Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8136 Staff AnalysisNOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-8136 Owner: TRPP, LLC Applicant: Gene Ludwig Address: Northwest of the intersection of Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road (approximately 8500 Pinnacle Valley Road). Description: 28.57 Acres within Section 7, T -2-N, R-1 3-W and Section 12, T -2- N, R -14-W, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: AF Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested regarding use of the property as an airport or landing field. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Private, Restricted, Landing Area STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: After receiving a series of complaints regarding the property at approximately 8500 Pinnacle Valley Road, staff made inspections of the property on October 5, 2006 and October 20, 2006. Staff observed what appeared to be a newly constructed road bed on the property, running from Pinnacle Valley Road to near the Little Maumelle River within the west portion of the property. Staff spoke with Gene Ludwig, owner of the property, and he explained that he was constructing a non-commercial landing field on the property. He stated that he received permission from Pulaski County Planning on the construction. With the property being zoned "AF" Agriculture and Forestry District, and an "airport or landing field" not being a permitted use in AF zoning, staff issued a NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T. Courtesy Notice on October 20, 2006 requiring that construction on the landing field be ceased and that it be removed within seven (7) days. On March 30, 2006, Mr. Ludwig was issued Development Permit number 315 by the County for the property in question for fill only with no building construction. A letter dated March 30, 2006 from Ashley Pope, Director of Pulaski County Planning, outlined the conditions of the permit approval. The last paragraph of the letter instructs Mr. Ludwig to ensure that the project conformed with the zoning and subdivision regulations of the City of Little Rock. To staff's knowledge, no contact was ever made with the City's Planning Department to seek zoning approval for the landing field. A copy of the letter is attached for Board review. On July 28, 2006, the applicant's engineer, Joe White, Jr., submitted "No Adverse Impact" and "No -Rise" certificates to the County. Additionally, a driveway permit was issued by Pulaski County Road and Bridge Department on July 25, 2006. Copies of these documents are also attached. Mr. Gene Ludwig, the property owner, is appealing staff's determination that an airport or landing field is not a permitted use in AF zoning. Mr. Ludwig contends that his proposed landing field does not meet the definition of "airport or loading field" as found in Section 36-3 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ludwig contends that his landing field is a private recreational use that should be allowed in the AF zoning district. A letter from Mr. Ludwig to the Board of Adjustment dated October 26, 2006 is also attached for Board review. The AF zoning category allows the following as permitted uses: (1) Single-family residences, together with the usual accessory uses. (2) Agriculture and forestry operations, to include the raising of livestock and poultry. (3) Governmental or private recreational uses, including but not limited to golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, play -grounds, day camps and passive recreational open space. (4) Plant nursery. The definition of "airport or landing field" as found in Section 36-3 of The City's Zoning Ordinance is as follows: Airport or landing field means a landing facility for fixed -or rotary -winged aircraft containing a minimum of sixty (60) acres, subject to the federal aviation agency's requirement of safety and applicant's securing air space utilization from the federal aviation agency. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T. The Board is asked to determine if Mr. Ludwig's proposed use of the property as a non-commercial landing field is a permitted use in the AF zoning district. Should his proposed use of the property be considered a "private recreational use" as is typically allowed in AF zoning? BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Gene Ludwig was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application. Gene Ludwig addressed the Board in support of the application. He made a power point presentation to the Board. Mr. Ludwig gave a brief history of the construction of the Landing field and the City's enforcement of the project. He discussed the City Zoning Ordinance definition of "airport or landing field", and explained how his landing area use did not fall under the definition. He also discussed and explained how his use did not fall under the FAA safety regulations. He presented an arial photo to the Board for review and discussed the FAA's regulations for private landing areas. Chairman Francis asked Mr. Ludwig if the landing area was for his personal use only. Mr. Ludwig explained that it was and would not be used for commercial purposes or for landing other persons aircraft. Mr. Ludwig also noted that he owned additional property to the north, south and northwest. Chairman Francis explained that Mr. Ludwig's use of the property probably did not fall under the zoning ordinance definition of "airport or landing field". He expressed concern as to whether Mr. Ludwig's use of the property was intended to be a private recreational use as typically is allowed in AF zoning. He asked staff if Mr. Ludwig's specific use were not allowed in AF zoning, where would it be allowed. