Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_08 26 2002LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2002 2:00 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the July 29, 2002 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present Members Absent William Ruck, Chairman Fred Gray, Vice Chairman Scott Richburg Gary Langlais Andrew Francis City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA AUGUST 26, 2002 2:00 P.M. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Z -4283-A 7825 Y2 Stagecoach Road B. Z-7257 13001 Misty Glen Drive II. NEW ITEMS: 1. Z-3881 -A 4101 S. University Avenue 2. Z -5662-A 7305 Kanis Road 3. Z -5898-A 5308 Centerwood Road 4. Z -6524-A 511 President Clinton Avenue 5. Z -6732-A 201 E. Markham Street 6. Z-7272 1712 Beechwood 7. Z-7273 5314 Country Club Blvd. 8. Z-7274 14909 Lamplight Way 9. Z-7275 3801 West Street 10. Z-7276 4200 Cobb Street 11. Z-7277 7401 Amherst Drive 12. Z-7278 NW corner of Chalamont Drive and Chalamont Place 13. Z -6524-B 509 President Clinton Avenue i N O O N • 3SId a3lzvae 1lfiV81H1 1 \ 1 \+-V U�, eoao NVWa3J LO •� NIVW AVMOV088 NOINO HJaV = 1S3HJ - a3H3a0 u. JNIN lW � Y MOa000M o 3NId -�' l33d1S N 3NId h'Oyy � w atlaJ NMI" HODS v`4 s SON/ A6 aIV3 r r .. A11Sa3AINn J � AlISa3AINf1 5'JNIadS a3A3J (� S3HOOH Z NtOo IddISS JSIW Sf, 2 MA63S38 MOAVB NHOf 3 h � 6 3NN13H - Q Oa033lHOtlHS oSIOatlS Oa 31 JVA _ _ YitlHatld A3NO08 - a � _ s •�J y� NV OA * - oS11WIl Allo w w 3OOla AM co NO yOj�Ob1S o v OftgA E ushpJ C V,Jn y1Py .lQpP'H �C z •��JJ•���'' � C C NVAII,NS � latlM3ls 'ySybh O „� VP Q S11WIl Al IJ � �Q2 �J� VJP s a � dS°I NO 31VON833 O co August 26, 2002 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z -4283-A Owner: Albert Ross Sparks Address: 7825 '/z Stagecoach Road Description: Northeast corner of Stagecoach and Sibley Hole Roads Zoned: C-1 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-299 to allow a building addition with a reduced front yard setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Office and Catering Business Proposed Use of Property: Office and Catering Business STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Stagecoach Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a major arterial with a right-of-way width of 55' from centerline. Existing right-of- way is adequate at the planned building addition, but inadequate at the northern property boundary. With the building permit: a. Dedicate right-of-way to 55' from centerline. b. Construct boundary street improvements as required by the Master Street Plan or provide in -lieu contribution for street improvements. The hardship clause of the ordinance would apply and limit contribution to 15% of building cost. c. Stormwater detention ordinance will apply to this expansion. August 26, 2002 Item No.: A (Cont.) B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: A landscaping upgrade toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance equal to the building expansion proposed (29%) will be required. C. Staff Analysis: The C-1 zoned property at 7825 Stagecoach Road is occupied by two (2) existing one-story, brick and frame structures. There is an existing gravel parking area between the buildings and Stagecoach Road, with an access drive from Stagecoach Road. There is a catering business located in the southernmost building, with a contractor's office in the north building. The property owner proposes to construct a 32 foot by 36 foot building addition at the north end of the northernmost building for additional office space. The building addition will be located 9.25 feet from the front (west) property line. Section 36-299(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the property owner is requesting a variance to allow a reduced front yard setback for the building addition. All other setbacks for the proposed building addition conform to ordinance standards. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. With the potential for future widening of Stagecoach Road, staff feels that the proposed building addition is too close to the street right-of-way. As noted in paragraph A. of this report, Stagecoach Road is a Principal Arterial on the City's Master Street Plan, with 55 feet of right-of-way required from centerline. At the location of the proposed building addition (9.25 foot setback) there is approximately 57.5 feet of right-of-way for Stagecoach Road. Therefore, there is only approximately 2.5 feet of excess right-of-way at this point. As a possible solution, staff suggests designing a building addition for the south end of the building. Although this may eliminate a small area of parking between the two buildings, there appears to be a large enough area of gravel parking along the west side of the buildings to accommodate the two businesses. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested front yard setback variance. August 26, 2002 Item No.: A (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 24, 2002) Brian Sparks was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Brian Sparks spoke in support of the application. He explained the reasons for locating the building addition on the north end of the building. He noted that he could make the building addition smaller (24 foot X 32 foot). He explained that there is a parking area (9-10 spaces) between the two buildings and that he wished not to lose that parking. There was a general discussion regarding revising the proposed site plan. Staff indicated support for the possible 24 foot by 32 foot building addition (revised plan) and explained. Chairman Ruck asked if there would be windows on the north and east sides of the proposed building addition. Mr. Sparks stated that there would be no windows on the north side and residential style windows on the east side (one per office). There was a discussion about moving the proposed building addition back to be flush with the front of the existing building. Chairman Ruck stated that he had no problem with the application as proposed and explained. Vice -Chairman Gray noted that he supported leaving the building area as proposed and moving the addition back. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, noted that Stagecoach Road is a principal arterial, at the intersection with an interstate highway. He asked the Board not to lose sight of the fact that Stagecoach Road would be redeveloped at some point in time, and be located very close to the proposed building addition. Vice Chairman Gray asked if widening Stagecoach Road in this area was in the works. Mike Hood, of Public Works, noted that the widening was on the State's agenda, but not being designed at this time. He noted that the right-of-way for Stagecoach Road could go beyond the current front property line if a turn lane is needed. Chairman Ruck noted that the Board could vote on the application as proposed, vote on an amended application (if the applicant wished to amend) or vote on a deferral of the application. These options were discussed. Mr. Sparks stated that he wished to defer the application in order to work on a revision that staff could possibly support. There was a motion to defer the application to the July 29, 2002 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred. 3 August 26, 2002 Item No.: A (Con STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on July 15, 2002 requesting that this application be deferred to the August 26, 2002 agenda. The applicant has noted that the will be out of town and unable to attend the July meeting. Staff supports the deferral request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that this application be deferred to the August 26, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 26, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff noted that the applicant had revised the application reducing the size of the proposed building addition and increasing the front yard setback. The proposed building addition was reduced to 630 square feet, with a 20 foot front yard setback. Staff recommended approval of the revised application subject to the following conditions: Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs A and B of the agenda report. 2. A building permit must be obtained. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. El *+**++ RossSparks of me General Contractors/Construction May 14,2002 Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR RE: Request Set Back Variance for Building Addition 7825 '/2Stagecoach Road, Little Rock, AR 72204 Ladies and Gentlemen: Z 4� a— Builder"'�s"A— Managers This is a request to allow a variance to the 25 foot front yard set back requirement of the Cl zoning ordinance as it applies to our property located at 7825 % Stagecoach Road, Little Rock, AR 72204. The purpose of the variance is to allow us to build a 36' x 32' addition to the north end of our existing office building. According to City records the property is currently zoned C1, which requires a 25 foot front yard set back from the property line to the building line. Our property is located at the corner of Stagecoach Road or Highway 5, and Sibley Hole Road. The corner lot is an unusually odd triangular pie shape, which limits our options for expansion. The property directly to the north and east of our building is a partially wooded vacant lot. The west side of our property is bounded by Stagecoach Road, and the South side by Sibley Hole Road. The property has two buildings on it. One is our office, and the other is leased to a catering business. Our business has grown, and we have need of 1,200 square feet of additional office space. Due to the odd shape of our lot, the juxtaposition of the two buildings on the lot, and the lay out of our office building we need to expand to the north. As our preliminary site plan shows, with the new addition, our front yard set back from the property line would be 9.25 feet. However, we would still maintain a 25 foot side yard on both ends of our building. Our rear yard off set from the property line would be 10.75 feet, which is more than the 8 foot off set required by the Cl zoning given that we have more than a 25 foot side yard on both ends of the building.. If the variance is allowed there would still be a green space buffer of more than 50 feet between our building and Stagecoach Road. The odd shape of our lot, the internal layout of our existing building, and the relative proximity of the catering business limits us from expanding to the west or the south. And there is not enough space between our building and the property line to expand to the east. Which P.O. Box 17108 / Little Rock, AR 72222 / 501-455-1311 / Fax 501-455-5580 • Page 2 May 15, 2002 leaves us with really only one good alternative, which is to expand to the north. However, this will require the variance that we are requesting Therefore, we respectfully request that you allow our request for a variance to the front yard set back requirement of the C1 zoning ordinance as it applies to our property. Sincerely, Ross Sparks Builders, Inc. _ Bry K Sparks President bks encl. Six copies of site plan and survey cc: file August 26, 2002 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z-7257 Owner: Mark Headley Address: 13001 Misty Glen Drive Description: Lot 6, Westhampton Subdivision Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow construction of a six (6) foot high screening fence between a building setback line and a street right-of-way. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: sis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 13001 Misty Glen Drive is occupied by a two- story brick and frame single family residence, with an access drive from Misty Glen Drive. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and contain single family homes. The property owner proposes to construct a six (6) foot high wood screening fence extending from the southeast corner of the residential structure to the east property line (Gamble Road side), and then south to the southeast corner of the property. There is a 25 foot platted building line along the east property line. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that fences constructed between a required building setback line and a street right-of- way have a maximum height of four (4) feet. Therefore, the applicant is August 26, 2002 Item No.: B (Cont.) requesting a variance to allow construction of a six (6) foot wood screening fence between the platted 25 foot building setback line and the Gamble Road right-of-way. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Based on the fact that the residential property immediately to the south has a rear yard relationship to this property, with a six (6) foot wood fence enclosing its rear yard, the proposed fence will have no adverse impact on that adjacent property, or the general area. Additionally, the fence will be located far enough south on this lot as to create no sight -distance problems for traffic turning left from Misty Glen Drive onto Gamble Road. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance subject to a building permit being obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 29, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that this application be deferred to the August 26, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 26, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. ` -72-57 13001 Misty Glen Drive Little Rock, AR 72211 21 June 2002 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Re: Zoning Ordinance Variance for 13001 Misty Glen Drive (Lot 6) in the Westhampton Subdivision to the City of Little Rock Dear Sir: As required by the Instructions for Making Application for a Residential Zoning Variance, I am providing here the details of my proposal and reasons and justification for requesting a variance from the Zoning Ordinance for the above subject property. The requested variance is to allow the construction of a 6 ft high treated pine or cedar fence within the established 25 ft setback from the Building Line along the east side of the property (west side of Gamble Road). As indicated on the attached copy of the property survey, I intend to fence the back yard of the property from the back corners of the house east and west to within 1 ft of the Property Lines and then south to within 1 ft of the Property Line. Finally, approximately 6 ft of fence will be required to close the back of the property to the side Property Line of the lot behind this one. The intention is to place a 4 ft wide walk gate at the back of the house along the north fence line, west of the house, and a 12 ft wide vehicular gate along the east fence line. The vehicular gate is intended to provide access by utility companies to the easements along the east and south sides of the property. The reason for the requested variance is to line up the proposed fence along Gamble Road with the fence along that same side of the lot behind this one. In addition, as required by the Subdivision's filed Bill of Assurance, the fence on the property is to be a privacy fence. Privacy for the subject lot will best be accomplished by placing it at the top of the side slope from Gamble Road, putting it approximately 1 ft inside the Property Line and approximately 1 ft from the sidewalk. In addition, the fence along the east side of the lot will effectively protect pedestrians (especially wheelchairs) from the down slope adjacent to the sidewalk along Gamble Road. I have already received verbal clearance from the Traffic Division in regards to sight distance. Thank you for your consideration of this request. I will be happy to provide you with any additional information you need for this request that I can. Sincerely, Mark S. Headley August 26, 2002 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z-3881 -A Owner: Long John Properties, LLC Address: 4101 S. University Avenue Description: East side of University Avenue, south of Asher Avenue Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-555 and 36-557 to allow wall signs without street frontage and which exceed 10 percent of the fagade area. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Anal: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Vacant out -parcel Restaurant The C-3 zoned property at 4101 University Avenue is a vacant out -parcel of a large shopping center development. A Long John Silvers restaurant which occupied the property recently burned. The property owner is preparing to construct a new Long John Silvers restaurant building on the property. In conjunction with the new building, the restaurant is proposing wall signage for all four (4) sides of the new structure. The applicant is requesting two (2) variances for the new wall signage. The first is a variance to allow wall signs which do not have public street frontage. In addition to signage on the front of the building (facing University Avenue), the applicant is proposing signage on the north, south August 26, 2002 Item No.: 1 (Cont. and east building facades. According to Section 36-557(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, all on -premises wall signs must face required street frontage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this standard. The second variance is to allow wall signs which exceed 10 percent coverage of the building's facade areas. Section 36-555(a)(2)a. of the Zoning Ordinance states that wall signage shall not exceed 10 percent of a building's fagade area. The wall signage proposed for the east and west sides of the new building fall well under the 10 percent allowance. However, the wall signage on the north and south sides of the building occupy 16 to 16.5 percent of those fagade areas. Staff is supportive of the variance requests. The out -parcel proposed for the new restaurant is located within a large shopping center development, with other large commercial developments to the west across University Avenue and to the north across Asher Avenue. There is a new convenience store/restaurant which was recently developed across the access drive to the south. Given the fact that this site is in the middle of a large commercial zoned area, staff feels that the requested signage will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area. Additionally, the previous Long John Silvers restaurant had wall signage on all sides of the building. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variances, subject to permits being obtained for all signage. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. oil Arkansas Sign and Neon JULY 25, 2002 CITY OF LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 �-e, I 2-3 ' I rd4 8525 Distribution Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (501) 562-3942 SUBJECT: LONG JOHN SILVER'S # 5596 4101 S. UNIVERSITY AVE. DEAR BOARDMEMBERS, WE ARE WRITING THIS LETTER TO REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR THE ABOVE LOCA- TION. WE DO REALIZE THAT THIS LOCATION DOES NOT HAVE STREET FRONTAGE BUT THEY ARE LOCATED IN THE VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER AND THAT OTHER BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO HAVE SIGNAGE THAT DOES NOT FACE THE STREET(S). WE PRAY THAT YOU WILL ALLOW THE VARIANCE FOR THIS SIGNAGE FOR LONG JOHN SILVER'S. THEY ARE A NATIONAL COMPANY AND NEED TO KEEP WITH THEIR NEW COMPANY IMAGE AND LOGO(S). THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER. SINCERELY ex X01/0'. 14� EDDIE ASHLEY ARKANSAS SIGN & NEON REP. Designers and Fabricators of Quality Electrical Outdoor Advertising Displays Neon - Plastic - Flexible Face Signs - Service & Repair - Erection - Outdoor Advertising l August 26, 2002 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z -5662-A Bullock Investments 7305 Kanis Road South side of Kanis Road, at Rodney Parham Road C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-557 to allow a wall sign without public street frontage. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Commercial Commercial The property at 7305 Kanis Road is occupied by a one (1) story brick and frame commercial building. There is a paved parking area along the east side of the commercial building. The building contains three (3) commercial lease spaces. Adams Printing recently occupied the easternmost lease space and installed two (2) wall -mounted signs. One (1) of the wall signs is located on the north side of the building facing Kanis Road, with the second sign being located on the east side of the building, which does not have street frontage. According to Section 36- 557(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance: August 26, 2002 Item No.: "All on -premises wall signs must face required street frontage except in complexes where a sign without street frontage would be the only means of identification for a tenant." Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the wall sign on the east side of the building without public street frontage. Staff is supportive of the variance request. The wall sign on the east side of the building is approximately 27 square feet in area and occupies much less than 10 percent of the overall east building fagade area. Staff feels that the wall sign located on the east side of the building will provide much better identification of the printing business to west -bound traffic than will the signage on the building's north fapade. With all of the properties east of the site being occupied by commercial and office uses, the wall - mounted sign on the east side of the building should have no adverse impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to a sign permit being obtained. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 Adams Printing 7305 Kanis Road Little Rock, AR 72204 (501) 663-7121 07/26/02 City of Little Rock Board of Adjustment RE: Application for Variance/ Sign Permit To Board of Adjustment: �- 7-- 6,?— Adams -- 6,?— Adams Printing opened for business on 07/15/02. I have two signs on the building to direct customers to my business. I have been permitted for the sign above my front windows. However, the wall sign adjacent to my storefront is the sign that needs a variance to the sign ordinance. The wall is 12' high by 25' long equaling 300 square feet. The sign is 20"(1.67') high by 16' long equaling 26.72 square feet, which is less than 10 percent of the allowable space. The sign above my front door only allows visibility from Rodney Parham. I need visibility from traffic travelling west on 12th street. I believe my best visibility is from westbound 12th street traffic, therefore, I believe the wall sign is justified in providing the visibility needed. I am simply trying to build a business and certainly do not want to be in violation with the city of Little Rock. Adams Printing needs as much visibility as possible. We area new business and need every potential customer we can get iii. order to survive. A sign ordinance variance allowing me two signs will permit my. business. ease of visibility to potential customers. I believe my signage. is of good.quality, tastefully done, and improve the look of the building and its surroundings. Allowing a variance for the wall sign will be the greatest help the City of Little Rock can do for Adams Printing. I am trying to get my business started and need all the help I can get, especially in today's economy. Thank you for your help, Sincerely, O Andy ams August 26, 2002 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Nancy R. Lichty Revocable Trust 5308 Centerwood Road Lot 99, Prospect Terrace No. 2 Addition M An appeal is requested from staff's administrative determination that the proposed use of the property does not conform to all of the home occupation standards. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential with Home Office The property at 5308 Centerwood Road is zoned R-2 and contains a two- story brick single family residence. There is a one-story frame accessory building/garage located along the rear (north) property line. Centerwood Road is located along the south property line, with "O" Street right-of-way along the north boundary. The garage portion of the accessory structure is accessed from "O" Street. The applicant, Larry E. Lichty, recently inquired of staff the possibility of locating his real estate business to this address and operating as a home occupation. The applicant proposes to locate the business in the existing accessory structure. Staff informed Mr. Lichty that a home occupation permit could not be administratively approved, based on the fact that an August 26, 2002 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) accessory building would be utilized for the home-based business. According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-253(b)(6): "a. Home occupations shall be permitted that will not: Change the outside appearance of the dwelling or provide product display visible from the street. 2. Generate traffic, parking, sewage or water use in excess of what is normal in the residential neighborhood. 3. Create a hazard to persons or property, result in electric interference or become a nuisance. 4. Result in outside storage or display of any material or product. 5. Involve accessory buildings. 6. Result in signage beyond that which may be required by other government agencies. 7. Limited to five hundred (500) square feet in area, but in no case more than forty-nine (49) percent of the floor area in a dwelling. 8. Stock in trade shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the floor area of the accessory use. 9. Require the construction of, or the addition to, the residence of duplicate kitchens. 10. Requirement or cause the use or consumption on the premises of any food product produced thereon. 