced Application. We have attached a copy of a
survey of the area including and around the subject property which includes the adjoining property
which lies immediately to the east of the subject property. The area highlighted in yellow indicates
the locations for parking for employees and patrons for the business operated at the subject property.
The parking spaces are located on the subject property and on the adjacent property pursuant to a
grant of a Parking Eeasement from Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company ("Arkla"). Each parking space
shall be a minimum of nine (9) feet wide and shall be twenty (20) feet deep.
We have prepared a final draft of the Parking Easement and have delivered it to Arkla for execution.
A copy of the Parking Easement is attached. Arkla has agreed to the form of the Parking Easement
and we expect to receive the executed Parking Easement shortly.
Furthermore, it is our intention to valet park and/or have available for employees, where double
parking is indicated on the attached parking plan, during peak periods so that a minimum of 14
parking spaces (2 more than the required parking) is available.
Please accept this letter as an amendment to our Application For Zoning Variance. We will provide
you written verification of these parking rights upon receipt of the executed easement from Arkla.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely
alin a o taya and Abdias Montoya
by Ka 1 en Reynolds, agent
PARKING EASEMENT
ALL PERSONS TAKE NOTICE FROM THIS DOCUMENT:
That Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company, a corporation ("GRANTOR"), for and in
consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), and other valuable consideration paid by Abdias
Montoya and Rosalinda Montoya ("GRANTEES"), the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto GRANTEES, and unto their heirs and assigns,
forever, an exclusive right, privilege, and easement in the lands described on the attached Exhibit "A",
incorporated by these references (the "EASEMENT AREA"), permitting GRANTEES and its
agents to use the EASEMENT AREA for ingress and egress and parking as follows:
i) GRANTOR agrees that GRANTEES may use the areas designated on Exhibit "A" for
parking to park motor vehicles for customers for the restaurant business operated by
GRANTEES on the adjacent lands (the "GRANTEES PREMISES") lying to the west
of the Easement Area.
ii) GRANTOR may hereinafter use the surface of the EASEMENT AREA for any
purpose not inconsistent with the rights hereby conveyed.
iii) GRANTEES may construct, operate and maintain within the EASEMENT AREA
roadways and parking surfaces for ingress and egress for vehicular traffic and for
parking vehicles and to remove the old fence where indicated on Exhibit "A" and to
construct the new fence on the EASEMENT AREA where indicated on Exhibit "A",
provided, however, that the use of the roadways and parking for ingress and egress
shall be used in such a manner as to cause minimal disturbance of the owner of the fee
simple interest of GRANTOR, its successors and assigns to use the EASEMENT
AREA for access, install and maintain utilities and for the operation, development or
enjoyment of the lands (the "GRANTOR PREMISES") adjacent to and lying to the
north of the EASEMENT AREA. The removal and construction of fences of the
GRANTOR provided for herein shall be accomplished only by insured contractors
which have been previously approved in writing by GRANTOR and built according to
plans and specifications which GRANTOR has previously approved in writing.
iv) GRANTEES agree to hold GRANTOR harmless from any and all liability for injury
or death to persons or damage to property resulting from GRANTEES' use of the
easement created herein.
That GRANTOR does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto GRANTEES, and unto
their heirs and assigns, forever, an exclusive right, privilege, and easement in the lands described on
the attached Exhibit `B", incorporated by these references (the "ROADWAY EASEMENT
AREA"), permitting GRANTEES and their agents to use the ROADWAY EASEMENT AREA for
ingress and egress as follows:
v) GRANTOR agrees that GRANTEES may use the ROADWAY EASEMENT AREA
to access the EASEMENT AREA and the parking areas of the GRANTEES
PREMISES, provided, however, no parking whatsoever shall be permitted within the
ROADWAY EASEMENT AREA and absolutely no use of the ROADWAY
EASEMENT AREA shall be permitted which would in any way prevent or any way
inhibit access to the GRANTOR PREMISES by way of the ROADWAY
EASEMENT AREA and GRANTEE shall post signs so indicating such restriction on
parking in a conspicuous location on or near the ROADWAY EASEMENT AREA.
vi) GRANTOR may hereinafter use the surface of the ROADWAY EASEMENT AREA
for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights hereby conveyed.
To have and to hold said easements, rights and privileges in the EASEMENT AREA and the
ROADWAY EASEMENT AREA unto the GRANTEES, and unto their heirs and assigns until such
time as terminated as provided herein, for the purposes aforesaid. GRANTOR makes no warranty or
representation whatsoever regarding the grants and conveyances made herein whatsoever, including
the extent of the GRANTOR's title to said easements and rights in the EASEMENT AREA or the
ROADWAY EASEMENT AREA, and the grants and conveyances made herein shall be subject to all
recorded easements and restrictions and any ad valorem taxes or assessments against same.
The rights of GRANTEES provided herein shall continue until sixty (60) days after
GRANTOR has recorded with the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk and Recorder's Office an instrument
(a "Termination Statement") which references this Parking Easement and states that this Parking
Easement is terminated for any one of the Permitted Causes, as described herein. The Permitted
Causes for which GRANTOR may terminate this Parking Easement are: (i) GRANTOR shall
determine, in its absolute discretion, that the GRANTOR intends to change the use of or redevelop
the GRANTOR PREMISES; (ii) GRANTOR sells the GRANTOR PREMISES, EASEMENT AREA
and/or ROADWAY EASEMENT AREA; or (iii) GRANTOR determines, in its absolute discretion,
that continued use of the EASEMENT AREA for the purposes stated herein is disruptive of its use of
the GRANTOR PREMISES.
PARKING EASEMENT
PAGE 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR and the GRANTEES have executed this
instrument this day of 72002.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company
[Name and Title]
Rosalinda Montoya
Abdias Montoya
This Instrument Prepared By:
Kathleen Reynolds
Attorney at Law
200 Thayer
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF PULASKI
On this the day of March, 2002, before me, the
undersigned officer, personally appeared , who acknowledged himselfto be the
of [ARKLA], a corporation, and that he, as such ,
being authorized so to do, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained, by
signing the name of the corporation by himself as
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC
PARKING EASEMENT
PAGE 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF PULASKI
On this the day of March, 2002, before me, the
undersigned officer, personally appeared Abdias Montoya and Rosalinda Montoya, who
acknowledged that they executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained.
IN WITNESS WI-IEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC
F:\BOB\Bob Personal\El Viejo San Luis Variance\Easement1wpd
PARKING EASEMENT
PAGE 4
Exhibit "A"
DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT AREA
A Part of the NE 1/4 SW 1/4, Section 13, T -1-N, R -13-W, Pulaski County,
Arkansas, described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said NE 1/4 SW
1/4; thence South, along the west line of said NE 1/4 SW 1/4, 532.5 feet; thence S 71° 00'
E, 348.0 feet; thence S 73°00' E, 390.6 feet to a point on the North right of way of Asher
Avenue; thence S 67°00' W, along said North right of way, 300 feet; thence continue,
along the said North right of way, S 52°00' W, 116.32 feet to the point of beginning of
said parking easement; thence continue S 52'00'W, along said North right of way, 43.68
feet; thence, leaving said north right of way, N 22'08'W, 76.30 feet; thence N 53°04'47"
E, 6.54 feet; thence N 57°59'31" E, 33.41 feet; thence N 17°26' W, 25.99 feet; thence N
51°34'22" W, 19.81 feet; thence S 37°18'42" E, 25.84 feet; thence N 52027'49" E, 38.29
feet; thence S 37°20'28" E, 12.17 feet; thence N 60°19'43" E, 77.71 feet; thence S
29040'17" E, 11.74 feet; thence S 58°33'14" W, 106.77 feet; thence S36054'44" W, 93.76
feet; thence S 16°13'12" E, 14.98 feet; thence S 52°54'27" E, 17.95 feet to the point of
beginning. LESS AND EXCEPT that part being used as a driveway and being described
as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said NE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence South,
along the west line of said NE 1/4 SW 1/4, 532.5 feet; thence S 71° 00' E, 348.0 feet;
thence S 73° 00' E, 390.6 feet to a point on the North right of way of Asher Avenue;
thence S 67°00' W, along said North right of way, 300 feet; thence continue, along the
said North right of way, S 52°00' W, 116.32 feet to the point of beginning; thence
continue S 52° W, along said North right of way, 43.68 feet; thence leaving said North
right of way N 16°33'05" W, 11.80 feet; thence N 14°08'08" W, 55.57 feet; thence N
34°59'18" W, 11.48 feet; thence N 57°59'31" E, 33.41 feet; thence S 15°26'14" E, 41.71
feet; thence S 16°13'12" E, 14.98 feet; thence S 52°54'27" E, 17.95 feet to the point of
beginning.
PARKING EASEMENT
PAGE 5
Exhibit `B"
DESCRIPTION OF THE ROADWAY EASEMENT AREA
A Part of the NE 1/4 SW 1/4, Section 13, T -1-N, R -13-W, Pulaski County,
Arkansas, described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said NE 1/4 SW
1/4; thence South, along the west line of said NE 1/4 SW 1/4, 532.5 feet; thence S 71° 00'
E, 348.0 feet; thence S 73° 00' E, 390.6 feet to a point on the North right of way of Asher
Avenue; thence S 67100' W, along said North right of way, 300 feet; thence continue,
along the said North right of way, S 52°00' W, 116.32 feet to the point of beginning;
thence continue S 52° W, along said North right of way, 43.68 feet; thence leaving said
North right of way N 16°33'05" W, 11.80 feet; thence N 14008'08" W, 55.57 feet; thence
N 34°59'18" W, 11.48 feet; thence N 57°59'31" E, 33.41 feet; thence S 15°26'14" E,
41.71 feet; thence S 16'13'12" E, 14.98 feet; thence S 52054'27" E, 17.95 feet to the point
of beginning. '
PARKING EASEMENT
PAGE 6
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.: B
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 -2549-A
Brundage Management Co., Inc.
6117 West 65th Street
Part of Lot 1, Geneva Addition
1-2
Variances are requested from the sign
provisions of Section 36-554 to permit a
ground -mounted sign which exceeds the
maximum height and area allowed by
ordinance.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Mini -warehouses
Mini -warehouses
The property at 6117 West 65th Street is zoned 1-2 and is occupied by a
mini -warehouse development. There is an existing wall -mounted sign
attached to the end of one of the warehouse buildings, facing West 65th
Street.