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, explained that the use could be allowed as an ancillary use to a primary use, including a single family residence. He explained that Mr. Ludwig's use of the property as a landing field was the principal use of the property and was not permitted in AF zoning. The issue was briefly discussed. Mr. Carney explained that a PZD zoning is often used to address uses not specifically defined in the ordinance. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked about the Two Rivers Landing Field as shown on the arial photo. Mr. Ludwig explained that it was his landing field, but he had very limited access to it. Debra Weldon, City Attorney, discussed the purpose and intent of the AF zoning district and read specifically from the zoning ordinance. There was additional discussion of the use as a recreational use and whether it met the purpose and intent of the AF zoning district. Chairman Francis explained that he NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 8 felt Mr. Ludwig's landing area was a private recreational use and not an "airport or landing field" as defined by the code. There was a motion to approve the applicant's appeal, and find that the use of the property does not meet the ordinance definition of "airport or landing field" and should be considered a private recreational use and allowed in the AF zoning. The motion included the applicant conforming to "Exhibit 3" as submitted by the applicant, with the condition that the Two Rivers Landing Field be abandoned once the subject landing field is operational. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. The Administrative appeal was approved. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-8076 Owner: R.S. Keathley, JR. Applicant: Regina Haralson, Kaplan, Brewer, Maxey and Haralson, P.A. Address: 8223 Baseline Road Description: South side of Baseline Road, between Production and Distribution Drives. Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested to determine that a nonconforming use/status of the property (mobile home park) is valid. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 8223 Baseline Road is currently vacant. For a number of years the site was used as a mobile home park. Evidence of its previous use still exists in the form of concrete/asphalt pads, utility stub -outs, etc. There are two (2) asphalt drives on the property. There is a main access drive from Baseline Road down the center of the property. This drive connects to a drive along the west property line which accesses Victoria Street to the west. There is one (1) unoccupied mobile home at the northeast corner of the property. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: This R-2 zoned property had a nonconforming R-7 status for many years during its use as a mobile home park. However, on July 20, 2004 the property ceased being used as a mobile home park. Water to the property was cut-off on July 19, 2004. The City's Zoning Ordinance does not permit the operation of a mobile home park as a by right use in R-2 zoning. The mobile home park which previously existed on this property was in existence before the property became part of the City, and was allowed to continue as a nonconforming use. Such a use can continue as long as the use is not ceased for a period of one (1) year, according to the following Section 36-153( c) of the City's Zoning Ordinance: "( c) Abandonment or discontinuance. When a nonconforming use has been discontinued or abandoned, and the appearance of which [such use] does not depict the identity of an ongoing use, and further if said situation exists for a period of one (1) year, such use shall not thereafter be reestablished or resumed. Any subsequent use or occupancy of such land or structure shall comply with the regulations of the zoning district in which such land or structure is located." Shortly before July 20, 2005 the mobile home which exists near the northeast corner of the property was placed on the site. There was no evidence that the mobile home was inhabited by July 20, 2005. Therefore, the City determined that the nonconforming status of the property has been lost. According to a letter dated February 8, 2006 from City Attorney Tom Carpenter to Phillip Kaplan, the property owner's attorney: "The City considers this property abandoned as a mobile home park and will not -permit -any owner-to--engage-in-such--a-use. The -ordinance clearly notes that abandonment or discontinued use includes situations in which "the appearance... does not depict the identity of an ongoing use." Little Rock, Ark., Rev. Code §36-153( c) (1988). Arkansas law does not require the City to prove an intent to abandon a use, merely that there has been a discontinuance of such use." The property owner is appealing the City's determination that the nonconforming status of the property has been lost. The property owner is asking the Board to determine that he has not abandoned the nonconforming mobile home park use of the property and that he be allowed to continue said use. A separate packet of information, including letters from the City Attorney's office, has been provided by the applicant and will be given to the Board members for review. A member of the City Attorney's office will be present at the public hearing to provide additional information. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ll • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the August 28, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the September 25, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the November 27, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the December 18, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 open position. In NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z -4800-A Owner: CBL and Associates Properties, Inc. Applicant: Lance Ivy, Park Plaza Address: 6000 W. Markham Street Description: Northwest corner of West Markham Street and University Avenue Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 543 to allow a roof sign. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analis: The C-3 zoned property at 6000 W. Markham Street contains the Park Plaza Mall development. The property owner has recently been remodeling portions of the mall facilities. As part of the remodeling project, the owner has installed new signage identifying the "Park Plaza" property. A new canopy structure was constructed over the main mall entrance on the south side of the building, facing West Markham Street. A component of the canopy construction includes a sign which sets on top of the canopy structure at its front edge. The sign is comprised of individual lighted letters, with an overall size of 5 feet -9 inches by 33 feet -4 inches. The sign extends above the NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO. K canopy and the front wall of the mall building. However, there is a center;glass roof structure which is taller than the front building facade and the sign structure. Section 36-543(7) of the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits roof signs or signs not mounted on a vertical surface. The ordinance definition of a roof sign is "any sign erected over or on the roof of a building." Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the sign which is mounted on the roof of the main canopy structure and not on a vertical wall of the building. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Although staff generally does not support variances for roof signs, staff's support in this case is based on the fact that the top of the sign in question does not exceed the overall height of the building. The third story glass and frame roof structure which is set in from the front wall of the building is higher than the top of the proposed sign. Additionally, staff believes the sign in combination with the new canopy structure creates an interesting architectural feature on the existing building. In staff's opinion the proposed roof sign will have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, as filed. If the sign is ever removed, it must be replaced with a sign that complies with ordinance standards, or a new variance application must be filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) 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 open position. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -6347-A Owner: Selz Realty Applicant: Jeff Quarles, K -Mart Address: 10901 Rodney Parham Road Description: Southeast corner of Rodney Parham Road and Shackleford Road Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the development provisions of Section 36-301 to allow seasonal outdoor storage of merchandise. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 10901 Rodney Parham Road contains an existing commercial building occupied by K -Mart. There is paved parking on the north and west sides of the building, with access drives from Rodney Parham Road and Shackleford Road. The applicant recently placed two (2) metal, portable storage containers along the west side of the building, between a three (3) foot high masonry wall and the building's loading dock doors, as noted on the attached site plan. When staff became aware of the storage containers, a Courtesy Notice was issued for their removal. i` NOVEMBER 27, 2006 NO.: 2 The applicant notes that the two (2) storage containers were placed on the property for use as temporary storage of patio and garden merchandise. The lawn and garden area of the K -Mart store is being used for storage of customer layaways and seasonal Christmas merchandise. The applicant proposes to use the two (2) storage containers from September 6 to January 30 of each year. Section 36-301(b) of the City's Zoning Ordinance states: "All commercial uses shall be restricted to closed buildings, except packing lots, seasonal and temporary sales per section 36-298.4, and the normal pump island services of service station operations." Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow two (2) temporary/seasonal storage containers to be located on the site from September 6 to January 30 of each year. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff believes the request is reasonable. The containers are located within a loading dock area between the building and a short masonry wall. The containers are not located in a parking or vehicular use area. Given the fact that the containers are located close to the building, they are not very noticeable from the adjacent streets or properties. Staff believes the yearly seasonal use of the storage containers will have no adverse impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. There are to be no more than two (2) storage containers on the property. 2. The placement of the storage containers is limited to September 6 through January 30 of each year. 3. The storage containers must not block any fire department connections or fire hydrants. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the December 18, 2006 Agenda due to the fact that the applicant failed to complete the required notification to surrounding property owners as required. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 18, 2006 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. X NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.; 3 File No.: Z-8125 Owner: Todd Wilson George Applicant: Todd Wilson George Address: 5130 "P" Street Description: Lot 17, Block 3, McGehee's Addition 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 side 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 located at 5130 "P" Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one car wide driveway from "P" Street at the southwest corner of the property. The driveway extends along the west side of the house. There is a small accessory storage building in the rear yard, with an alley running along the north (rear) property line. The applicant proposes to construct a 10 foot by 25 foot carport structure on the west side of the existing residence, over the existing driveway. The proposed carport addition will be unenclosed on its south, west and a portion of the north sides. The carport structure is proposed to be located one (1) foot from the west side property line, and 42 feet back from the front:(south) property line. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NQ.: 3 (CON'T. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of five (5) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the reduced side setback. The applicant is also proposing room and deck additions to the rear of the residence. These proposed additions conform to ordinance standards and are in the process of being constructed. Staff does not support the requested side setback variance. It has been staff's past policy to support setbacks of no less than 18 inches for this type of unenclosed structure. Staff views an 18 inch side setback as a minimum area needed to construct and maintain the carport structure without encroaching onto the adjacent property to the est. If the applicant were willing to provide an 18 inch side setback, including overhang, staff could support the application. The application would have to install guttering to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the west. The guttering could be within the 18 inch side setback. With these changes, staff would view the carport structure as having no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested side setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the December 18, 2006 Agenda due to the fact that the applicant failed to complete the required notification to surrounding property owners as required. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 18, 2006 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-8126 Owner: Pearl, LLC Applicant: David Pearlstein Address: 5219 "H" Street Description: Part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 43, Pulaski Heights Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a room addition with a reduced rear 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 5219 "H" Street is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of "H" Street and Harrison Street. There is a carport structure located near the southwest corner of the property, with a two -car wide driveway from Harrison Street. There is also a small accessory building at the southeast corner of the property. The applicant proposes to construct a 15 foot by 18 foot addition on the rear (south side) of the existing residence. The proposed addition will be two (2) stories in height,. The addition will be located 18 feet -2 inches to 22 feet -3 inches from the rear (south) property line. There is an existing porch (4.2',by 6.8') and step structure on the rear of the house which, will be --removed as part of the proposed construction. - NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for the proposed addition to have a rear setback ranging from 18 feet -2 inches to 22 feet -3 inches. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as relatively minor. It appears that the applicant has designed the proposed addition to preserve two (2) mature oak trees within the rear yard. Additionally, the proposed addition will maintain adequate separation from the existing carport and accessory storage structures, as well as maximize the usable rear yard area. Staff believes the proposed addition will not be out of character with other structures in the neighborhood, and should have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to the addition being constructed to match the existing principal structure. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) 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 open position. ♦. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-8127 Owner: Gloria Lawson and Steve Arnett Applicant: Jennifer Herron Address: 317 North Ridge Road Description: Lot 360, Kingwood Place Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a porch addition with a reduced front setback and 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 317 North Ridge Road is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from North Ridge Road which serves as access. The property contains a 25 foot front platted building line. The existing porch near the center of the structure extends approximately one (1) foot across the platted building line, with steps extending slightly further. The applicant proposes to construct a new 8 foot by 18 foot porch structure to replace the existing porch. The new porch will be unenclosed on the north, south and west sides, and be constructed to match the existing house. The proposed porch will extend across the front platted building line by six (6) feet, for a setback of 19 feet from the front property line. There will be two (2) or NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T. three (3) steps on front of the porch structure, extending slightly closer to the front property line. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 31-12( c) of the subdivision ordinance requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the new front porch and steps with a reduced front setback and which crosses the front platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Although staff observed few similar front encroachments in this area, the requested variances are very minor in nature. The fact that the porch addition will be unenclosed will lessen any possible visual impact on the adjacent properties. Staff believes the proposed porch addition will not be out of character with the neighborhood and will add to the street appeal of the residence. There appears to be no specific uniform setback of the houses from North Ridge Road in this immediate area, as there is some minor variation in front setback depths. Staff feels the proposed front encroachment will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the new porch/step structure. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested front setback and building line variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The porch structure must remain unenclosed. 3. The steps must remain uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the December 18, 2006 Agenda due to the fact that the applicant failed to complete the required notification to surrounding property owners as required. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 18, 2006 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-8134 Owner/Applicant: Nickie Smith Address: 9401 Mann Road Description: Southeast corner of Mann Road and Wilderness Road Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Section 32.8 of city code states no obstructions higher than 30 inches shall be located within a triangular area 50 ft. back from the intersecting right-of- way line (or intersecting tangent lines for radial dedications) at intersections. The obstruction resulting from the fence causes drivers to ease the nose of their vehicle out onto Mann Road creating a safety hazard. 2. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (John Barr, 371-4646) for the improvements located in the right-of-way. B. Staff Anal sis: The R-2 zoned property at 9401 Mann Road contains a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of Mann Road and Wilderness Road. There is a one (1) car wide driveway from Mann Road which leads to a carport on the east end of the house. The applicant recently constructed a six (6) foot high wood fence along the front (north) property line, as noted on the attached site plan. The east end of the fence extends slightly into the Mann Road right-of-way, with the fence's west end also extending into the right-of-way and attaching to a four (4) foot NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 6 CON'T. high chain-link fence located within the Wilderness Road right-of-way. The chain link fence is very old and also runs along the south (rear) and east (side) property lines. When staff became aware of the new wood fence construction, a Courtesy Notice was issued to remove the fence or request a variance. Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between building setback lines and street rights-of-way. Other fences may be constructed to a height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot high wood fence along the front (north) property line. Staff does not support the variance as requested. As noted in paragraph A. of the staff report, the wood fence does create a health/safety issue. The placement of the fence requires drivers on Wilderness Road pull the nose of their vehicles onto Mann Road to view oncoming traffic. Public Works notes that the fence would have to be pulled 50 feet from the northwest corner of the property (intersecting tangent lines) in order to comply with Section 32.8 of the city code. If the applicant were willing to move both the wood and chain-link fences to comply with this standard, staff could support the fence height variance for the remainder of the fence located between the front building setback and the Mann Road right-of-way. The applicant would also have to pull the east portion of the fence back to the property line or obtain a franchise to have it slightly into the Mann Road right-of-way. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested fence height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had revised the application to move the fence back as required by Public Works and noted in paragraph A. of the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the revised application, subject to the fences being moved and a franchise obtained within 60 days. 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 open position. 0 NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-8135 Owner/Applicant: Larry Burrell Address: 1730 N. Spruce Street Description: Lot 42R, Cliffewood Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36=516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Cantrell Road (AR State Hwy 10) is a principal arterial street with high traffic volumes and high traffic speeds. The iron fence on the existing rock wall further deteriorates the intersection visibility for drivers entering Cantrell Road from Spruce St. With this new addition, drivers are forced to ease the fronts of their vehicles onto Cantrell Road creating a safety hazard. Section 32.8 of city code states not obstructions higher than 30 inches shall be located within a triangular area 50 ft. back from the intersecting right-of-way line (or intersecting tangent lines for radial dedications) at intersections. B. Staff Analvsis: The R-2 zoned property at 1730 N. Spruce Street is occupied by a three-story rock and stucco single family residence which was recently constructed. The property is located at the southwest corner of N. Spruce Street and Cantrell Road. There is a circular driveway from N. Spruce Street which serves as NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 7 CON'T.) access. There is a short masonry wall along the north (Cantrell Road) property line. The applicant recently placed a short wrought iron fence on top of the existing masonry wall. The wall/fence ranges in height from 70 inches (72 inches including fence post) at the northwest corner of the property to 72 inches (76 inches including fence post) at the northeast corner of the house. The applicant is proposing a gate from the northeast corner of the house to the fence. The applicant is also proposing a six (6) foot high wood fence along the rear (west) property line. Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between building setback lines and street rights-of-way. Other fences may be constructed to a height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the masonry wall/fence with a height ranging from 70 inches to 72 inches along the north property line, between the five (5) foot side building setback line and the Cantrell Road right-of-way. The applicant is also requesting the variance to include the north five (5) feet of the six (6) foot high wood fence along the rear property line. Staff does not support the variance as requested. As noted in paragraph A. of the staff report, the masonry wall/fence overall height creates a health/safety issue. The placement of the fence requires drivers on N. Spruce Street pull the nose of their vehicles onto Cantrell Road to view oncoming traffic. Public Works notes that the fence would have to be pulled back 50 feet from the northeast corner of the property in order to comply with Section 32.8 of the City code. If the applicant were willing to move the fence back to comply with this standard, staff could support the fence height variance for the remainder of the fence located between the side building setback line and the Cantrell Road right-of-way. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested fence height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the December 18, 2006 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 open position. 11 NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-8136 Owner: TRPP, LLC Applicant: Gene Ludwig Address: Northwest of the intersection of Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road (approximately 8500 Pinnacle Valley Road). Description: 28.57 Acres within Section 7, T -2-N, R -13-W and Section 12, T -2- N, R -14-W, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: AF Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested regarding use of the property as an airport or landing field. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Private, Restricted, Landing Area STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: After receiving a series of complaints regarding the property at approximately 8500 Pinnacle Valley Road, staff made inspections of the property on October 5, 2006 and October 20, 2006. Staff observed what appeared to be a newly constructed road bed on the property, running from Pinnacle Valley Road to near the Little Maumelle River within the west portion of the property. Staff spoke with Gene Ludwig, owner of the property, and he explained that he was constructing a non-commercial landing field on the property. He stated that he received permission from Pulaski County Planning on the construction. With the property being zoned "AF" Agriculture and Forestry District, and an "airport or landing field" not being a permitted use in AF zoning, staff issued a ,d, NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) Courtesy Notice on October 20, 2006 requiring that construction on the landing field be ceased and that it be removed within seven (7) days. On March 30, 2006, Mr. Ludwig was issued Development Permit number 315 by the County for the property in question for fill only with no building construction. A letter dated March 30, 2006 from Ashley Pope, Director of Pulaski County Planning, outlined the conditions of the permit approval. The last paragraph of the letter instructs Mr. Ludwig to ensure that the project conformed with the zoning and subdivision regulations of the City of Little Rock. To staff's knowledge, no contact was ever made with the City's Planning Department to seek zoning approval for the landing field. A copy of the letter is attached for Board review. On July 28, 2006, the applicant's engineer, Joe White, Jr., submitted "No Adverse Impact" and "No -Rise" certificates to the County. Additionally, a driveway permit was issued by Pulaski County Road and Bridge Department on July 25, 2006. Copies of these documents are also attached. Mr. Gene Ludwig, the property owner, is appealing staff's determination that an airport or landing field is not a permitted use in AF zoning. Mr. Ludwig contends that his proposed landing field does not meet the definition of "airport or loading field" as found in Section 36-3 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ludwig contends that his landing field is a private recreational use that should be allowed in the AF zoning district. A letter from Mr. Ludwig to the Board of Adjustment dated October 26, 2006 is also attached for Board review. The AF zoning category allows the following as permitted uses: (1) Single-family residences, together with the usual accessory uses. (2) Agriculture and forestry operations, to include the raising of livestock and poultry. (3) Governmental or private recreational uses, including but not limited to golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, play -grounds, day camps and passive recreational open space. (4) Plant nursery. The definition of "airport or landing field" as found in Section 36-3 of The City's Zoning Ordinance is as follows: Airport or landing field means a landing facility for fixed -or rotary -winged aircraft containing a minimum of sixty (60) acres, subject to the federal aviation agency's requirement of safety and applicant's securing air space utilization from the federal aviation agency. