boa_11 25 2013._ i
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being five (5) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The Minutes of the October 28, 2013 meeting were
approved.
III. Members Present: Jeff Yates, Chairman
Scott Smith, Vice Chairman
Rajesh Mehta
Robert Winchester
Brad Wingfield
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
I. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Z-8888
B. Z-8889
II. NEW BUSINESS:
AGENDA
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
2:00 P.M.
307 President Clinton Avenue
10510 Interstate 30
1.
Z -6732-F
215 E. Markham Street
2.
Z-8893
5624 N. Grandview Road
3.
Z-8894
72 Pine Manor Drive
4.
Z-8895
6624 Colonel Glenn Road
5.
Z-8896
5908 Hawthorne Road
6.
Z-8897
10 Pine View Place
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: A
File No.: Z-8888
Owner: Melton Properties LLC
Applicant: Daniel Bryant, Ernie Biggs
Address: 307 President Clinton Avenue
Description: Southeast corner of President Clinton Avenue and S. Cumberland Street
Zoned: UU
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the building form provisions of Section
36-356 to allow alteration of a historical storefront.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Ernie Briggs Piano Bar
Proposed Use of Property: Ernie Briggs Piano Bar
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Update:
On October 8, 2013 the River Market Design Review Committee met to discuss
this proposed issue. The DRC deferred the application to their November 12,
2103 agenda. The DRC has asked for additional information regarding the
historic nature of the project. Therefore, staff requests deferral of this application
to the November 25, 2013 Board of Adjustment agenda to allow the DRC to rule
on the issue. The applicant has been notified of the need for deferral and
expressed no objection.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(October 28, 2013)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the November 25,
2013 agenda, based on the fact that the issue was still pending before the River Market
Design Review Committee. Staff noted that the applicant did not object to the deferral.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the November 25, 2013
agenda as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The
application was deferred.
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.)
Staff Update:
The applicant submitted a letter to staff on November 12, 2013 requesting deferral of
the application to the January 27, 2014 agenda. The application was deferred to the
December 10, 2013 River Market Design Review Committee agenda. The applicant will
be out of town on the December 16, 2013 Board of Adjustment meeting date. Staff
supports the deferral as requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(November 25, 2013)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the January 27,
2014 agenda, based on the fact that the issue was still pending before the River Market
Design Review Committee. Staff noted that the applicant did not object to the deferral.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the January 27, 2014
agenda as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The
application was deferred.
September 13, 2013
Mr. Minyard,
Please accept this application for improvement(s) to Ernie Biggs' Dueling Piano Bar located at 307
President Clinton Ave. The proposed plan is the recessing of a portion of the current storefront
approximately fifteen feet so that a covered, street side patio can be created. Materials and colors
appropriate to the use, building and neighborhood will be utilized in this project. Street -side patios are
commonplace and well received in all similarly sized cities and districts and we feel this will be the same.
We also feel there is a good possibility the patio will offer other ancillary benefits such as an alternative
to smoking indoors and reason for our business to increase daytime hours of operation.
Thank you for your consideration,
Daniel Bryant
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: B
File No.: Z-8889
Owner: Russell Atkinson/Atkinson Properties LLC
Applicant: Lamar Advertising by Michael Shannon
Address: 10510 Interstate 30
Description: North side of 1-30, West of Baseline Road
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: Requested appeal of the Planning Staffs denial of a permit to install
an off -premise billboard sign.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Undeveloped
Proposed Use of Property: Billboard sign
Staff Report:
On August 20, 2013, Lamar Advertising submitted a sign permit application for a
billboard sign at 10510 Interstate 30. The permit was for a 14 foot by 48 foot off -
premise billboard sign with a height of 35 feet. The proposed billboard site is zoned C-
3. The permit was requested contingent upon removing two (2) existing billboard signs
on adjacent property. The billboard sign at 10400 1-30 (permit #20061) and 10600 1-30
(permit #17719) were proposed to be removed prior to the installation of the new
billboard at 10510 1-30.