The applicant, Arkansas Sign and Neon, proposes to place a ground -
mounted sign between the two (2) existing access drives along the West
65th Street frontage. The sign will be "key -shaped", with a height of 31
feet — 3 inches and approximately 240 square feet of area. The City's
Zoning Ordinance allows a ground -mounted sign in 1-2 zoning to have a
maximum height of 30 feet and a maximum area of 72 square feet.
May 20, 2002
Item No.: B (Cont.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the ground -
mounted sign to exceed the maximum height and area allowed.
Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff does not believe
that the proposed sign area is reasonable. Although staff has no problem
with the minor height variance, the proposed sign area is three (3) times
that allowed by ordinance. Staff feels that the proposed sign area would
be out of character with the existing gyround-mounted signs within this
industrial zoned area along West 65t Street and Geyer Springs Road.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variances.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 29, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that this
application be deferred to the May 20, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the
deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the May 20, 2002
agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002)
Larry Gottsman, of Aetna Sign Group, was present, representing the application.
There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a
recommendation of denial.
Larry Gottsman addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained
that his company had installed 60 signs around the country like the one in
question with this application. He pointed out that other signs in the general area
have heights and areas which exceed the maximum as allowed by ordinance in
industrial zoning. He explained that the aesthetics of the requested key -shaped
sign would be better than a pole -mounted sign. He noted that the existing 180
square foot wall sign on this property would be removed and replaced with a 40
square foot wall sign.
Andy Francis asked what the applicant's area calculation was for the proposed
sign. Mr. Gottsman stated it was 160 square feet. Mr. Francis asked if the
existing tree near the front property line would be removed with installation of the
proposed ground -mounted sign. Mr. Gottsman explained that it would not be
removed.
4
May 20, 2002
Item No.: B (Cont.)
Chairman Ruck asked if the proposed new sign would obstruct interior vehicular
circulation. Mr. Gottsman stated that it would not and explained. This issue was
discussed further.
Vice -Chairman Gray question whether a sign like the one proposed was needed
for a non -retail use. Mr. Gottsman noted that rentals of mini -warehouse units
increased when this new type of signage was installed in other cities. He stated
that research showed that the signage was responsible for 40 percent of new
rentals. Mr. Gray stated that the sign represented advertisement rather than
direction. Mr. Gottsman noted that this particular type of sign was needed to
create a national brand image.
Chairman Ruck asked if it would be possible to have a smaller key -shaped sign.
Mr. Gottsman noted that his company had done a 120 square foot key -shaped
sign in another city. He noted that the specific sign proposed was designed for
this specific location based on the location of nearby streets and traffic patterns.
Gary Langlais asked what percentage of the mini -warehouse development was
occupied. Mr. Gottsman stated that he did not know, but noted that the facility
was not full.
Chairman Ruck asked if Public Works had a problem with the proposed sign
placement. Steve Haralson, of Public Works, stated that his department had no
concerns with the proposed sign.
Andy Francis asked how sign area was calculated in this case. Staff noted the
sign area included all of the key -shaped logo and explained. Mr. Francis asked
what the wall sign requirements were for industrial zoned property. Staff
explained that wall signage could occupy up to 10% of the front building fagade
area. This issue was briefly discussed.
There was a motion to approve the application, as filed. The motion failed by a
vote of 1 aye and 4 nays. The application was denied.
There was a brief discussion concerning expunging the previous vote and
allowing the applicant to amend the application and propose a smaller sign. No
motion was made and seconded to expunge the previous vote or rehear the
item.
3
4-16-02; 8:20A- AETNA SIGN GROUP LTD ;210 r?"7 1603 # 2/ 2
5 I G N • G R O U R
OVER 70 YEARS OF SIGNING THE BEST NAMES IN BUSINESS
April 16, 2002
City of Little Rock
Planning and Development Department
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Variance Request for Signage
To Whom It May Concern:
Please let this letter serve as a request that a variance be granted for the A-AAAKey Mini Storage
located at 6117 W. 65th Street, Little Rock AK. as the signage allowed by code will not be visible to
potential customers from University Street.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please feel free to contact us at (210)
337-3900.
*Sii
C
, Ltd.
888 -609 -SIGN (7446)
4202 DIVIDEND SAN ANTONIO, TX 78219 (2 10) 337-3900 FAX (210) 337-1603
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analvsis:
Z -2554-B
Fatemeh Hadjian
5717 West 12th Street
Lot 1, Block C, Oak Forest Gardens Annex
O-3
A variance is requested from the sign
height regulations of Section 36-553 to
permit a ground -mounted sign which
exceeds the maximum height allowed.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Dentist Office
Dentist Office
The property at 5717 West 12th Street is zoned 0-3 and is occupied by a
small one-story dentist office, with an area of asphalt parking. There is a
small sign identifying the office located at the northwest corner of the
property.
The property owner, Fatemeh Hadjian, proposes to remove the existing
ground -mounted sign and replace it with a new sign which will be 18 feet
in height and 32 square feet in area. The sign will be located at the
northwest corner of the office building. The City's Zoning Ordinance
allows a ground -mounted sign in 0-3 zoning to have a maximum height of
six (6) feet, a maximum area of 64 square feet and a minimum setback of
five (5) feet from property lines. Therefore, the property owner is
c
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
requesting a variance to allow the ground -mounted sign to exceed the
maximum height allowed.
On March 25, 2002, the Board of Adjustment reviewed a sign variance
application for this property. At that time, a fifteen (15) foot high ground -
mounted sign (32 square feet in area) was proposed at the northwest
corner of the property. Variances were requested for the sign height and
setback from property line. During the public hearing, the issue of moving
the sign near the northwest corner of the building was discussed.
Representatives from the property owner's sign company indicated that
they could not revise the application without the consent of the owner.
Subsequently, the application was denied. Since that time, the property
owner has determined that an 18 -foot high sign near the northwest corner
of the building would provide the desired visibility. Therefore, the current
application has been filed.
Staff does not support the requested sign height variance. Staff does not
believe that the proposed 18 -foot sign height is reasonable. The
proposed ground -mounted sign is three (3) times the maximum height
allowed in office zoning. Staff feels that the proposed sign height is not
needed at this location to identify the small office use.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested ground -mounted sign height
variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002)
Bill Simms, of Sign Systems, was present, representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a
recommendation of denial.
Bill Simms addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained the
need for the taller sign as proposed. He noted that the property was below the
grade of West 12th Street. There was a brief discussion as to whether or not the
sketch provided by the applicant was to scale.
Scott Richburg asked how high the proposed sign was above the grade of West
12th Street. Mr. Simms noted that the street was approximately six (6) feet
above the grade of the property where the sign would be placed.
Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, noted that the Board made no formal
recommendation at the last meeting, pertaining to this application.
2
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 1 (Cont.
There was a brief discussion as to whether or not the proposed sign would be
visible from the east. Andy Francis noted that a shorter sign could possibly be
seen from the east. Mr. Simms noted that the proposed sign would be visible
from the east and explained. He noted that a shorter sign would obstruct on-site
vehicular circulation.
There was a brief discussion related to the proposed sign and the previously
requested sign.
Chairman Ruck asked how the proposed sign would attract business.
Mr. Simms explained that the sign would help middle -eastern residents identify
Dr. Hadjian as a dentist of their ethnic background.
There was a motion to approve the application as filed. The motion passed by a
vote of 4 ayes and 1 nay. The application was approved.
3
(870) 931-1761 ® Aff.._ AL ®.. —.'.®_GJA ®®
Fax: (870) 931-7920 ®o �� : �o ®,_, p►�ewrs ®A �rArRVI aA
Toll Free: (800) 416-4458 ® ® ®1 N C O R P® A T E D
Board of Adjustment
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
501-371-4790
Fax: 501-371-6863
P.O. Box 6064
Jonesboro, AR 72403
www.sigWste7nsl.com
4l.4J
-2-2554--6
SignSystems, Inc. is requesting a zoning variance to Little Rock Codes 36-553(a)(2) on behalf of Dr.
Fatemeh Hadjian, for the property located at 5717 W. 12`h, owned by Fatemeh Hadjian, D.D.S., P.A.
SignSystems, Inc. is seeking to erect a ground mounted sign with an overall height of 18'-0", which
exceeds the current height allowance by 12'-0".
An independent marking group recently provided Dr. Hadjian an evaluation of her business with
recommendations. It was determined that due to the inadequate size and poor visibility of Dr. Hadjian's
existing sign, the business was not getting drive by recognition of potential customers.
In order to ensure visibility to both eastbound and westbound traffic on West 12`h, SignSystems, Inc.
initially proposed the street sign to be installed within 6" from the property line, however, a large crepe
myrtle tree obstructed the view to eastbound traffic. It was proposed that the sign be installed 11'-0" above
grade in order to raise the sign face above the tree.
SignSystems, Inc. appeared before the Little Rock Board if Adjustment on March 25, 2002. During the
hearing process, comments made by the board indicated that if the setback requirements were met, the
board would be supportive of a height variance.
Dr. Hadjian's lot does not lay perpendicular to West 12"h St. Also, the lot is below road grade. Substituting
a building sign in lieu of a ground mounted sign would result in inadequate visibility and attention to the
sign. Additionally, due to the drive area of the business, a sign that adhered to setback requirements would
need to be installed nearly abutting the building. In order for the bottom of the sign to clear the roof line,
additional height is needed.
Adhering to the ordinance's current height restrictions would result in the inability to install a suitably sized
and positioned sign, which would result in a lack of identification for Dr. Hadjian's business.
SignSystems, Inc. extends its appreciation to the Board of Adjustment for their consideration of this
variance request.
a4J::Rochelle Brog
��4 -,
Office Administrator
Inrzovative Ideas In Sfgrr TechnoZo,�y cSr Design
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.:
Z -3059-A
Owner:
Baptist Health
Address:
9500 Lile Drive
Description:
Lot 5, Baptist Medical Center Development
Zoned:
O-3
Variance Requested:
A variance is requested from the buffer
provisions of Section 36-522 to allow a
reduced expressway buffer.