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 8 CQN'T. The Board is asked to determine if Mr. Ludwig's proposed use of the property as a non-commercial landing field is a permitted use in the AF zoning district. Should his proposed use of the property be considered a "private recreational use" as is typically allowed in AF zoning? BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Gene Ludwig was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application. Gene Ludwig addressed the Board in support of the application. He made a power point presentation to the Board. Mr. Ludwig gave a brief history of the construction of the Landing field and the City's enforcement of the project. He discussed the City Zoning Ordinance definition of "airport or landing field", and explained how his landing area use did not fall under the definition. He also discussed and explained how his use did not fall under the FAA safety regulations. He presented an arial photo to the Board for review and discussed the FAA's regulations for private landing areas. Chairman Francis asked Mr. Ludwig if the landing area was for his personal use only. Mr. Ludwig explained that it was and would not be used for commercial purposes or for landing other persons aircraft. Mr. Ludwig also noted that he owned additional property to the north, south and northwest. Chairman Francis explained that Mr. Ludwig's use of the property probably did not fall under the zoning ordinance definition of "airport or landing field". He expressed concern as to whether Mr. Ludwig's use of the property was intended to be a private recreational use as typically is allowed in AF zoning. He asked staff if Mr. Ludwig's specific use were not allowed in AF zoning, where would it be allowed. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, explained that the use could be allowed as an ancillary use to a primary use, including a single family residence. He explained that Mr. Ludwig's use of the property as a landing field was the principal use of the property and was not permitted in AF zoning. The issue was briefly discussed. Mr. Carney explained that a PZD zoning is often used to address uses not specifically defined in the ordinance. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked about the Two Rivers Landing Field as shown on the arial photo. Mr. Ludwig explained that it was his landing field, but he had very limited access to it. Debra Weldon, City Attorney, discussed the purpose and intent of the AF zoning district and read specifically from the zoning ordinance. There was additional discussion of the use as a recreational use and whether it met the purpose and intent of the AF zoning district. Chairman Francis explainfed that he - NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 8 CONT. felt Mr. Ludwig's landing area was a private recreational use and not an "airport or landing field" as defined by the code. There was a motion to approve the applicant's appeal, and find that the use of the property does not meet the ordinance definition of "airport or landing field" and should be considered a private recreational use and allowed in the AF zoning. The motion included the applicant conforming to "Exhibit 3" as submitted by the applicant, with the condition that the Two Rivers Landing Field be abandoned once the subject landing field is operational. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. The Administrative appeal was approved. i NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: File No.: Z -8121-A Owner: J.C. Halsell Applicant: Todd Rogers, PBS & J Address: 6201 W. Markham Street Description: Lot 2, Ruebel's Second Subdivision Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-390 (Midtown Overlay) to permit parking in the front setback and to permit more parking spaces than the maximum number allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Commercial Building Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 6201 W. Markham Street is occupied by a one-story commercial building within the south half of the property. There are two (2) driveways from West Markham Street which serve as access. There is paved parking and drives on all sides of the building. There is also a 40 foot front platted building line along the West Markham Street frontage. The property is located within the City's Midtown Overlay District. The property owner is planning to remove the existing commercial building from the property and construct a new Chick-Fil-A restaurant. The new restaurant NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T. building will be located within the north half of the property with one (1) entry drive at the northeast corner of the property. Paved parking will be located along the east, west and south sides of the proposed building. With the proposed restaurant development, one (1) main ground -mounted sign (106 square feet) will be located within a landscaped area along the front (north) property line. There will be three (3) 33.68 square foot wall signs on the building. These wall signs will be located on the north, east and west sides of the building, as noted on the attached site plan. There will also be a 72 square foot wall sign at the northwest corner of the building, along the top band of the building. This sign is located on the north side of the building, wrapping around to a portion of the west fagade. On October 30, 2006, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to allow wall signs without direct street frontage on the east and west facades of the proposed restaurant building. The applicant is back before the Board of Adjustment requesting two (2) variances from Section 36-390 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the Midtown Overlay District regulations. Ordinance No. 19,004 passed by the City Board on December 2, 2003, established the Midtown Overlay District requirements. The overlay regulates development and redevelopment in an area bounded by 1-630 on the south, Father Tribou to the north, McKinley Street on the west and University