Section 36-556(a)(4) of the City's Zoning Ordinance (off -premise sign regulations) reads
as follows:
"4. No billboard site shall be located less than one
thousand (1,000) feet from another billboard
site. The separation requirement shall be
measured along the nearest edge of pavement
between points directly opposite the signs, provided
that only on streets separated by a median, each side
of the street shall be considered separately for distance purposes."
On August 29, 2013 City Planning staff informed the applicant that the billboard permit
for 10510 1-30 was denied and could not be approved because the proposed sign site
did not conform with Ordinance standards for an off -premise sign site. There were
conversations between the applicant and City Planning staff prior to August 29, 2013,
informing the applicant that the proposed sign did not meet the requirement to be
separated from other existing billboards by at least 1,000 feet.
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.)
The applicant, Lamar Advertising, is appealing staffs denial of the sign permit to allow
an off -premise billboard sign at 10510 Interstate 30. Please see the attached packet of
information submitted by Michael N. Shannon, the applicant's legal counsel.
The Board of Adjustment is being asked to determine if staff was correct or incorrect in
the denial of the sign permit for the off -premise billboard sign at 10510 Interstate 30.
Since August 29, 2013, the City Attorney's office reviewed the issue and agreed that the
City ordinances do not provide for contingent billboard permits. It also determined that
under the circumstances, Lamar Advertising would need to relinquish its off -premise
billboard permits at 10400 and 10600 Interstate 30 before a sign permit could be issued,
upon proper application, for a billboard that otherwise would not meet spacing
requirements. Relinquishing the permits would mean that the two (2) billboard signs
would no longer be legal signs, there being no right to have them in those locations, and
therefore they would have to be removed immediately. The applicant was made aware
of that determination.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (October 28, 2013)
Staff informed the Board that on October 23, 2013, the applicant requested deferral of
the application to the November 25, 2013 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the November 25, 2013
agenda as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The
application was deferred.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (November 25, 2013)
Staff informed the Board that on November 25, 2013, the applicant requested deferral of
the application to the January 27, 2014 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the January 27, 2014
agenda as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The
application was deferred.
Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow
A PROFESSIONAL LIMrrED LIABILITY COMPANY
111 Center Street
Suite 1900
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 379-1700 • (501) 379-1701— Fax
Michael N. Shannon
mshannon@ggth.com
Licensed in Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas
August 30, 2013
Via Hand Delivery and Electronic Mail
Little Rock Board of Zoning Adjustment
C/O Dana Carney
Planning and Development Department
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
dcarney@littlerock.org
Dear Board Members:
Direct Dial
501-379-1716
Direct Fax
501-379-3816
On August 20, 2013, Lamar Advertising submitted a Sign Permit Application
("Application"). A copy of the Sign Permit Application is enclosed as Exhibit 1. In the
Application, Lamar provided that it understood the permit to be contingent upon removal of two
nearby sign structures that Lamar owns. In short, Lamar proposed to replace 2 structures (Permit
Numbers 20061 and 17719) with a single new structure. Lamar provided further that no new
construction would take place under the permit until the two existing signs were removed and
notice was provided to the City of Little Rock for inspection.
On August 29, 2013, the City Planning and Development Department denied Lamar's
Application (the "Denial"). An e-mail form Dana Carney to Thomas Gibbens is attached as
Exhibit 2. In the Denial, the Planning and Development Department Provided "[t]he request to
have a permit issued contingent upon the removal of the other sign structures has been denied.
If, at some time, the site complies with the Ordinance standards for an off -premises sign site, a
permit request may be filed." The Denial does not provide any specific reasons for why the site
did not comply with the Ordinance standards for an off -premises sign. Lamar understands that
the only reason the site does not comply is because of spacing with the existing two signs Lamar
owns and agreed to remove upon issuance of the permit.