Justification:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:
Medical Offices
Proposed Use of Property:
Medical Offices
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum thirty (30) foot wide street
buffer when adjacent to an expressway or freeway. Additionally, the
Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum thirty (30) foot wide landscape
strip when adjacent to expressways and freeways. The plan submitted
drops below this width requirement for about 156 linear feet along 1-630.
The applicant has filed an application with the City Beautiful Commission
seeking a variance from this requirement at the June 6th meeting.
C. Staff Analysis:
The 0-3 zoned property at 9500 Lile Drive is occupied by a one-story
brick structure, which contains the Baptist Medical Hematology/Oncology
Clinic. The structure is located near the center of the site, with paved
parking on the west and north sides of the building. Additional buildings
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 2 (Cont.
associated with the Baptist Medical Center Development are located to
the east, west and across Lile Drive to the south. Interstate 630 right-of-
way is located immediately north of the site.
The applicant proposes to expand the existing parking area, and construct
44 new parking spaces. The new area of parking is proposed along the
north side of the existing parking area, between the existing parking and
the 1-630 right-of-way. The new parking area will be set back from the
north property line a distance ranging from 14.5 feet to 57 feet. Section
36-522(a)(3) requires that street buffers along expressways be a minimum
of 30 feet in width. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to
allow a portion of the north, expressway buffer to be reduced to less than
30 feet.
The 30 foot buffer requirement along expressways is also a Landscape
Ordinance requirement. Therefore, this variance will also have to be
approved by the City Beautiful Commission.
Staff is not supportive of the requested buffer variance. Staff feels that
there are other areas within this site where additional parking can be
provided. Staff does not feel that the applicant has adequately explored
other options for providing the additional parking needed without
encroaching into any of the required buffers.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested expressway buffer variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002)
Frank Riggins was present, representing the application. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of
denial.
Frank Riggins addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained
the proposed parking addition. He noted that the property owner has explored
locating the additional parking between the building and Lile Drive, but it was the
owner's desire to preserve this wooded area of the site. Mr. Riggins stated it
would make more sense to construct the parking at the rear of the property and
reduce the required buffer along a very wide interstate right-of-way, rather than
reduce the tree -covered area adjacent to Lile Drive. He explained that the area
of proposed parking was some 100 feet vertically above the interstate, and that
the new parking would probably not be visible from this roadway.
2
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 2
Chairman Ruck asked about future building expansion on this property.
Mr. Riggins stated that there may be future development along the south side of
the building, but that he did not know the long range building plans for the
property. This issue was briefly discussed.
There was additional discussion relating to the proposed parking expansion and
the existing grades along the east side of the property.
Mr. Riggins noted that there were a number of mature trees between the
proposed parking area and the north property line which would be maintained.
Scott Richburg asked about the height of the retaining wall along the north side
of the proposed parking expansion. Mr. Riggins noted that the wall would be
10 feet in height at the tallest point, but that most of the wall would be 4 feet in
height.
In response to a question from Chairman Ruck, Mr. Riggins stated that existing
trees would be preserved between the retaining wall and the north property line.
Scott Richburg asked if the retaining wall within the northwest portion of the
property could be moved back closer to the proposed parking area, in order to
save additional trees. Mr. Riggins indicated that it could be done.
Gary Langlais noted that a variance in this case would be reasonable, based on
the vertical and horizontal separation of this property from the interstate.
Chairman Ruck concerned with Mr. Langlais.
Vice -Chairman Gray asked how far the retaining wall within the northwest portion
of the property could be pulled back. Mr. Riggins stated that it could be pulled
back to within five (5) feet of the new parking area. He stated that the
application would be amended to allow for the relocation of the retaining wall to
within five (5) feet of the parking area.
There was a motion to approve the application, as amended. The motion
passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The amended application was
approved.
41
April 26, 2002
The
T' ike-h1burg r
Firm
Engineers
Mr. Dana Carney
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Re: Hematology and Oncology Parking Lot
9501 Lile Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
Dear Dana,
2--3,s`%-A
Enclosed is an application for a variance to allow a portion of a proposed parking lot to be
constructed within the prescribed 30' buffer along I-630. The reason for the variance request is due
to a unusual lot configuration and the location of the existing structures on the site.
The proposed lot will allow for 44 new spaces for a facility which suffers from insufficient parking
due to high patient load and traffic.
Please let me know if you need any additional information in this matter or if you have any questions
concerning this application.
Sincerely,
THE MEHLBURGER FIRM, INC.
*FrankRi , LA
Vice President
201 South Lara o P. O. Box 3837 o Litc1-c Roz- ;, AP, 72203-3` 37 ❑ 5C,1 '375- 331 c f ,x 3 75
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z -3520-A
Gerald E. Oney
7525 Cantrell Road
Southeast corner of Cantrell Road and
Mississippi Avenue
C-4
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-302, the parking
provisions of Section 36-502, and the buffer
provisions of Section 36-522 to allow for the
construction of a new restaurant building
and associated parking.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
With the Building Permit:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Vacant Restaurant Building
Restaurant
1. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a major
arterial. Dedicate right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline (25 foot
additional).
2. Mississippi Avenue is classified as a minor arterial. Dedicate right-
of-way to 40 feet from centerline (10 foot additional).
3. Existing driveway on Cantrell is too close to the intersection with
Mississippi (Ordinance criteria is 300 feet). Close drive access and
use shared access to the east.
4. Staff would support a Franchise agreement to allow parking in the
right-of-way as shown on the proposed plan.
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
The proposed street buffer along Cantrell Road drops 4'/2 feet below the
minimum Zoning and Landscape Ordinance width requirements of nine
(9) feet. The applicant has filed an application with the City Beautiful
Commission seeking a variance from this requirement at the June 6th
meeting.
C. Staff Analysis.-
The
nalysis:
The C-4 zoned property at 7525 Cantrell Road contains a vacant
restaurant building and paved parking area. There is an existing driveway
(on this property) from Cantrell Road and a shared driveway from
Mississippi Avenue which serve as access to this property. The applicant
proposes to remove the existing building from the site and redevelop the
property by constructing a new 2,250 foot Taco Bell restaurant building.
With redevelopment of the property, additional right-of-way will be
required. An additional 25 feet of right-of-way will be required for Cantrell
Road, with an additional 10 feet required along Mississippi Avenue.
Some of the proposed improvements (landscape buffers and parking) are
located within the area of additional right-of-way dedication. Public Works
will support a franchise permit to allow these improvements to be located
in the right-of-way. Therefore, staff reviewed the proposed site plan with
this in mind. The applicant is requesting three (3) variances with the
proposed redevelopment plan.
The first is a variance from the area provisions of Section 36-302. The
proposed building will have a front (Cantrell Road) setback of 47 feet, a
street side (Mississippi Avenue) setback of 20 feet, a rear setback of 20
feet and a side setback of 20 feet. Section 36-302(e) requires a minimum
front setback of 45 feet, street side setback of 45 feet, rear setback of 25
feet and side setback of 15 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow a reduced street side (Mississippi Avenue) setback and
a reduced rear setback. The proposed front and street side building
setbacks, as noted above, were measured from the required right-of-way
lines.
The second requested variance is from the parking requirements of
Section 36-502. The proposed site plan includes a total of 19 parking
spaces. Section 36-502(b)(3)c. requires a minimum of 22 parking spaces
for a restaurant use of this size. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow three (3) fewer required parking spaces than the
minimum number required by ordinance.
2
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
The last variance is from the buffer provisions of Section 36-522. Section
36-522(b)(3)b. requires minimum landscape buffer widths of nine (9) feet
along Cantrell Road and Mississippi Avenue. The buffer area along
Cantrell Road drops 4.5 feet below this minimum requirement.
Additionally, the entire buffer areas proposed along Cantrell Road and
Mississippi Avenue are located within the required right-of-way dedication.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced buffer
width along Cantrell Road, with both buffers (Cantrell Road and
Mississippi Avenue) being located in the public right-of-way. The
landscape strips along Cantrell Road and Mississippi Avenue are also
required by the City's Landscape Ordinance. The applicant will be
required to apply for a variance from the City Beautiful Commission for the
reduced landscape strips.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff initially had concerns
with the proposed redevelopment of this property, based on the right-of-
way requirements for Cantrell Road and Mississippi Avenue. However,
given the fact that Public Works will support a franchise permit for the
proposed improvements located in the required right-of-way areas, staff
feels that the proposed redevelopment plan will work. With respect to the
parking variance, this site is located adjacent to a shopping center
development with a large area of parking. Staff feels that some of this
parking will be available for overflow parking, if needed. Staff recognizes
that this is a small lot and any future redevelopment will be saddled with
these same type issues.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with
the redevelopment of this property, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in
paragraph A. of this report.
2. The applicant must receive approval from the City Beautiful
Commission for the required landscape strip along Cantrell Road to
have a reduced width, with the landscape strips along Cantrell
Road and Mississippi Avenue being in the public right-of-way.
3. The applicant must obtain a franchise permit for the improvements
located within the required right-of-way for Cantrell Road and
Mississippi Avenue.
3
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that this
application be deferred to the June 24, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the
deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 24, 2002
agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
S
April 26, 2002
Ts h eIle ii
FIi ni
Engineers
Mr. Dana Carney
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Re: 7525 Cantrell Road
Dear Dana,
T- -4 3
- 3 s .-A
Enclosed is an application for a variance for the above referenced project to allow the proposed
structure to be built within the setback areas along the south and west sides of the property. There
is also a buffer issue along Cantrell Road which will need to be addressed by variance as well. A
landscape variance will also need to be applied for due to the insufficient landscape strip along
Cantrell.
This site is currently zoned C-4 which calls for 45' setbacks on the north and west sides and 15' and
25' along the east and south sides respectively. This site is currently occupied by a TCBY facility
which has recently closed. A new Taco Bell restaurant will be built on the site as shown on the
enclosed site plan.
It is the developer's desire to utilize some of the existing site features in his new site plan. In
particular is the existing planting strip and curb and gutter along Cantrell. It would be difficult to
modify the configuration of the lot in order to accommodate all required setbacks, buffers, and
landscaping. The lot is bordered on the east and south boundaries by existing driveways in the
adjacent parking lot therefore the developer is seeking relief through a variance request.