Avenue on the east; and an area bounded by Lee Avenue on the north, West Markham Street on the south, University Avenue on the west to Filmore Street on the east. The first variance requested is from Section 36-390(a). This section allows the maximum number of parking spaces to be the minimum number required by Section 36-502 of the Code. The minimum number of parking spaces required for the proposed restaurant is 37. The applicant is proposing 52 spaces for the restaurant. Therefore, the applicant is requesting the variance to allow an increased number of parking spaces. The second variance is from Section 36-390(c). This section requires that surface parking be limited to the side and rear of structures, and that no parking be allowed in the front yard setback. As noted earlier, there is a 40 foot front platted building line for this property. The site plan submitted shows one (1) parking space and portions of two (2) other parking spaces located between the platted building line and front (north) property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow these three (3) spaces to remain. Staff does not support the requested variances from the Midtown Overlay District requirements. Staff believes the proposed development does not completely comply with the purpose and intent of the newly established Midtown Overlay District Ordinance. The site should be designed to compliment and encourage pedestrian use. Staff believes the overall number of parking spaces should be NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T. reduced, including elimination of the spaces within the front building setback area. Staff believes the areas of additional parking could be used for additional landscaping or an area of outdoor dining. Staff feels the proposed parking plan as proposed could have an adverse impact on future redevelopments in the Midtown Overlay area. If the site plan is revised to comply with the parking standards, all other requirements of the overlay must be met, including utilities (underground) and lighting. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances from the Midtown Overlay District requirements. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Blake Goodman, Adam Carr, Jeff Yates, J.C. Halsell, John Flake and Hank Kelley were present, representing the application. There were two (2) objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Jeff Yates addressed the Board in support of the application and explained the property ownership. Blake Goodman addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented a revised site plan to the Board. He explained that the revised site plan eliminated the three (3) parking spaces between the front building line and the front property line, reducing the total number of parking spaces to 49. He explained that the revised plan eliminated one of the variances and reduced the other. He also explained that the elevation of the property would make it very difficult to combine the property with adjacent property for future development. Craig Berry, Chairman of the Midtown Advisory Board, addressed the Board in opposition. He discussed and quoted from the purpose and intent section of the Midtown Overlay District Ordinance. He discussed the proposed use and the parking needs in an urban setting. He explained that the overlay ordinance was use neutral and addressed design issues. Chairman Francis explained that there was a problem with the topography of the property and connectivity with adjacent property. He asked what could be done to preserve the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Berry explained that there were problems with this specific property and the design issues of the ordinance. City Director Stacy Hurst also addressed the Board in opposition. She explained that there was a great amount of effort involved in the passage of the Midtown NOVEMBER 27, 2006 0 M NO.: 9 (CON'T. Overlay District Ordinance. She explained how the overlay encouraged pedestrian use and connectivity between the properties in the district. She encouraged the Board to support the Midtown Board's efforts. Chairman Francis explained that some of the parking spaces could be removed with space left for future connectivity between the adjacent properties. The issue of connectivity was further discussed. Vice -Chairman Burruss noted that the proposed plan for the property greatly increased the percentage of the property which would be landscaped. He asked if the applicant would be willing to further reduce the total number of parking spaces. Mr. Goodman stated that the parking could not be reduced any further. He explained that the proposed driveway was aligned with the Park Plaza driveway to the north. He explained that the proposed building was designed to meet the overlay requirements. Fletcher Hanson asked how a reduction in parking helped the overlay design issues. Mr. Berry explained that if the applicant were willing to reduce the number of parking spaces, they should meet with the Planning Staff to redesign the site plan. Chairman Francis asked if there was some middle ground with respect to the number of parking spaces. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, noted that the plan should be redesigned to meet all ordinance requirements and explained making reference to the River Market and Highway 10 Overlay Districts. John Flake addressed the Board in support. He explained that the elevation of the properties to the east and west prohibited a joint development. Director Hurst explained how the proposed redevelopment did not meet the design standards of the overlay ordinance. There was a motion to approve the application as revised by the applicant at the public hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 open position. The revised application was approved.