Lamar hereby appeals the denial of its Application to the Board of Zoning Adjustment as
provided in Little Rock Code of Ordinance § 36-538. Lamar requests that the Board of Zoning
Adjustment issue to Lamar a permit for the alteration and consolidation of two signs and
construction of a single new sign.
Dana Carney
Little Rock Board of Zoning Adjustment
August 30, 2013
Page 2
Under the Sign Ordinance, "Alteration means to replace, exchange, reconstruct, renovate,
move, relocate, animate, enlarge or decrease in size." See Little Rock Code of Ordinance § 36-
530. In this case, Lamar owns the two signs that it proposes removing. It follows that Lamar is
not seeking to construct a "new" sign; rather, under the Sign Ordinance, Lamar merely seeks a
permit for alteration of two existing signs. The proposed alteration of Lamar's own signs
complies with all provisions of the Sign Ordinance and Little Rock City Code.
The purpose of the Sign Ordinance is to "control and coordinate the type, placement and
physical dimensions of signs within the various zoning classifications," to "promote both
renovation and proper maintenance," and to "allow for special circumstances." See Little Rock
Code of Ordinance § 36-532(a)(1), (3), and (4). The Ordinance is to be interpreted in "such a
way as to carry out its stated purpose and intent." See Little Rock Code of Ordinance § 36-538.
Variances from the Sign Ordinance are to be provided "where strict enforcement ... would
cause undue hardship to the individual application under consideration ...." See Little Rock
Code of Ordinance § 36-538.
Although Lamar does not believe it is requesting a variance from the Sign Ordinance, to
the extent it is considered a variance, strict enforcement of the Sign Ordinance will cause a
hardship and denial of Lamar's Application will be a hardship on Lamar and controvert the spirit
of the Sign Ordinance. The Purpose of the Sign Ordinance is to promote appropriate renovation
of signs and Lamar's consolidation of two signs is an appropriate and conservative renovation.
At best, the fact that Lamar seeks to consolidate two of its boards constitutes a "special
circumstance." There would be no question of denial if Lamar proposed to merely move a single
sign, and the fact that it proposes to consolidate two signs should not be held against Lamar.
Indeed, the Sign Ordinance contemplates that a permit will be issued for sign movement: "A
new off -premises sign permit shall be obtained in order to move a billboard from one (1) site to
another site, provide the relocation conforms to all of the requirements of this chapter." See
Little Rock Code of Ordinance § 36-556(f)(3). Lamar's request is consistent with the Sign
Ordnance and should be granted.
Failure to issue the permit in these circumstances could result in Lamar's complete loss
of its sign permits. Specifically, it is possible that, during Lamar's alteration, the City could
inadvertently issue another sign permit that would prevent Lamar from executing its alteration
because of spacing requirements. The Sign Ordinance is equipped to address this situation,
providing specifically that the "administrator may require in writing upon issuance of a permit
that he be notified for inspection prior to the installation of certain signs." See Little Rock Code
of Ordinance § 36-545(g). Here, conditioning the permit upon inspection and removal of the two
signs Lamar proposes to consolidate is the appropriate action. Denial of the Application is
improper.
"The board of zoning adjustment may impose conditions in the granting of a variance to
ensure compliance and to protect adjacent property." See Little Rock Code of Ordinance § 36-
69(a). "The board may hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this chapter in
instances where strict enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship due to
Dana Carney
Little Rock Board of Zoning Adjustment
August 30, 2013
Page 3
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and grant such variance
only when it is demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent
of the provisions of this chapter." See Little Rock Code of Ordinance § 36-69(b)(2)(b). Here,
Lamar's application meets the strict requirements to alter or move signs. Furthermore, Lamar's
application is within the spirit and intent of the Sign Ordinance and denial of its Application will
result in a hardship due to the unique factual situation.
The denial of Lamar's Application by the Planning Department should be reversed.