Please let me know if you need any additional information in this matter or if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
4Ri
HLBURGER FIRM, INC.
in, SLA
Vice President
201 5otitsi Lard o P.O. fox 3837 of".:.3 r 55
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z -4829-A
Owner: Nina L. Crook
Address: 1901 N. Hughes Street
Description: Lot 23, Kavanaugh Place Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the building
line provisions of Section 31-12 and the
area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a
building addition with a reduced front yard
setback and which crosses a platted
building line.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 1901 N. Hughes Street is occupied by a one-
story brick and frame single family residence. There is an existing
driveway at the southwest corner of the property. There are single family
residences located north, south and east of this property. There are
single family and multifamily residences to the west across Hughes Street.
The applicant proposes to construct a building addition at the southwest
corner of the single family residence. There is currently a covered porch
and carport at this corner of the structure, which are located 25 feet back
from the front property line. The lot was platted with a 25 foot front
building line. The proposed addition would extend approximately four (4)
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
feet closer to the front property line and four (4) feet closer to the south
property line. The purpose of the addition is to expand the kitchen
(located within the southwest corner of the existing structure) and
construct a laundry room, while maintaining a covered carport and small
front porch. The proposed addition will maintain a 21.3 foot setback from
the front property line and a 5.4 foot setback from the south side property
line.
Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that
variances for encroachments over platted building setback lines be
reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's
Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet, and
Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet
for this lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the
building addition to cross the front platted building line, with a reduced
front yard setback of 21.3 feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the
encroachment over the platted building line is very minor and that it will
have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. The construction will
result in a 21.3 foot setback from the west (front) property line. The
location of the kitchen within the existing structure dictates the location of
the proposed building addition (kitchen expansion). The applicant
received variances from the Board of Adjustment in 1987 to construct a
very similar addition, but because of financial reasons the addition was
never constructed.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to
complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building
line for the proposed building addition. The applicant should review the
filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat
requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line and front
setback variances subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as
approved by the Board.
2. The covered porch and carport areas must remain unenclosed
beyond the platted building line.
2
i
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3
-,-�'-4 4
1901 North Hughes
Little Rock, Arkansas
April 23, 2002
Monty Moore
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Six:
Please find enclosed an application for Zoning Variance and three copies of
a recent survey indicating proposed improvements.
I am hoping to update my kitchen. Presently the kitchen is very small. It
does not allow space for modem conveniences. Because the kitchen is on
the front of the house and the lot is narrow, to enlarge it requires going out
from the front of the house toward the street.
Please approve changing the front yard building line to 21 feet. The new
enclosed spaces will still be within acceptable setback standards in
comparison to other houses in the neighborhood.
Thank you,
Nina Crook
r
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.: 5
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 -6924-C
Walter Quinn
5500/5508 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Lots 13 and 14, Block 33, Newton's
Addition
C-3 and 0-3
A variance is requested from the fence
provisions of Section 36-516 to permit a
brick wall which exceeds the maximum
height allowed.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Vacant Commercial Building
Branch Bank
The property at 5500 Kavanaugh Boulevard (northwest corner of
Kavanaugh and Polk Street) is zoned C-3 and 0-3. There is an existing
one-story commercial building within the C-3 portion of the property, with
the 0-3 portion being vacant. A structure was recently removed from the
0-3 portion. There are single family residences located north of the site,
with a bank across Polk Street to the east and commercial uses along
Kavanaugh Blvd. to the west. The new Kroger Store development is
located across Kavanaugh Blvd. to the south.
On July 30, 2001 the Board of Adjustment approved a variance from the
buffer requirements of Section 36-522 for a proposed branch bank
development. The proposed branch bank facility is to utilize the existing
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
commercial building and construct covered drive through lanes on the
west side of the building on the 0-3 zoned portion of the property. On
January 28, 2002 the Board of Adjustment approved variances for
reduced setbacks for porch additions along the south and east sides of
the existing commercial building.
The approved site plan for this property included a six (6) foot high brick
wall along the north property line and a six (6) foot high screening fence
along the west property line. The applicant recently constructed the brick
wall along the north property line and the wood fence with brick columns
along the west property line. Because of a slight slope, the wood and
brick fence along the west property line is six feet — ten inches at the
southwest corner of the property, sloping back to six (6) feet at the
property's northwest corner. The brick wall along the north property line
has a height of six (6) feet at the northwest corner of the property and a
height of seven feet — four inches at the property's northeast corner.
These measurements are as viewed from the bank's side of the wall.
Because of a change in grade between this property and the single family
property immediately north, the wall as viewed from the single family
property has a height of approximately eight feet — four inches.
Section 36-516(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum
fence height of six (6) feet for the fence/wall along the north and west
property lines of the bank site. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance from this standard.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The increased wall height
along the north property line will aid in screening the adjacent residential
property from the bank use. The wall will also reduce the amount of noise
and lighting that may be generated by the bank's 24 hour ATM drive-thru.
Staff feels that the increased height of the brick wall along the property's
north property line and the wood fence with brick columns along the west
property line will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the
general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence/wall height variance,
as filed.
2
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 20, 2002)
David Porter and Susie Smith were present, representing the application. There
was one (1) person present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval.
David Porter addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained
the reasons for constructing the fence and wall to the existing heights. He noted
that the slope variation of the bank property and the change in grade between
the bank property and the property to the north as reasons for the resulting
fence/wall heights.
Chairman Ruck asked if any of the fencing was transparent. Mr. Porter stated
that it was not and explained.
Gary Langlais asked how close the brick wall was to the nearest house.
Mr. Porter explained that the wall was approximately 15 feet from the nearest
residence.
Blair Fortner, of 2018 N. Polk Street, addressed the Board in opposition to the
application. He noted that the master bedroom of his house was approximately
8.5 feet from the wall. He noted that the wall was 9 feet — 1 inch in height, with 6
inch caps as measured from his side of the wall. He explained his reasons for
opposing the proposed wall height. He stated that the property owner knew the
wall would not be in compliance when it was being constructed.
Vice -Chairman Gray asked if a reduction in the wall height would be acceptable.
Mr. Fortner stated that he would like the wall height reduced and explained.
Andy Francis asked Mr. Fortner what the maximum height he would accept as
measured from his side of the wall. Mr. Fortner explained that a seven (7) foot
height would be acceptable and explained.
Andy Francis asked where the height of a fence is measured. Staff noted that
fence height is measured from both sides of a fence or wall. There was
additional discussion related to this issue.
Chairman Ruck asked the applicant if the extra fence/wall height was considered
an advantage. Mr. Porter noted that the bank desired to have a level wall and
have the six (6) foot wall height measured from the bank side of the wall in order
to provide the maximum screening and explained. This issue was briefly
discussed.
KI
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 5 (Cont.
There was a general discussion relating to tearing down part of the wall
structure.
Susie Smith, representing the application, noted that it was the bank's intent to
comply with the City's screening requirements and make the wall a minimum of
six (6) feet in height on the bank side of the wall.
Vice -Chairman Gray asked if there would be a problem aesthetically with
stepping the wall height down from west to east. Ms. Smith stated that there
would be no problem other than cost.
Vice -Chairman Gray noted that some sections of the wall may be higher than
seven (7) feet if there is an attempt to step the wall downward from west to east.
Mr. Fortner stated that he understood and explained.
Ms. Smith noted that the bank was trying to comply with the City's screening
requirement.
Chairman Ruck noted that the Board could vote on the application as filed, or
consider an amended application by the applicants. He asked the applicants if
they would be willing to amend the application. Mr. Porter noted that the
application could be amended and explained.
Chairman Ruck asked the applicants and Mr. Fortner to meet outside the Board
room and discuss possible amendments to the application. The public hearing
of this item was briefly recessed.
The public hearing was reconvened. Mr. Porter addressed the Board and noted
that the and Mr. Fortner had reached and agreement, and that the application
would be amended. Mr. Porter noted that the application would be amended as
follows..
1. The wall along the north property line will be stepped downward from west
to east.
2. Each section of the wall (along the north property line) will have an
average height not to exceed seven (7) feet, not including columns, as
measured from the north side of the wall.
There was a motion to approve the application as amended by the applicant.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The amended application
was approved.
S
1 f 4�--14�
POLK STANLEY YEARY_6
A R C H I T E C T S L T D
Department of Planning and Development April 24, 2002
723 West Markham,
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Re: Board of Adjustments
Application for Zoning Variance
Board of Adjustment Members,
Metropolitan National Bank is locating a branch bank in an existing commercial building sited on
the northwest corner of Polk Street and Kavanaugh Blvd. As a part of the
project approval process, the site plan was approved with a 6 foot high brick fence along the
north property line. This fence is now constructed. The fence begins at the northwest corner of
the property at a visible height of 6'-0" and runs level along the north property line. Due to the
slope of the actual new site grading, the visible height of the fence at the northeast corner is
7 `- 4" on the bank side. Due also to the grade difference between the bank property and the
adjacent property, the visible height of the fence on north side facing the adjacent property is
approximately 8'-4" at the northeast corner.
Since we know there was a concern in the initial site plan review about adequate screening
of the bank's drive through traffic, noise and lighting from the neighboring property , it would
seem that if approved, the additional V-4" of a portion of fence height on the bank side and the
additional 2'-4" of a portion of fence on the neighbor's side would provide even greater
screening especially to the immediately adjacent neighboring property. The fence is constructed
with brick completely down to grade on the back side as well. A section detail is included.
In addition to the brick fence along the north property line, a brick pier and wood panel fence is
also planned along the west property line. This fence was not required per the zoning ordinance
but was a part of the approved site plan. The brick piers for this fence are currently installed.
This fence also starts in the northwest comer of the site at a visible height of 6'-0" and is also
planned to run level toward the south. The site slopes slightly toward Kavanaugh and the fence
at the south end will be approximately 6'-10" above both the finish grade on the bank side and
the existing curb elevation of the adjacent property to the west.
The bank is seeking the approval of the Board to leave these fence heights as currently
constructed and appreciates your consideration. Thank you.