11. Provide medical treatment, therapeutic massage or similar activities." Mr. Lichty asks that he be granted a home occupation permit to allow his real estate business (home office) to be located within the existing accessory structure. He notes in the attached letter: 2 August 26, 2002 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) "It would strictly be a place in which to locate furniture, equipment, business files, etc., open mail and conduct a quiet business consistent with those routinely allowed pursuant to Section 36-253 and Section 36-254 of the Little Rock City Code regulating residential districts. As such, I expect no business walk-in or vehicular traffic that would even approach much less exceed the level of personal visitors we have to our home now." To staff's knowledge, the issue related to use of the accessory structure is the only outstanding issue associated with the proposed home occupation. All other aspects of the proposed home occupation will conform with the ordinance standards. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 2002) The applicant was not present. The Board determined that a public hearing was necessary for this item, and therefore, a deferral was needed. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 30, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 July 23, 2002 Mr. Dana Carney, Manager Zoning and Subdivision Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dana: Attached is my check in the amount of $50.00, the completed Application For Action On Administrative Appeals Or Interpretive Requests form pertaining to a home occupation request, a copy of my home survey and related pictures, along with five extra copies of this letter and the attached documents for distribution by your office to all members of the Little Rock Board of Adjustment prior to their August 26, 2002, meeting. As indicated in our conversation on July 10, 2002, I am contemplating semi- retirement from my real estate business sometime in the future, but would like to retain my active real estate license, and use my home as an office. However, my preference would be to utilize the accessory structure behind our house for that purpose, rather than the house itself. It would strictly be a place in which to locate furniture, equipment, business files, etc., open mail and conduct a quiet business consistent with those routinely allowed pursuant to Section 36-253 and Section 36-254 of the Little Rock City Code regulating residential districts. As such, I expect no business walk-in or vehicular traffic that would even approach much less exceed the level of personal visitors we have to our home now. It is my understanding that this request will be placed on the August 26, 2002, Board of Adjustment agenda for their consideration, so please let me know if there is any additional information that is required to get this item on that agenda. Sine e , �G Larry E. Lichty LEL/ntr Attachments cc Little Rock Board of Adjustment HAND DELIVERED 300 Spring Building • Little Rock. Arkansas 72201' 0 Phone AC501 378-7660 4 `- August 26, 2002 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z -6524-A Julia May Porbeck Larrison Revocable Trust 511 President Clinton Avenue South side of President Clinton Avenue, between Commerce and Sherman Streets UU Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-353 and 36-557 to allow for the placement of a wall sign on the west side of the commercial building. Justification: Present. Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Anal: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Commercial/Office Commercial/Office The UU zoned property at 511 President Clinton Avenue contains a two- story commercial building, with paved parking along the building's west side. The Flying Fish restaurant occupies the first floor of the building. The restaurant is proposing to install a 2 foot by 10 foot metal wall sign on the west side of the building. The wall sign is proposed to be located near the top of the west building fagade, one (1) foot from the top of the building and two (2) feet from the front corner of the building. The applicant is requesting three (3) variances associated with the proposed wall sign. August 26, 2002 Item No.: 4 (Cont. The first variance is from the River Market DOD wall sign provisions of Section 36-353(c)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance. This section states that a wall sign shall not extend above the second floor window sill of a building. The proposed wall sign is located above the second story windows near the top of the building. The second variance is also from Section 36-353 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 36-353(c)(3)c. states the lettering on wall signs shall not exceed 60 percent of the total area of the sign. Staff feels t hat the lettering of the proposed wall sign exceeds the allowed 60 percent coverage. The final variance request is from Section 36-557 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 36-557(a) states that wall signs must face public street frontage. As noted previously, the proposed sign is to be located on the west side of the building which has no public street frontage, and faces a parking lot and another building. Staff is not supportive of the variance requests. Staff feels that the proposed wall sign is out of character with the design intent for signage in the River Market District. The River Market District is a pedestrian oriented commercial area, in which signage is intended to identify businesses and attract pedestrian traffic from the immediate area, rather than vehicular traffic from blocks away. As of this writing, the River Market Design Review Committee is scheduled to meet and consider this issue on August 19, 2002. Staff will report the Committee's recommendation to the Board at the public hearing (August 26, 2002). C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances associated with the proposed wall sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff noted that the applicant had revised the application. Staff noted that the revised application included a 3.5 by 8 foot vertical wall sign which was moved down slightly from the top of the building's west fagade. Staff also noted that the variance from Section 36-353(c)(3)c. was no longer needed. Staff informed the Board that the River Market DRC was in support of the revised application. Staff recommended approval of the revised application subject to the following conditions: 2 August 26, 2002 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) A sign permit must be obtained. 2. The sign be approved on a temporary basis, with a time limit of two (2) years. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 recuse (Gray) and 1 absent. 3 Attachment Reasons for seeking variance The location of 511 President Clinton is currently the easternmost commercial establishment on the street. The existing establishments as well as the source of vehicular and trolley traffic is all to the west of this location. With the location and size of the trees along the street it is difficult for traffic from the west to see the north facade of the building. The height of the trees currently block visibility of the building below the 2nd story windows leading to our request to mount the sign higher than they would be if it weren't for the trees. There are currently directional signs located on the LaHarpe building at Ottenhemier and on the Museum Center at St. Vincents that list a business name on the side of the building. These examples are similar situations except that the sign happens to be on a public right of way. August 26, 2002 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT I Public Works Issues: Z -6732-A Moses, Nosari, Tucker Real Estate 201 East Markham Street Southeast corner of East Markham and Scott Streets UU Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-553 and the development provisions of Section 36- 342.1 to allow two (2) projecting signs which extend into the public right-of-way. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Office/Commercial Office/Commercial The signs encroach on the public rights-of-way of Markham and Scott Streets. Obtain Franchise Agreement with Public Works. B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 201 East Markham Street contains an existing multi-level building, which is being utilized for office and commercial uses. The tenant (Scoops, Bread and Java, Co.) who is located in the ground floor of the building is requesting variances to allow two (2) projecting signs which extend over the property lines and into the public rights-of- way. The building at this location sits on the property lines along East Markham and Scott Streets. One (1) sign is proposed along the East Markham Street frontage, with one (1) sign proposed along the Scott Street frontage. August 26, 2002 Item No.: 5 (Cont. The two (2) projecting signs will each have an area of 10.55 square feet, with a minimum clearance of eleven (11) feet above the sidewalk. The signs will be perpendicular to the building and the streets. The signs will have a circular shape, contain the wording "Scoop, Bread and Java, Co." and be internally lighted. According to Section 36-342.1(c)(9)a. (UU District Development Criteria), "objects shall not project from the building fagade over the public right-of- way except for awnings and balconies." In addition, Section 36- 342.1(c)(11) permits signage in the UU district as allowed in Section 36- 553, signs permitted in institutional and office zones. Section 36-553 allows one (1) projecting sign per occupancy, not to exceed 12 square feet in area, with a minimum setback of five (5) feet from property lines. The sign is required to have a minimum clearance of nine (9) feet over sidewalks. In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 36-342.1(c)(9)a. to allow two (2) signs which project from the building into the right-of-way, and a variances from Section 36-553 to allow two (2) projecting signs for this occupancy and the projecting signs to have no setback from property lines. Staff believes that the requested variances are reasonable and supports the application. The proposed projecting signs should aid in the identification and location of the business, and would not be out of character with other signs in the general area. Staff feels that the projecting signs will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. If the Board approves the variances associated with the signs, the applicant must receive a franchise agreement from the Public Works Department. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance for the proposed projecting signs, subject to the following conditions: 1. A franchise must be obtained for the signs. 2. Sign permits must be obtained for the signs. 3. The signs will have a maximum area of 12 square feet. 4. The signs must maintain a minimum nine (9) foot clearance above the sidewalk. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. August 26, 2002 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 6 7? z To Whom It May Concern: The Owner/Management of Scoops, Bread & Java, Co. would like to formally request a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for our company sign. What we propose is a sign on both Scott St. and Markham St. that will be 30'- 9 7/8" from the north east corner of the building, and 11'- 1 1/6" high on the wall. The sign is 3'- 8" x 3'- 8" which is approximately 12 square feet. The reason for this proposal is that at our location we are on the bottom floor of a 5 -story building parallel to Markham, which makes is difficult to see from both directions. We feel our sign projecting out will correct this problem. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. August 26, 2002 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-7272 Owner: Robert and Jennifer McGahee Address: 1712 Beechwood Description: Part of Lots 4 and 5, Cliffewood Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 and 36-254 to allow building additions which do not conform to the minimum required setbacks and separation, and the maximum allowed coverage. 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 1712 Beechwood is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one-story brick and frame accessory building at the northwest corner of the property, and a single car driveway from Beechwood which accesses a carport structure located on the north side of the single family house. The applicants propose to remove the carport structure from the house and make building additions to the principal and accessory structures. The applicants propose to add a 16 foot by 33 foot covered, screened -in porch (breezeway) on the rear (west side) of the single family residence, which will connect to the existing accessory building. The applicants also propose to make a 7.5 foot by 16.5 foot addition to the accessory building (south side) which would be used for storage, and a 15 foot by 22 foot August 26, 2002 Item No.: 6 (Cont. carport addition to the east side of the accessory structure. The applicants are requesting three (3) variances with the proposed additions. The first requested variance is for a reduced rear yard setback for the screened -in porch/breezeway addition to the principal structure. The porch/breezeway addition will be located approximately 10.5 feet from the rear (west) property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. The second requested variance is from the area provisions of Section 36-156(a)(2)b. of the Zoning Ordinance. This section requires that an accessory building be separated from a principal structure by at least six (6) feet. As noted previously, the porch/breezeway addition to the principal structure will connect to the existing accessory structure, leaving no separation between the two structures. The final variance is also from the area provisions of Section 36-156. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. requires that accessory buildings occupy no more than 30 percent of a required rear yard (rear 25 feet of the lot). The accessory structure will occupy 30.9 percent of the required rear yard, after the building additions are made. The additions to the accessory building will maintain the required front, side and rear yard setbacks. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The proposed additions to the principal and accessory structures will not be out of character with the general area, as many of the single family properties in the area have made similar additions. Staff also feels that the proposed additions will have no negative impact on the adjacent properties. However, staff will recommend that the carport addition remain unenclosed on the north and east sides, and the covered porch/breezeway addition not be enclosed with any more than screening materials. This will help minimize the mass of the overall building area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained for all construction. 2. The carport addition must remain unenclosed on the north and east sides. 3. The covered porch/breezeway addition must not be enclosed with any more than screening materials. 2 August 26, 2002 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the September 30, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 30, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. K � 7 2 -72 - To: -72 -- To: The Little Rock Board of Adjustment From: Robert C. McGahee and Jennifer McMinn-McGahee 1712 Beechwood, Little Rock, Ar 72207 July 26, 2002 Dear Board of Adjustment, Our family has grown enormously in the last three years with three small children age three and under. Our present home is not large enough to accommodate all of us. We need to utilize our existing guesthouse by connecting it to our home. We would like to do this by adding a two -car carport to the front of our guesthouse. Our house is the third house from Cantrell Road, we are therefore concerned about the safety of our children being further away from Cantrell when getting in and out of the car and one of our children is disabled). Also, under that same roof structure, we would add a covered porch that would give shelter from the rain when loading the children in the car while providing an access to the guesthouse. It is my understanding that I need a variance to connect these structures and then another variance because the guesthouse is five feet from the north property line. We would want to align the guest house and carport rooflines for this to be aesthetically pleasing. Both houses to the north of me have connected their house with their guesthouse and many more of my neighbors do not have the proper set backs for their garage. Considering I have talked with most of them and we are all in the same situation, i do not believe 1 will encounter any problems with these requests. Thanks for your consideration, Jenny and Bob McGahee 663-3201 August 26,:,-,002 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-7273 Ryan Holder 5314 Country Club Blvd. Lot 9, Block 10, Newton's Addition R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow construction of an accessory building which occupies more than 30% of the required rear yard. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues.- No ssues: 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 5314 Country Club Road is occupied by a one story brick and frame single family residence. There is an existing one story accessory carport structure (20 foot by 30 foot) near the northeast corner of the single family lot. The applicant proposes to remove the existing accessory building and construct a 23 foot by 26 foot (two-story) accessory garage structure. The proposed structure complies with minimum setback requirements for an accessory building. However, when the exterior stairway is added to the rear of the building, the structure occupies more than 30% of the required rear yard for this lot. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. requires that accessory buildings in the R-2 zoning district occupy no more than 30% of the required rear yard (rear 25 feet of August 26, 2002 Item No.: 7 (Cont. the lot). The proposed accessory building occupies less than 30 percent of the required rear yard (29%) without the exterior stairway. When the stairway is added to the rear of the structure, the rear yard coverage is 33 percent. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed accessory building to occupy in excess of 30% of the required rear yard of this lot. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the variance requested is very minor in nature. The applicant is proposing to remove an accessory building which does not conform to the required rear yard setback, and replace it with a structure which meets or exceeds all of the required yard setbacks. The proposed accessory structure should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow for the construction of an accessory structure which occupies in excess of 30 percent of the required rear yard, subject to a building permit being obtained. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. P" To the Board of Adjustment: 27-727-3 I am petitioning the board to allow for a variance on a garage I would like to build. The variance I am requesting is to allow for the construction of an exterior stairwell, which will violate the `30% rule'. Currently on my property, I have a 20 ft. by 30 ft. car port/workshop that violates the rule that states a building's footprint cannot cover more than 30% of the back 25 feet of the plot. My carport covers more than the 30% and is 3 feet from the back property line. I have planed to demolish the carport and construct a 23 by 26 garage, moving the garage forward on my property so that I adhere to the 30% rule. This will leave 9 feet between the rear property line and the structure. This will be in compliance with the 30% rule. I believe a 26 foot garage is adequate for my needs. The issues that I am asking a variance for is to allow an exterior stairwell on the back of the structure. It is my understanding that the stairwell would count against the 30% rule. An exterior stairwell will allow access to the second story of the structure. With out this exterior stairwell, I will have to have a stairwell on the inside of the structure. I submit that this will lead to a hardship because an interior stairwell will take up too much space in the garage and usage of space will make the garage unable to house my vehicle. For example, the exterior length is 26 feet; therefore the approximately interior usable length is 25 feet. The width of a stairwell with wall is approximatley 4 feet, leaving approx. 21 feet. The length of my vehicle is 19 feet. This leaves 1 foot on either side of my vehicle parked in the garage. It goes without saying that under this scenario that the space would be very tight and impossible to have a workbench on the back wall I can not put a work bench or the stairwell on the side walls because it would be difficult to park two cars side by side. I cannot bring the garage any further forward due to the proximity of the house and the inability to actually park a car in the left (west) bay. Also, bringing the garage any further forward might make the property look undesirable. Additionally, this will be an "open air" staircase and will not seem to take up much room. It will also be aesthetically pleasing because it will be behind the garage. Thank you for your attention and any consideration you may be able to give me. August 26, 2002 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7274 Owner: Steve and Heather Metzler Address: 14909 Lamplight Way Description: Lot 9, Block 4, The Villages of Wellington Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variances is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a deck addition with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT V Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 14909 Lamplight Way is occupied by a recently constructed one-story brick single family residence. There is a driveway from Lamplight Way which serves as access to the property. The property slopes downward from the street to the south. A 12 foot by 14 foot deck was constructed on the rear (south side) of the single family residence. The deck is covered and screened -in, and has a stairway on the deck's south side. The deck structure (including stairway) is located from 13.5 feet to 16 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 in R-2 zoning. August 26, 2002 Item No.: 8 (Cont. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff feels that the requested variance is reasonable, given the shape of the lot. The rear property line is at an angle with, and not parallel to, the front property line. If the rear property line was parallel to the front line (using the larger depth measurement), the rear yard setback would be closer to meeting the required 25 foot rear yard setback (18-20 feet). Staff feels that the deck construction will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. The property immediately south of this lot is undeveloped and wooded. C. Staff Recommendation.- Staff ecommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance for a reduced rear yard setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained for the deck construction. 2. The deck stairway must remain uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 -72-7 M a M GUSTI 6 IMIDE, INC. 99 BELLECLaDF DR LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223 P6aee 821.2202 Fw� 821-6747 Board of Adjustments City Of Little Rock 723 West Markbnm Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear sirs, We are submitting this request for a variance for the house at 14904 Lamplight Way, due to the pertruding of the 25' busldmg lam in scar of lot The deck, extattds approdinatcly 9 foct into building line. We have received and have submitted signatures to all neighbors within. 200 feet of the house. No one objected. The reason this problem ecisrs is that the lot is not rectangular and therefore the deck extended over the line. If x- %vuld have kept the deck at the building line, h would have been only 5 feet deep. We ask for your help in this matter. M & M Custom Builder Z0'a Lb L9• LZe-LOS NSNVS NIwh We : c a runt 'R? Aron '.4ecu0IA, August 26, 2002 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7275 Owner: Jose Tejeda Address: 3801 West Street Description: Lot 16, Block 1, West Heights Place Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a six (6) foot privacy fence between a building setback line and a street right-of-way. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The fence encroaches on the public right-of-way of West Street and limits sight distance at the intersection of 38 and West. Remove fence from the 38th Street right-of-way back to the front building line. Obtain a franchise agreement with Public Works for the remainder of the fence B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 3801 West Street is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence and a one-story frame residential structure. There is a two -car driveway from West 38th Street which serves as access to the property. A six (6) foot tall wood screening fence was recently constructed along the west and south property lines. A portion of this fence was constructed between the required building setback line and the West Street right-of-way, and actually extends into the West Street right-of-way by two (2) feet at the southwest corner of the property. There is a 25 foot platted building line along the west property line of this lot. August 26, 2002 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance states that fences constructed between a building setback line and a street right-of-way shall have a maximum height of four (4) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot tall wood fence. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. As noted in paragraph A. of this report, Public Works feels that the fence limits sight distance at the intersection of West 38th and West Streets. Public Works noted that a portion of the fence, starting at the northwest corner of the property and running 25.6 feet to the south, should be removed (or reduced to a height not exceeding 4 feet) in order to improve the sight distance. Also, a franchise agreement would be needed for the remainder of the fence, based on the fact that it is in the West Street right-of-way. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the application, as submitted. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the September 30, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 30, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. K 3:4 &1, � ;F- — -72- 7S June 20, 2002 To Whom It May Concern: My name is Jose Tejeda and I live at 3 801 West Street on the corner of 3 8th and West St. I just bought this house and after buying the house I noticed that neighbors where parking their cars on my property and they would have their music playing out loud while they played basketball or just visiting. Since I am 65 years old I have to sleep in a down stairs bedroom which is on the same side as their driveway and mine also. I totally have no privacy if I open up my blinds because I just don't have a neighbor but neighbors that are able to see everything that goes on in both of my side rooms. It's just really annoying and this sometimes keeps me up late. And furthermore I have several small grandchildren that play in the yard and need to be kept out of the street and as well for my neighbor's yards. I have shared my concerns with my neighbors about the six foot privacy fence and they have no problem with the fence. They actually expressed their thoughts on it and said that they thought it was a very good idea and made an improvement on the neighborhood. Since my property faces 38th Street and me having a very small back yard I need to be more cautious with my grand kids. That side of my property is the only piece of side yard I have for my grandkids to play in and keep bicycles and yard toys in. I hope and pray that you will let me keep my fence as it is now. Thank You for your consideration, Jose Tei' eda August 26, 2002 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned.- Variance oned:Variance Requested.- Justification: equested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Z-7276 Diana Hayes 4200 Cobb Street Lot 6, Block 98, John Barrow Addition R-3 A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a six (6) foot high privacy fence between a building setback line and a street right-of- way. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The fence appears to encroach on the public right-of-way of 42nd Street. Document fence locations in relation to property corners. If encroachment is indicated, obtain a franchise agreement with Public Works. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 4200 Cobb Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a single -car driveway at the northeast corner of the property which serves as access. The property owner recently removed a chain-link fence which enclosed the rear yard of the property and constructed a six (6) foot wood screening fence in its place. The fence is located along the south, west and north property lines, extending approximately five (5) feet into the right-of-way for West 42nd Street. August 26, 2002 Item No.: 10 (Cont.) Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance states that fences constructed in residential zones, between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way, shall have a maximum height of four (4) feet. The required building setback along the north property line of this lot is 4.77 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot high screening fence between the required 4.77 foot side yard setback and the West 42nd Street right-of-way. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Based on the fact that the residential property immediately to the west has a rear yard relationship to this property, the six (6) foot tall screening fence will have no adverse impact on that adjacent property, or the general area. Additionally, the fence is located far enough west on this lot as to create no s�iXt-distance problems for traffic at the intersection of Cobb and West 42n Streets. As noted previously, the fence does extend approximately five (5) feet into the West 42nd Street right-of-way. If the Board approves the fence height variance, the applicant must obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works. There are other existing fences in this immediate area which were constructed years ago and also extend into the public rights-of-way. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. 2. A franchise must be obtained for that portion of the fence which extends into the public right-of-way. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 0 r July 18, 2002 Department of Neighborhoods and Planning Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4792 Diana (Cross) and Gary Hayes 4200 Cobb Street Little Rock, AR 72204 (501) 565-3809 -72-7 Notice to reduce the height of the 6'privacy fence between the structure and the side street to 4' (36-516-E1). Reference: Request of Residential Zoning Variance 1. To protect family and property from isolated backyard, which is adjacent to heavily trafficked street 2. To keep children from entering isolated area where they would have access to opened wet spa 3. To protect landscape from slope -erosion 4. To isolate family and property from the transient foot traffic (halfway house located 3 blocks up the street) Your consideration regarding this matter is greatly appreciated. Lely, Diana and Gary Hayes Home Owners August 26, 202 ITEM NO.: 11 File No.: Z-7277 Owner: Pam Griffey Address: 7401 Amherst Drive Description: South side of Amherst Drive, east of Mississippi Avenue Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a carport addition with a reduced front yard setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 7401 Amherst Drive is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from Amherst Drive which serves as access to the property. The applicant proposes to construct a 20 foot by 23 foot carport addition to the northwest corner of the single family residence. The carport addition will be located approximately 20 feet back from the front (north) property line. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced front yard setback for the proposed carport addition. August 26, 2002 Item No.: 11 (Cont. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the requested variance is very minor in nature. The requested 20 foot front yard setback represents a 20 percent reduction in the required front yard setback. Staff could administratively approve a 10 percent reduction. Therefore, the applicant is only requesting an additional 2.5 feet of reduced setback. Staff feels that the proposed carport structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance for a reduced front yard setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained. 2. The carport structure is to remain unenclosed on the north, east and west sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTME (AUGUST 26, 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 SCHULTE CONSTRUCTI6A "A Name You Can Trust Since 1946" r 7905 Foxchase Road, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72227 501 / 224-0968 Fax 2240458 - 7 7 .7 s= C-'> a �►� / , � yes STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at the northwest corner of Chalamont Drive and Chalamont Place contains a newly placed construction sign for the Chalamont Place Subdivision. The construction sign is approximately 11 feet tall, with approximately 59 square feet of sign area. The sign was recently placed at this location to inform potential lot owners of the building requirements associated with this subdivision. Section 36-550(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows for the placement of construction signs as follows: "One (1) construction sign for each street frontage of a construction project, not to exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area in residential zones or sixty-four (64) square feet in sign area in all other zones. Such signs may be erected i. August 26, 2002 ITEM NO.: 12 File No.: Z-7278 Owner: Deltic Timber Address: Northwest corner of Chalamont Drive and Chalamont Place Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-550 to allow a construction sign which exceeds the maximum area allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped tract Proposed Use of Property: Subdivision tract STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at the northwest corner of Chalamont Drive and Chalamont Place contains a newly placed construction sign for the Chalamont Place Subdivision. The construction sign is approximately 11 feet tall, with approximately 59 square feet of sign area. The sign was recently placed at this location to inform potential lot owners of the building requirements associated with this subdivision. Section 36-550(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows for the placement of construction signs as follows: "One (1) construction sign for each street frontage of a construction project, not to exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area in residential zones or sixty-four (64) square feet in sign area in all other zones. Such signs may be erected August 26, 2002 Item No.: 12 (Cont.) ten (10) days prior to beginning of construction and shall be removed ten (10) days following completion of construction." Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the construction sign to exceed the maximum area (32 square feet) permitted in residential zones. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff feels that the construction sign has been placed on the property in a tasteful manner, and should have no adverse impact on the general area. Because the construction sign is a temporary sign, staff recommends that the sign be allowed on the site for a period not to exceed two (2) years. If after two (2) years the sign is still needed, the applicant can request a time extension from the Board. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance for the temporary construction sign, subject to the sign being removed from the property within two (2) years. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. N August 12, 2002 Mr. Monty Moore City of Little Rock Planning Department 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Chalamont Entry Construction Sign Variance 2 - %2"7SI Dear Mr. Moore, RUSSELL & Enclosed please find the requested information regarding the variance for a temporary construction sign at the subdivision entry to Chalamont Place. I realize that due to the residential zoning, this ROBERTS proposed sign exceeds the maximum area as specified in the sign ordinance. Please take into L T D. account that the sign's placement within a beautifully landscaped entry and the quality of craftsmanship will insure an aesthetically pleasing temporary sign that warrants consideration for a size variance. Deltic Timber Corporation chose to post construction restrictions for home builders working in Chalamont Place on a conspicuous yet tasteful metal sign. The information on this sign is intended to reinforce the building restrictions established for this neighborhood to continue the high quality and attention to detail established by Deltic Timber in the similar neighborhoods throughout Chenal Valley. Deltic Timber's intention is to relocated this metal sign once the construction has been completed in the Chalamont subdivision. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, Dave Roberts, ASLA President 1501 N. UNIVERSITY,STE. 430 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72207 501/280-0123 FAX 501/280-0114 E-MAIL: Isndarc@aristotle.net t August 26, 2002 ITEM NO.: 13 File No.: Z -6524-B Owner: Julia May Porbeck Larrison Revocable Trust Address: 509 President Clinton Avenue Description: South side of President Clinton Avenue, between Commerce and Sherman Streets Zoned: UU Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-353 and the awning provisions of Section 36-357 to allow an awning and awning sign which do not conform to the River Market Design Overlay District standards. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Commercial/Office Commercial/Office The sign encroaches on the public right-of-way. Obtain Franchise Agreement with Public Works. B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 509 President Clinton Avenue is occupied by a two-story commercial building. There is a paved parking area on the west side of the building, with another commercial building further west. The second floor tenant, Big Impressions, recently installed an awning (blue in color) on front of the building between two (2) existing awnings (green) for The Flying Fish restaurant. Additionally, a sign was screen printed on the front face of the awning. The applicant is requesting two (2) variances associated with the awning and awning sign. August 26, 2u02 Item No.: 13 (Cont.) The first variance request is from Section 36-357(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. This section states that awnings shall relate to the shape of the building opening. The transom over the building's doorway is rectangular -shaped. The awning which was installed over the doorway is barrel-shaped at the top. Therefore, the shape of the awning is not consistent with the building's opening. The second variance request is from Section 36-353(a)(2)d. of the Zoning Ordinance. This section allows awning signs in the River Market District to have a maximum area of six (6) square feet. The sign which was screen printed on the awning face is approximately 17 square feet in area. Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. The River Market Design Review Committee (DRC) recently reviewed the awning and awning sign and, as noted in the attached letter dated August 13, 2002, voted to recommend denial of this application to the Board of Adjustment. The general consensus of the committee was that the awning and awning sign needed to be redesigned. Staff agrees with the DRC and feels that the awning sign is too large and out of character with other awning signage within the River Market District. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the September 30, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 30, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 011 irpressi®rns Date: 06/25/02 Zoning Enforcement Administrator 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4792 Attention: Monte Moore Re: BOA Review c` 509 President Clinton Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1729 501-301-9031 ph. 501-301-9032 fax http://www.big-impressions.biz swallace@big-impressions.biz I am seeking BOA approval for a sign and awning variance(s) within the RiverMarket District. Due to previous approvals by the DRC the amount of usable space left directed me to exercised my option to combine two of my three signs into one larger one (see attachment "a") Considerations in respects to color, shape and size were made by reviewing the existing conditions within the RiverMarket. The proposed awning is within the height requirements of a nine -foot height from the sidewalk and it projects only thirty inches from the building. This also matches the dimensions of the existing awnings installed on both sides (see attachment "a") After reviewing the sign and awning guidelines I believe that the only item for concern is: Sec. 36-353. Signs (3) Lettering The proposed overall awning sign is approx 36" in height and 54" in width. At this time I also propose to place an architectural enhancement hanging securely from the upper west sidewall of the building and or two permanent banner type holders similar to the ones installed on the Museum of Discovery. These would not be designated signs nor a type of advertisement. It would be more of a mural or living canvas changing from time to time with the subject matter to be continually approved by the DRC. I would use it to emphasize projects related to Downtown & the RiverMarket such as Race For The Cure, Riverfest, Big Downtown Thursday's and other special events. Additional content might also display various types of art from local artist and events. The canvas size would be proportional to the graphic's size and vary based on graphical content (see attached) Market Frank Porbeck, Chairman Design Tim Heiple, Member Jim Schimmer, Member Review 4 VZ OIL Melissa Tanner Member Committee Patty Wingfield, Member Planning dnd Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock • Arkansas • 72201.501-371-4790 • fax 371-6863 August 13, 2002 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Big Impressions Chairman and Members, L f3 The River Market DRC has reviewed the awning and signage at 509 East President Clinton for Big Impressions. The DRC'did not approve the awning as submitted. The final vote was 1 yes, 3 noes and 1 recusal. Comments on the awning /signage included that it needed to be reworked, the shape of the awning did not match the shape of the opening, the adjacency of the awing to the fish above it, and the size of the lettering was too large. Thank you, —�' rian Minyard River Market DRC Staff N� 6.f.. O NW W ui O W ''2i v! D Q L o al II I,. a T 0 W i Q z VA W Q V 4 W � dh IS f o z Q o Q Z UJ WCD LL J Z _ U z > Q CD z m c P cr- LL CD Q 4 r; Q W (7 J_ W U LL J D W � � C� co_ LL CD ¢ J U 0� Of II I,. a T 0 W i Q z VA W Q O W f o z Q o Q Z UJ WCD LL J Z _ U z > Q CD z m Y P cr- LL CD Q U II I,. a T 0 W i Q z VA W Q August 26, 2002 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:12 p.m. Date: p ZoU2 2�ZZZ Chairman