Lamar's Application complies with all requirements of the Sign Ordinance and other applicable
provisions of the Little Rock Municipal Code. The Board of Adjustment should grant Lamar's
application conditioned on the removal of its referenced two signs and a confirmation inspection
by the City of Little Rock.
We appreciate the Board's attention to this matter and request that this appeal be heard
and any necessary hearing be set at the next and earliest available opportunity or meeting.
Respectfully,
QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS,
TULL & BURROW PLLC
Michael N. Shannon
MNS/lad
Enclosures
cc w/ encls.: City Attorney Tom Carpenter, Esq. (via e-mail)
August 20, 2013
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
Care of Kenny Scott
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas, 72201
Re :10510 Interstate 30
Mr. Scott,
Please find enclosed our application for a sign permit located at 10510 with Russell Atkinson.
i have enclosed an application, drawing, zoning map and a permission statement from Mr. Atkinson.
In this case, as the drawing depicts, we are making application for this site, location, 10510 Interstate
30, contingent upon the removal of the sign structures associated with permits 17719 and 20061.
Please note the owner of record for both permits, 17719 and 200611s Lamar Outdoor Advertising.
Permit 17719 Is listed as 10600 Interstate 30, W L Huffstutlar, permit 20061 is listed as 10400 Interstate
30,'H D Howling.
With the removal of the two permits mentioned, this would allow for the proper spacing between
signs and make a legal conforming site at 10510 interstate 30.
Please be advised that In no manner would permits 17719 and 20061 be considered voided until the
structure is physically removed. Likewise, Lamar will also warrant, certify that no new construction
would be allowed to take place with permit.lssued at 10510 Interstate 30 until the other two are
removed completely and notice given to the City of Little Rock for Inspection.
After receiving your permit with information attached, we will insert it In with our application to the
Arkansas Highway Department.
Please review and advise as to what you do need from Lamar, if additional, to have such approved
and we would like to pick up as soon as possible for construction.
I can be reached at 501-562-2476. Thank you as always for your cooperation and attention to the
application.
Thank you,
Gre Griner
Real Estate Manager
EXHIBIT
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
Planning and Development
723 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201
(501) 371-4844
SION PERMIT APPU ARON.
Date ,Ad Permit No.
Permit Fee
Applicants
Name ---
Address A 'I'MnI
Tel No. Dior
Property Owner or Agent
. E r ►
---------- --------------- ------------------------------------
i
Business Address of Proposed Sign 30
Type of Sign �' �l%bno 2� reMOZ,
wording on Sign Lyra
Sign Dimensions 1y.� Ri S3 _
Sign height � f 1
Vehicular Clearance of SickP
Pedestrian Clearance of Sign
Setback of Sign from Property Line_ , T,
Linear Street frontage of Property N
Linear Building frontage ^�
Zoning Classification of Property �^ 3
-------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
•do hereby certify that all information contained on this
applic ion is tx and correct, and hereby agree that if this permit is issued all r+equiremen
of the City of Little Lack Building, Electrical, Traffic., and Sign Codes will be,cca�lied with
I further certify that this proposed work is authorized by the owner in fee, and that I am
authorized to make this Application.
-1.
• m;��nn��n •n' TTL
r
( yL vjorj'A j �A' C'L
9"4 'PIPO l I •
nn 1 yy
by -
Owner or Agent �' r i
Address
Telephone No.
Zoning & Sign Inspector
The Map Title
Data Current as of 10/11/2011
PLANMN DEVELOPMENT Zoning Information is representations[ only and is not Intended to meet legal standards, use at your own risk.
Printed: Aug 20, 2013
9
Q
r�
{
9
PROPERTY OWNER PERMISSION STATEMENT
To the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department;
HAS MY PERMISSION TO
(SignOwner)
ERECT AND/OR MAINTAIN A SIGN ON MY PROPERTY ADJACENT TO
HIGHWAY. Li Q 5 i _N ���� COUNTY
NEAR �. '' � �L— r–��-
(City or Town)
Projerty Owner (Please Print)
& ► L1 Cc""\ tzm,> s,4p, Zoo
Property Owner Mailing Address
City State Zip Code
R t i3
Signature Iyate
NOTE: Must be signed and dated within 30 days of application date.