700 S. Schiller • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 378-0878 • Fax (501) 372-7629
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.: Z -7079-A
Owner: Lewis Gardner
Address: 8921 Fourche Dam Pike
Description: Tract C, Area 203, Little Rock Port
Industrial Park
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign
provisions of Section 36-555 to permit a
ground -mounted sign which exceeds the
maximum height and area allowed by
ordinance.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Convenience store with gas pumps (under
construction)
Proposed Use of Property: Convenience store with gas pumps
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
A new convenience store with gas pumps is being constructed on the C-3
zoned property at the northeast corner of Fourche Dam Pike and Lindsey
Road. The convenience store development will have access points from
Fourche Dam Pike and Lindsey Road. Little Rock Port railroad property is
located immediately north of the site, with Interstate 440 further north.
The applicant proposes to construct a ground -mounted sign at the
northwest corner of the development. The sign is proposed to have a
height of 60 feet and an area of 370 square feet. Section 36-555 of the
City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum ground -mounted sign height
May 20, 2002
101151104 no
of 36 feet and a maximum area of 160 square feet in C-3 zoning. Based
on the fact that the elevation of 1-440 is approximately 20.64 feet above
the elevation of this property, Staff could allow a sign height of 56.64 feet.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances for the proposed ground -
mounted sign height and area.
Staff has no problem with the proposed sign height, however, staff is not
supportive of the requested variance to allow the ground -mounted sign to
exceed the maximum area allowed by ordinance. Although several
variances (sign area and height) have been granted for signs on the north
side of 1-440 (Exxon, Texaco and McDonald's/Travelodge) by the former
Sign Appeal Board and the Board of Adjustment, the Total convenience
store sign on the south side of 1-440 complies with ordinance standards.
The Total store development is located across Fourche Dam Pike to the
west. The Total sign is approximately 63 feet in height (based on 1-440
elevation measured at that time) and 150 square feet in area. It is
apparent that the Total convenience store has thrived at this location for a
number of years with this signage. Therefore, staff feels that it would be
appropriate to allow similar sized signage for this new convenience store
development.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow the ground -
mounted sign to exceed the maximum area allowed by ordinance. Staff
supports the requested variance to allow a ground -mounted sign height of
60 feet.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002)
Jim Hill was present, representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial.
Jim Hill addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that other
ground -mounted signs in the area exceed the maximum height and area allowed
by ordinance. He noted that most of the business generated by the convenience
store will come from 1-440 and explained why the larger sign was needed. He
explained that the convenience store was in direct competition with the other
convenience stores in the area and other nearby cities.
Vice -Chairman Gray asked if the applicant would consider a smaller price sign.
Mr. Hill noted that the reason for the requested sign size was the distance of the
property from 1-440.
May 20, 200
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
There was a lengthy discussion pertaining to the size of the Total store signage
in relation to the signage proposed for this property and the location of this
property in relation to 1-440. Staff noted that the proposed sign area was 320
square feet instead of the 370 square feet as was mentioned previously.
There was a motion to approve the application as filed. The motion failed by a
vote of 0 ayes and 5 nays. The application was denied.
3
MAGINEBRED
21
NEWROCK
PARKING
DECK
a
TRAVELERS
INSURANCE
BUILDING
M
HOWARD
JOHNSON
RESTAURANT
a
VILLAGE
SHOPPING
CENTER
STORYBOOK
VILLAGE
a
GLENWOOD
HEIGHTS
3
HOWARD
JOHNSON
MOTEL
N
SCHOOLWOOD
€8
ALLENDALE
13
JAMESTOW N
APARTMENTS
M
WINDAMERE
APARTMENTS
S
PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE
BUILDING
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
SPECIALISTS
PUTNAM REALTY INC.
SUITE 1820 UNION�NATiONAL BANK BUILDING
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT
('0UNSEI(H[ S
71) 7 5
IMAGINEERS
M LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 :0 PHONE AC 501 376-3616
April 15, 2002
Board of Adjustment
City of Little Rock Planning
Little Rock, Arkansas
Dear Board Members:
Crackerbox Fina is asking for a variance in sign size
for the following reason:
1. Sign is located on Northwest Corner of property,
located on Fourche Dam Road on property purchased from
Little Rock Port Authority.
2. The sign will be approximately 300 + feet from the
center line of I-440, without the 8'x 20' For pricing, we
would have no way of attracting customers from the
interstate. Any size smaller would not be visible.
3. Our competitors, on the North side of I-440 have
similar price signage, that we asking.
1/ Si erely,
c � V
Jim Hill, Agent
JH/hjh
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS
1
`-\ REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS
~"w ' DIVESTMENTS & ACQUISITIONS
`' APPRAISALS
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.: Z -7124-B
Owner: Block 2, Limited Partnership
Address: 101 Main Street
Description: Southeast corner of Main Street and
Markham Street
Zoned: UU
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the
development provisions of Section 36-
342.1 to allow an awning addition which
projects more than five (5) feet into the
public right-of-way.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Mixture of commercial, office and
residential
Proposed Use of Property: Mixture of commercial, office and
residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
On March 25, 2002 the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to allow
outside restaurant seating at 101 Main Street. The seating was to be
located along Main Street adjacent to the portion of the building occupied
by the San Francisco Bread Co. During the public hearing, the Board
asked the applicant if an awning would be used to cover the outside
seating area. The applicant responded that only umbrellas would be
used.
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 7 (Cont.)
After further consideration, the applicant has decided to construct an
awning over the outside seating area. The awning would project from the
fagade of the building six (6) feet to 11.5 feet. There would be
approximately 8.5 feet of clearance over the sidewalk area at the awning's
lowest point. The awning will cover 395.5 square feet of area. According
to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-342.1(c)(9)b., UU Urban Use
District standards:
"Awnings shall not project more than five (5) feet from the
building fagade and have a minimum clearance of eight (8)
feet above the sidewalk."
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the awning
construction.
Staff is not supportive of the variance request. The intent of Section 36-
342.1(c)(9)b. was to allow owners of buildings which had zero setbacks
along street side property lines to construct small awnings over doorways.
Staff expressed safety concerns with the previous variance request to
allow the outside restaurant seating. Staff's concerns related to the large
amount of pedestrian traffic in this area and the amount of the sidewalk to
be occupied by the restaurant seating. Staff feels that the safety issue will
be exacerbated with the introduction of a 395.5 square foot awning
structure into this right-of-way area. Staff does not feel that this is a good
plan. If the Board decides to approve this application, the applicant will
need to obtain a franchise permit for the structure to be located within the
right-of-way.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow an awning
structure which projects more than five (5) feet into the public right-of-way,
in the UU Urban Use District.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that this
application be deferred to the June 24, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the
deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 24, 2002
agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
We would like to put a metal or canvas top above the outside seating. This will
allow customers to sit outside during a light rain or a bright sunny day. In addition, we
can also put up some lighting and ceiling fans. Although it may not be sufficient, we are
looking into putting up outside. umbrellas.
May 20, 2002
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 Comments.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
Z-7214
James A. Bottin
1428 Merrill Drive
Lot 26, Charles Valley Subdivision
C-3
A variance is requested from the building
line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a
building addition which crosses a front
platted building line.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Fitness Center
Fitness Center
A landscape upgrade toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance
equal to the expansion percentage proposed will be required.
C. Staff Analysis:
The property at 1428 Merrill Drive is occupied by a two-story brick
commercial building which houses a fitness center. There are paved
parking areas located along the south and east sides of the building.
There is a cellular tower located within the rear (south) portion of the
property.
This lot (Lot 26, Charles Valley Addition) was platted in the 1970's and
included a 40 -foot front platted building line, which was typical of many
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 8 (Cont.)
commercial lots platted at that time. The applicant proposes to construct
a 3,035 square foot addition to the front of the existing commercial
building. The building addition will be for the expansion of the fitness
center, with additional entrance, office and workout areas. A portion of
the addition will be two-story construction. The building addition is
proposed to cross the 40 -foot front platted building line, and maintain a
25 -foot setback from the front property line. The Zoning Ordinance
requires a minimum front setback in C-3 zoning of 25 feet. However,
Section 31-12 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that
encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed by the Board of
Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the
proposed building addition to cross the 40 -foot front platted building line.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the
proposed building addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent
commercial or office properties. The proposed building addition complies
with Section 36-301 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which requires a
minimum front yard setback of 25 feet in C-3 zoning. In light of this, staff
views the variance request as very minor in nature. If the old 40 -foot
platted building line did not exist, the applicant could make the building
addition without any public review.
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 building addition. The applicant should review the filing
procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires
a revised Bill of Assurance.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line variance subject
to the following conditions:
1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front
platted building line as approved by the Board.
2. No portion of the proposed building addition is to be located closer
than 25 feet to the front property line.
3. Compliance with the landscape requirement as noted in paragraph
B. of this report.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
0J
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 8 (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 recused (Langlais).
3
WITTENBERG DELONY & DAVIDSON ARCHITECTS
April 9, 2002
Mr. Monte Moore
City of Little Rock
Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Powerhouse Gym
1428 Merrill Drive
Dear Monte:
We would like to ask for a variance to replat the setback to 25' from the property
line for the above referenced project. Please find enclosed the required site plan,
survey and application material.
The gym property was platted in 1977 with a 40' setback from the property line.
called the zoning department to verify that the property is currently zoned C-3,
which requires a 25' setback. The Owner would like to expand the front entrance
of the gym to make it more accessible to all patrons. The addition will be built
within the required setback line for C-3 zoning.
The gym parking lot is currently capable of handling the required number of spaces
with the new addition.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
WITTENBERG, DELONY & DAVIDSON, INC.
J//
Chad Young, AIA
Principal
lw
Encl.
400 W. CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1800
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201-4857
501/376-6681
501/376-0231 FAX
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.: 9
File No.:
Z-7222
Owner:
Dr. David Rozas
Address:
4305 "1" Street
Description:
The east 93.3 feet of Lots 1 and 2,
Block 17, Pulaski Heights Addition
Zoned:
R-5
Variance Requested:
A variance is requested from the fence
provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a
retaining wall/fence that exceeds the
maximum height allowed, and a variance is
requested from the area provisions of
Section 36-156 to permit an accessory
building (greenhouse) with a reduced side
yard setback.
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-5 zoned property at 4305 "1" Street contains a one-story stucco and
frame single family residence within the west one-half of the site. The
property slopes downward from the residential structure to Walnut Street
and also downward from "I" Street to the south property line. The
southeast corner of the property is approximately 8 feet lower than the
northwest corner. The east one-half of the property is vacant and is
currently being leveled and landscaped. A retaining wall was recently
constructed along the east (Walnut Street) property line. The wall is
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 9 (Cont.
approximately four (4) feet high at its south end, and decreases in height,
returning to grade, as it runs to the north. Previously a one-story single
family residence and accessory building existed within the east one-half of
this property. Because of their condition, these structures were recently
removed.
In addition to the landscape requirements, the applicant proposes to
construct a four (4) foot high privacy fence on top of the newly constructed
retaining wall, and a six (6) foot high privacy fence running south from the
retaining wall/fence to the southeast corner of the property, then west
along the south property line to an existing fence. There will be gates at
the southeast corner of the property, leading to a small area where a RV
will be parked. The applicant also proposes to construct a 10 foot by 18
foot greenhouse structure near the southeast corner of the property. The
greenhouse will be set back from the east property line seven (7) feet.
Section 36-516(e)(1) allows a maximum height of four (4) feet for fences
and walls constructed between a building setback line and a street right-
of-way. The minimum side yard required for this property is five (5) feet.
Also, Section 36-156 requires a minimum street side yard setback for
accessory buildings of 15 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting two
(2) variances with the proposed development of this property. The first is
a variance to allow the fence/wall located between the required five (5)
foot side yard setback and the Walnut Street property line to exceed a
height of four (4) feet. The second variance is for a reduced side yard
setback for the proposed greenhouse structure.
Staff supports the variance requests. Staff feels that the variances are
very minor in nature. The proposed fence/wall will be eight (8) feet high at
one (1) point near the southeast corner of the property, sloping to a height
of four (4) feet at the site's northeast corner. The proposed greenhouse
structure will have a seven (7) foot setback from the east (Walnut Street)
property line. The previous accessory structure, which was located in
approximately this same spot, had a five (5) foot setback from the east
property line. Staff views the variance requests as reasonable and feels
that they will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, as filed.
K
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 9 (Cont.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 20, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3
Aoo'*�
Pat Brain
Repair & Remodeling Contractor
2104 Brownwood, Little Rock, AR 72207
(501) 666.8835 cell/Pager: 944-1408
April 22, 2002
Little Rock Board of Adjustment
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham — First Floor
Little Rock, AR 72202
Board Members:
This application is being made to allow construction of a 4' tall privacy fence on the high side
of a retaining wall that is 4' tall on the south end and l' tall on the north end. The fence is on the
east property line of the southwest corner of Walnut and "I" streets.
Also, a 6' tall privacy fence at ground level from the south end of the retaining wall to the
property line at the southeast corner of the lot and continuing around the south property line.
The 4' fence would provide privacy and security for the yard, patio, and garden areas, that are
open on the Walnut street side and due to the lay of the land require the retaining wall to level the
property. Also, the small size of the lots in this area would mean that a taller fence at the required
5' set back would be a substantial reduction of the useable property.
The 6' fence would enclose a parking area of approximately 11' X 32' to provide security and
attractive screening of the area from Walnut St. Another factor is that the proposed 4' fence will
be located where there was previously a 6' privacy fence on top of a wall of similar height both of
which were in poor condition.
As a part of this project, there is also a proposed greenhouse that needs a variance from the 15'
set back requirement for accessory buildings. The proposed location of the greenhouse would be
7' from the property line on the east or Walnut St. side and 13' from the south property line, on
the yard that is leveled by the retaining wall and enclosed by the proposed 4' privacy fence.
A greenhouse in this location would not be within the 5' set back building line and would not
be close enough to Walnut St. to pose any hazard or have an aesthetically negative effect on the
neighborhood. It would however, allow the effective usage of the yard and garden area and add
more privacy to the patio area behind the house. This greenhouse would also be farther from the
property line than an extremely dilapidated garage that previously sat less that 5' from the
property line on the Walnut St. side. (SEE ATTACHED PLOT PLAN `B")
Thank you for consideration of these requests.
Sincerely,
Pat Brain
enclosures
FPOH : DONPLD W //BPCU<S I r4C SLAW 501 899 5336
1
2001, O i i 15 t S6 #S2S P- 02, T
DONALD W. BROOKS, INC.
E.S. (Stan) Cunningham, Jr. (RLSX1375) Donato W t3 DOks (RLS"
24820 ARCH STREET PIKE
4�Q HENSLEY•An T2095
_ P"ONE (501) 898.533e
.j 5 T
;'d . 1
L 4ca,<a r
L
LEGAL DESCRIrTION
�f�r_
Timothy C. Co* (RLW 3
The East 1/3 of Lots 1 and 2, Block 17, PULASKI HEIGHTS AUDITION to
the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
This property is not in the 100 year flood plain as per Panel ) of 24
for Little Rock, Arkansas. Community -Panel #050181 0007 E; dated Novembe
3, 1993 in Flood Zone X.
J
�ro
I
Tro
.
Y
L 4ca,<a r
L
LEGAL DESCRIrTION
�f�r_
Timothy C. Co* (RLW 3
The East 1/3 of Lots 1 and 2, Block 17, PULASKI HEIGHTS AUDITION to
the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
This property is not in the 100 year flood plain as per Panel ) of 24
for Little Rock, Arkansas. Community -Panel #050181 0007 E; dated Novembe
3, 1993 in Flood Zone X.
J
Tro
.
L 4ca,<a r
L
LEGAL DESCRIrTION
�f�r_
Timothy C. Co* (RLW 3
The East 1/3 of Lots 1 and 2, Block 17, PULASKI HEIGHTS AUDITION to
the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
This property is not in the 100 year flood plain as per Panel ) of 24
for Little Rock, Arkansas. Community -Panel #050181 0007 E; dated Novembe
3, 1993 in Flood Zone X.
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.: 10
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-7223
Vernon and Jane Markham
14 Huntington Road
Lot 70, Foxcroft Addition
R-2
A variance is requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a
building addition with a reduced rear yard
setback.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 14 Huntington Road is occupied by a two-story
frame and brick single family structure. A concrete drive at the
southwestern corner of the property serves as access. There is a two-
level deck on the rear of the house, with the rearmost section of the deck
being five (5) feet from the rear property line. The majority of the rear
deck section is less than one (1) foot above grade. The rear yard slopes
downward from south to north.
The property owners propose to construct an 18.5 foot by 17 foot room
addition at the southeast corner of the residential structure. The addition
will be located 16.5 feet from the rear property line. The owners also
propose to construct a sunroom over an existing concrete patio and a
mudroom adjacent to the proposed room addition. Additionally, a new
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 10 (Cont.)
set of deck stairs will be constructed at the rear of the proposed room
addition and be located 13 feet from the 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 applicant requests a variance to allow a
reduced rear yard setback for the proposed room addition and new deck
stairs.
Staff is supportive of the requested rear yard setback variance. The
existing single family residence sets approximately 12 feet further back
from the front property line than required by ordinance. If the house were
located on the 25 foot front platted building line, no variance would be
needed for the room addition. Additionally, the 17 foot width of the
proposed room addition is only a small percentage of the overall lot width.
Therefore the proposed room addition should have no adverse impact on
the surrounding properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance,
as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
4
Peary Lindsey Architects
April 21, 2002
Dana Carney
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Residence of Vernon and Jane Markham, 14 Huntington Road, Little Rock, AR
Dear Dana,
We are requesting a rear yard setback variance for the residence of Vernon and Jane
Markham at 14 Huntington Road.
The Markhams have an existing raised slab as part of an existing 2 level deck behind their
house. They would like to construct a new sunroom on this concrete slab which will extend
from the end of their present den space. They also wish to construct a new mudroom entry
from garage to sunroom and a new 18'-6" x 17'-0" study which would be accessible from
the mudroom as well.
The location of the new study necessitates an encroachment of 8'-6" into the 25' rear yard
setback. Additionally, an existing stair from upper to lower decks will also have to be
removed and relocated. This new wood deck stair will project another 3'-6" past the study
into the rear yard setback, encroaching a total of 12'-0" into the 25' setback.
The resulting structure to rear property line dimensions will be: property line to study wall,
16'-6" and property line to deck stair, 13'-0". We feel that the addition is a reasonable size
and is in the most appropriate location for their existing floor plan and ask for your serious
consideration of our variance request.
Sincerely,
,a*
Ellen Yeary,
319 E. Markham, Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-5940 FX: 501-707-0118
L3
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.: 11
File No..-
Owner:
o.: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-7224
Mary H. Rose, LLC
915 West Capitol Avenue
South side of West Capitol Avenue,
between Chester and Izard Streets
UU
A variance is requested from the use
regulations of Section 36-342.1 to allow a
restaurant, with outside seating, in the UU
Zoning District.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Restaurant
Restaurant, with outside seating
The UU zoned property at 915 West Capitol Avenue contains a small
restaurant building, which is a one-story brick structure. There are two (2)
areas of outside restaurant seating on the north side of the restaurant
building, between the structure and the sidewalk along West Capitol
Avenue. Each outside seating area will consist of four (4) tables, with
umbrellas used to provide shade. The restaurant owner recently received
a notice from the City's Zoning Enforcement staff to cease the outside
seating based on the fact that outside commercial uses are not allowed in
the UU Zoning District. Therefore, the owner requests a variance from
this standard.
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 11 (Cont.)
According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section
36-342.1(d)(1), UU Urban Use District standards:
"Permitted uses. Uses permitted shall include all
those allowed in the residential districts, office
districts and commercial districts as "permitted uses,
in this chapter 36. Except that, all uses must be
inside or enclosed."
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. To staff's knowledge, all of
the outside seating areas will be located on the owner's property and not
in the public right-of-way. It appears that the outside seating areas will not
affect the sidewalk along West Capitol Avenue in any way. The proposed
restaurant with outside seating areas could help revitalize this area of
downtown by promoting and increasing the pedestrian traffic in the area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow outside restaurant
seating subject to none of the seating areas encroaching into the sidewalk
area (public right-of-way) along West Capitol Avenue.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
MR. MASON'S PIT BAR -B -Q &
CATERING CO, LLC T�-1-„- fC
April 4, 2002
Mr. Monte Moore
City of Little Rock
Planning and Development
723 W. Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
Dear Sir:
Following is information concerning 915 West Capital Ave, Little Rock, AR, 72201 and
the corresponding request for zoning variance.
The property is owned by Mary H. Rose, LLC and is leased to Mr. Mason's Pit Bar -B -Q
& Catering Co, LLC. It is operating as a restaurant. Mary H. Rose may be contacted at 501-
372-4227 or 501-663-3657. James Hendren, a member of Mr. Mason's is acting on behalf
of Mr. Mason's and Mary H. Rose, and Mary H. Rose, LLC. He may be contacted at 501-
225-4881 or 584-0006 or 12 Perdido Cir, Little Rock, AR, 72201
The attached application for zoning variance is to allow outside seating for patrons. The
outside seating will be completely on the owner's property without encroaching any right of
way or encroaching the sidewalk in front of the building. This seating will consist of 4
tables on each side of the entrance for a total of 8 tables. We believe this will actually help
invigorate a fairly low utilization of Capitol Ave and will not impede any neighbors or other
users in the area.
We thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
?Jmes K. Hendren,
ember
915 WEST CAPITOL AVE • LITTLE ROCK, AR • 72201
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.: 12
File No.:
Z-7225
Owner:
Grace Presbyterian Church
Address:
9301 Rodney Parham Road
Description:
Southwest corner of the Rodney Parham
Road and Reservoir Road intersection
Zoned:
R-2
Variance Requested:
A variance is requested from the sign
provisions of Section 36-553 to permit a
ground -mounted sign which exceeds the
maximum height allowed.
Justification:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:
Church
Proposed Use of Property:
Church
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 9301 Rodney Parham Road contains the
Grace Presbyterian Church development. There are two (2) access
points from Rodney Parham Road. There is one (1) ground -mounted sign
on each side of the westernmost access drive.
The church proposes to remove the ground -mounted sign on the east side
of the access drive and replace it with a new sign. The new ground -
mounted sign is proposed to have a height of ten (10) feet and an area of
48 square feet. Churches are allowed to have signage as permitted in
office zoning (maximum height — 6 feet, maximum area — 64 square feet).
Ground -mounted signs are to have a minimum setback of five (5) feet
from property lines. Therefore, the church is requesting a variance to
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 12 (Cont.)
allow the ground -mounted sign to exceed the maximum height allowed by
ordinance.
Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff feels that the requested
variance is very minor and will have no adverse impact on the general
area. The church is located in an area along Rodney Parham Road which
contains a number of commercial sized ground -mounted signs.
Additionally, the site of the proposed sign is slightly below the grade of
Rodney Parham Road, and a ten (10) foot high sign as proposed will aid
in the identification of the property. As noted earlier, there are two (2)
ground -mounted signs on the property, one (1) on each side of the
westernmost access drive. Staff feels that the sign on the west side of the
drive should be removed (letters taken off the rock wall) in exchange for
the taller ground -mounted sign.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a ground -
mounted sign which exceeds the maximum height allowed subject to the
following conditions:
1. The sign must be set back at least five (5) feet from the front
property line.
2. A sign permit must be obtained as per City ordinance
requirements.
3. The second ground -mounted sign (west side of the access drive)
as well as the sign to be replaced must be removed from the
property, resulting in only one (1) ground -mounted sign for the site.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002)
Ronnie Roberson was present, representing the application. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of
approval.
Ronnie Roberson addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted
that the church did not agree with staff's condition #3 as listed in paragraph C. of
the agenda report. He stated that the church did not wish to remove the existing
sign located on the west side of the access drive. He noted that it was the
original sign which was constructed in the 1960's when the church was built. He
noted that the sign had historic and sentimental importance to the church. The
sign has a small plaque near the upper right corner which dedicates the sign to a
deceased church member.
RIA
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 12 (Cont.)
Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, asked Mr. Roberson if he had a problem with
conditions #1 and #2. He stated that he did not.
There was a discussion as to whether or not the existing sign was considered a
sign based on the wording.
Andy Francis stated that he had no problem with the existing sign.
There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff,
eliminating staff condition #3.
Staff noted that this was not an appropriate motion based on the fact that a
second ground -mounted sign on the site would require a second variance
request. Staff noted that this second variance had not been advertised, nor had
the adjacent property owners been informed of it. This issue was briefly
discussed.
The previous motion was withdrawn. A new motion was made to defer the
application to the June 24, 2002 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes
and 0 nays. The application was deferred.
3
CEVLIA&
W
a
2E Z
QJ 5 N)
GRACE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
9301 Rodney Parham Road fat Reservoir Road)
Little Rods, Arkansas 72227
501-225-3274
Fax 501-227-6304
April 24, 2002
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Dear Sirs:
1-4-e, -4 ) -2.-
I am requesting zoning variance for a new 10 foot sign at Grace Presbyterian
Church located at 9301 Rodney Parham Road in Little Rock.
This request does not violate the spirit of the ordinance because of the unique
location of the church property. The church facility is obstructed from view by passing
motorists due to the increased elevation of Rodney Parham Road when it was widened
and the construction of a retaining wall.
The new sign will be lighted from the inside and will have a marquee that will
be used to publicize our services and programs. The marquee needs to be elevated so
that one can change the message while standing on the ground and so that it can safely
be read by passing motorists.
The sign is located on a wooded portion of the church property and will
therefore not block the view of other signs of businesses.
Thank you for considering our request.
Sincerely,
William R. Roberson
Evangelism Chairman
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.: 13
File No.: Z-7226
Owner: Bruce and Lisa Johnson
Address: 25 Hickory Creek Drive
Description: Lot 54, Hickory Creek Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the
easement provisions of Section 36-11 and
the area provisions of Section 36-156 to
permit construction of a swimming pool
which encroaches into an easement, with a
reduced separation from the principal
structure.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 25 Hickory Creek Drive contains a two-story
brick and rock single family residence which is currently under
construction. The rear yard of the property slopes slightly downward from
west to east. The property owner proposes to construct a swimming pool
near the southeast corner of the lot. The proposed pool extends
approximately seven (7) feet into a utility easement which runs along the
rear property line. The pool is separated from the principal structure by
five (5) feet. Section 36-11(f) requires that encroachments into utility
easements be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Section 36-
156(a)(2)b. requires that accessory structures in single family zones be
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 13 (Cont.
separated from the principal structure by at lest six (6) feet. Therefore,
the property owner is requesting variances to allow the swimming pool to
encroach into the utility easement, with a reduced separation from the
principal structure.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. As noted previously, the
rear yard of this lot slopes downward from west to east. Because of the
slope, the applicant has located the pool within the southeastern portion
of the property, where the ground is most level. Additionally, the applicant
noted in his cover letter that it is the intent to save existing trees within the
other area of the rear yard. Staff feels that the variance for reduced
separation from the principal structure is very minimal and should have no
adverse effects. The proposed pool conforms to the minimum rear and
side yard setbacks.
The applicant submitted letters from all of the public utility companies
approving of the proposed pool construction. The Little Rock Wastewater
Utility noted that the pool construction must be located at least five (5) feet
back from the edge of an existing manhole at the southeast corner of the
lot. The proposed plan conforms with this requirement.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances subject to the
swimming pool construction being located at least five (5) feet back from
the edge of the existing manhole at the southeast corner of the property,
as required by Little Rock Wastewater Utility.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
P"
-4 1-5
72-2--(.::,
April 25, 2002
Attn. Utility Company Representatives and
City of Little Rock Board of Adjustments
R.E. Residential Zoning Variance for
Dr. Bruce & Lisa Johnson Residence
#25 Hickory Creek Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Home 868-4908
Please find enclosed a copy of the legal survey
showing the proposed location of the Johnson Residence
swimming pool. I've also included the landscape design
showing the pool in the proposed location.
My clients, Dr. Bruce and Lisa Johnson, are building a
new house and would like to build a swimming pool iii
their back yard. We must, however, request a variance
from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance due to
the proposed siting of the pool.
The back yard area could be considered to have an
unusual configuration mainly due to the skewed east
property line. The southeast corner is raised in
elevation and contains the only stand of existing
hardwoods we would like to keep for aesthetics,
screening and shade. A retaining wall will be necessary
to accommodate the slope in this area and save the
trees. I'm not sure if a retaining wall is another item
that needs to be included in the variance request or
not, please advise. The only place left for the
swimming pool is in the area shown on the drawings and
to facilitate any room for a patio adjoining the pool
the pool would somewhat encroach into the 10' Easement
and be closer than 6' from the house.
A one call utility location was made to see what was
actually located within the easement. I found paint
marks indicating cable television only. There are
manholes at the north front and rear property corners;
these do not conflict with the swimming pool location.
I have faxed all utility companies a copy of this cover
letter and copies of the drawings.
Please do not hesitate to call me for any further
assistance.
Sincerely,
Reed Parkerson
Arkansas Landscape & Sprinkler Co., Inc.
Operations and Project Manager
May 20, 200,/
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned
Z-7227
Saul and Barbara Palmer
824 S. Valmar Street
Lot 6 and the south 5 feet of Lot 5, Block 3,
Marshall and Coffman's Addition.
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence/wall
provisions of Section 36-516 to permit a
concrete block wall which exceeds the
maximum height allowed.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-4 zoned property at 824 S. Valmar Street contains a one-story,
frame single family residence. The applicant recently constructed a
concrete block wall (approximately 35 linear feet) along the south property
line, adjacent to Maryland Street. The block wall sits on the south
property line and ranges in height from 5 Y2 to 6 feet. There is an existing
hedge which extends from the block wall east along the south property
line and north along the east property line in front of the residence. The
property owner, Saul Palmer, recently received a notice from the City's
Zoning Enforcement Staff based on the fact that the wall is located
between the required side yard setback and a street right-of-way and
exceeds the maximum height allowed. The required side yard setback for
this lot is 4.5 feet. According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 14 (Cont.
516(e)(1), residential fences/walls constructed between a required
building setback line and a street right-of-way shall have a maximum
height of four (4) feet. Therefore, the property owner requests a variance
to allow the block wall to exceed the maximum height allowed.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the variance
request as very minimal in nature. The applicant has noted that the
concrete block wall is needed to provide a certain level of safety and
protection for he and his family. The applicant constructed the wall in
response to a recent shooting within the block. The concrete block wall
should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general
area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
Saul E. Palmer
284 S. Valmar St.
Little Rock, Ar 72204
Cover Letter
City of Little Rock
Subject: Fence/Wall
April 24, 2002
Dear Sir/Madam:
I have lived at 824 S. Valmar Street for five years. It is a low income area
with many rental properties. People are constantly coming and going. The
area is a high -crime area, with incidents happening all the time. I put up a
block wall that runs about thirty feet alone my backyard. The wall is
approximately thirty feet long and 51/2 foot tall. I checked with the
neighborhood code enforcement office before erecting the fence and they told
me it was okay as long as the fence was six feet tall or shorter.
I erected the wall to protect my family and my home. My bedroom
windows faces Maryland Street, where occasionally there are shootings on
the street, people walking the area selling drugs, or looking for them and
strange people that we don't know coming into our backyard asking for
money or cigarettes. We had no privacy without this wall.
A young man was shot eight times near our bedroom window and several
times out of control vehicles have ended up in our backyard. Since erecting
the wall my family feels safer and we don't have strangers coming into the
yard unnoticed. We feel safer, sitting in our backyard. We also now have
Privacy from all the things going on along our street.
Sincerely,
S ul e. Palmer
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.: 15
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification.-
Present
ustification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7228
Dianna Hillery
4004 Stannus Street
Southwest corner of West 40th and
Stannus Streets
R-3
Variances are requested from the area
provision of Section 36-156 to allow an
accessory structure (carport) with a
reduced front yard setback and a reduced
separation from the principle structure.
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-3 zoned property at 4004 Stannus Street contains a one-story brick
single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from Stannus Street
which serves this property. A new metal carport structure (20 feet by 20
feet) was recently constructed over the existing driveway. The carport
structure is located approximately three (3) feet from the front (east)
property line and separated by approximately three (3) feet from the
residence. Section 36-156 of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that
accessory buildings in residential zones be located at least 60 feet back
from the front property line and three (3) feet from side or rear property
lines. Additionally, the structure must be located at least six (6) feet from
the principal structure and 15 feet from a street side property line.
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 15 (Co
Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the carport
structure to have a reduced front setback and a reduced separation from
the principal structure.
Staff supports the requested variances. Staff's support is based primarily
on the fact that the carport structure cannot be placed anywhere on the
site and comply with the front yard setback requirement. Staff feels that it
is reasonable to place the carport structure over the existing driveway.
Even though a greater front yard setback could be provided if the
structure were placed in the yard area south of the residential structure,
this would require a new curb cut and a new driveway to be constructed.
Although staff supports the variance requests, based on the fact that the
carport is not on a permanent foundation, staff feels that the variances
should be approved for this property owner's use only.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances for reduced front
yard setback and building separation associated with the accessory
carport structure, subject to the following conditions:
1. The variances be approved for the property owner, Dianna Hillery,
only.
2. If the property is sold, or Ms. Hillery vacates the property, the
carport structure must be removed from the site.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
f
��- rte".
- 7z,? -k
M��Y� 0� 1-1 CIO
ADA -0u, oo� FL��A 0-n
FUTL� �, rrYu.Arl w
tc
V) t
-�")k CA
oo �
q t
...n,-i�ii� k .. :moi ..,-r ": ,.,+.«. -`o• � ,n „� r' ,�
4'
L ;,Ip—
-Ira
3#F 1
s
t �r
fi
r
f '
ON M-
cy.xz y
1.
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.: 16
File No.:
Z-7229
Owner:
Dr. Alonzo Williams
Address:
4 Coray Court
Description:
Lot 27, Block 14, Chenal Valley Addition
Zoned:
R-2
Variance Requested:
A variance is requested from the building
line provisions of Section 31-12 to permit
construction of a swimming pool which
crosses a platted building line.
Justification:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:
Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property:
Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 4 Coray Court is occupied by a two-story brick
single family residence. A concrete drive from Coray Court serves as
access to the property. There is a 35 foot platted building line along the
front property line and two (2) other unusually shaped platted building
lines along the side and rear property lines. There are also easements
along the side and rear property lines. The rear and side building lines
and easements were platted in order to keep the construction of
structures as far back as possible from the Chenal Valley golf course.
The property owner proposes to construct a swimming pool in the rear
yard which crosses one (1) of the rear platted building lines. Section 31-
12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments
across platted building lines be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment.
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 16 (Cont.)
Therefore, the property owner requests a variance to allow the swimming
pool to cross the platted building line.
Staff is supportive of the requested building line variance. The proposed
swimming pool vastly exceeds the minimum required setbacks for
accessory structures. As of this writing, staff has requested that the
applicant provide a letter of approval from Chenal Properties, based on
the fact that the proposed swimming pool encroaches over a building line
that was platted because of the Chenal Valley golf course. The applicant
will also need to assure that any Bill of Assurance requirements
(architectural review, etc.) are complied with.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to
complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted building line
for the proposed swimming pool. The applicant should review the filing
procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires
a revised Bill of Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the building line variance subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant must obtain a letter of approval from Chenal
Properties.
2. All Bill of Assurance requirements must be complied with.
3. A one -lot replat must be completed reflecting the change in the
platted building line as approved by the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
E
April 26, 2002
�t 1
Firm
Erg n e e r s -a i-, d 3
Mr. Dana Carney
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Re: 4 Coray Circle, Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
Dear Dana,
T4� /t";'
2- 7,--22-7
Enclosed is an application fora setback variance for the above referenced address to allow a portion
of a proposed swimming pool to be built beyond the building line as shown on the enclosed survey.
The owner is asking to be allowed this variance due to the restrictions placed on this property by an
atypical building line due to this property bordering on an adjacent common area and other existing
construction on site which renders other locations on the site unfeasible.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if need any additional information in this matter.
Sincerely,
THE MEHLBURGER FIRM, INC.
C?ra4f
nkR,iggi/S,A A
Vice President
201 Sou1-hLard c P.O. Box 3537 0 Lirrie Roc':, .AR. 72203-3: 37 o 501. "375,-5,33' 7:._
May 20, 2002
ITEM NO.: 17
File No.: Z-7230
Owner: Fred and Karen Lord
Address: 19717 Mallard Cove
Description: Lot 708, Hunter's Woods Subdivision, Otter
Creek Community Phase VI
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area
provisions of Section 36-156 to allow
construction of an accessory building with a
reduced side yard setback.
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant's justification is presented in
an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-2 zoned property at 19717 Mallard Cove is occupied by a one-story
brick single family residence. There is an access drive at the southwest
corner of the property. The property is located in an area of single family
development. The Little Rock city limits line is located a few hundred feet
to the west. Park property, zoned PR, is located further south.
The applicant proposes to construct a 625 square foot detached garage
structure along the south (side) property line. The applicant proposes a
one (1) foot setback along this side property line. According to Section
36-156(a)(2)f., accessory buildings in R-2 zoning shall have a minimum
side yard setback of three (3) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
May 20, 2002
Item No.: 17 (Cont.)
a variance from this standard. The proposed structure complies with all
other setback requirements.
Staff is not supportive of the variance request. Staff can see no logical
reason for the placement of the accessory structure to within one (1) foot
of the side property line. There is not a problem with the lot's topography,
size or configuration which would dictate the placement of the structure.
There is ample space to place the structure on the lot and meet all of the
required setbacks. Staff feels that there is no hardship or justification for
the requested variance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested side yard setback variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 20, 2002)
Frank Riggins was present, representing the application. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of
denial.
Frank Riggins addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that
the adjacent property owner to the south had submitted a letter in support of the
application. He also noted that the nearest house was 90 feet from the proposed
accessory building. He noted that the proposed accessory building would have
no adverse impact on the surrounding properties.
Scott Richburg asked Mr. Riggins why a three (3) foot side yard could not be
provided. Mr. Riggins noted that the property owner wished to have as much
yard space as possible.
Andy Francis stated that the side yard setback requirement is to allow for the
maintenance of the property between the building and property line as well as
the maintenance of the side of the building.
There was a motion to approve the application, as filed. The motion failed by a
vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 abstention (Ruck). The application was denied.
2
April 26, 2002
r
Th (-f
Fire n
�ngir
Mr. Dana Carney
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Re: Lord Residence
19717 Mallard Cove
Little Rock, AR 72209
Dear Dana,
T4 e,-.--- 4 /
2--72-3-o
Enclosed is an application for a variance to allow a garage structure to be built in the sideyard
setback area at the above referenced address. The Owner is requesting this variance in order to place
the proposed structure on the site as shown to allow ease in access and in order to minimize the
impact on the rear yard area.
I have also enclosed a letter from the adjacent property owner which states his support of this
proposed construction. The nearest structure to the proposed garage other than the principal structure
on this site is 90' away.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need any further information concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
THE MEHLBURGER FIRM, INC.
Frank Rig ' s, LA
Vice President
201 SoutL Lard o P.O. 13;,:. 31",37 c AR 72203-3S-37 0 501 '375-533-
2- 72-3-o
April 15, 2002
To Whom It May Concern:
As the owner of Lot 707 Hunters Wood Subdivision., Otter Creek Community,
Phase VI, I have no objection to the owner of Lot 708 building a 2 -car garage
directly on the property line that divides us. My house is approximately 92 feet
off that property line, so his garage will not encroach in any way on my yard.
Sincerely,
Joe Morrison
19801 Mallard Cove
Little Rock, AR 72210
70
(1)
E
0
b
►E
z
U)
m
Q
4
LU
Q
z
0
o
�
0
O
L
o
ozoo
Z
Q
W
LL
_7
J
Z
LLI
LijI-
>-
o
U
1-
Q
o
W
<
ui
U`
Q
J
LL
W
U
z
J
D
m
Q
}:
Q
_j
Z=
m
Y
U
w
�
U
Q
[�
70
(1)
E
0
b
►E
z
U)
m
Q
4
LU
Q
z
0
0
O
r
o
ozoo
Z
Q
W
LL
_7
J
Z
LLI
U
QQ
LL
Q
z
Q
_U
U
1-
CD
70
(1)
E
0
b
►E
z
U)
m
Q
4
LU
Q
z
0
May 20, 2002
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
4:25 p.m.
Date: r!e 24 2002
Chairman 4Sea