A copy of a written lease agreement between the sign owner
and the property owner may be substituted for this statement
if dated within 30 days of application date.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Carney, Dana <DCarney@Jittlerock.org> wrote:
we met this morning and went over your proposal. The request to have a permit issued
contingent upon the removal of the other sign structures has been denied. If, at some
time, the site complies with the Ordinance standards for an off -premises sign site, a
permit request may be filed.
Dana
From: Thomas Gibbens [mailto:tgibbens(dNamar.com)
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 4:50 PM
To: Carney, Dana
Subject: Re: (10510) I-30
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Carney, Dana <DCarney@littlerock.org> wrote:
soon
From: Thomas Gibbens [maiito:tgibbens2lamar. com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 4:43 PM
To: Carney, Dana
Subject: Re: (10510) I-30
Yes, we received the alteration one one site at 120011-30. When do you plan to meet on the
10510 application.?
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Carney, Dana <DCarney@littlerock.org> wrote:
my understanding is that the alteration on the existing sign was to be approved. Tony
and I have not met yet on the other proposal.
From: Thomas Gibbens [mailto:tgibbens@lamar.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:59 PM
To: Carney, Dana
Subject: (10510) I-30
Dana,
I was checking to see if our permit application was being processed we made last week.. Our
Real Estate Manager, Greg Criner let me know Kenny had relayed that a decision was to be
made soon?
Thanks
Tom
7EXHIBIT
2-3
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: Z -6732-F
Owner: H West, LLC
Applicant: Frank Barksdale, AMR Architects
Address: 215 E. Markham Street
Description: South side of E. Markham Street, between
Scott and Cumberland Streets
Zoned: UU
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the easement provisions of Section 36-
11 and the parking design provisions of Section 36-511 in association with construction of a
proposed parking deck.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Parking Lot
Proposed Use of Property: Parking Deck
STAFF REPORT
0
1.9
Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
Landscape and Buffer Issues:
Maintain street trees as per the UU zoning district requirements.
C. Building Codes Comments:
The required fire separation distance (building to property line) prescribed by the
building code terminates at five (5) feet. Buildings are allowed to be closer than
five (5) feet if they have properly constructed fire walls which provide the
requisite one (1) hour fire resistance rating. When buildings are five (5) feet or
more from the property line, the requirement no longer applies to the wall itself,
only the projections such as eaves or overhangs.
Openings such as doors and windows are limited when the exterior wall is three
(3) feet from the property line, and are prohibited when the exterior wall is less
than three (3) feet from the line. There is no restriction on openings when the
exterior wall is more than three (3) feet from the property line.
Contact the City of Little Rock Building Codes at 371-4832 for additional details.
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.)
D. Utility Comments:
AT&T — no objection to easement encroachment. This agreement is conditional
upon the placement of two (2) handholes, (4'x6'x4') and a four inch (4") conduit
connecting the handholes, specifically for AT&T use. These items are to be
provided to insure a stable location for AT&T field technicians to complete
necessary work, and will also provide a long term access and protection for
telephone facilities going forward.
Centerpoint Energy — no objection to easement encroachment.
Central Arkansas Water — no objection to easement encroachment.
Entergy — no objection to easement encroachment. Any Entergy facilities located
on the site will require relocation at the expense of the owner.
Little Rock Wastewater — no objection to easement encroachment.
E. Staff Analysis:
The UU zoned property at 215 E. Markham Street is currently occupied by a paved
parking lot, located between the Heritage West and Stone Ward buildings. The
existing parking lot contains approximately 65 spaces and serves both buildings.
Pedestrian use/landscaped areas are located between the parking lot and both
buildings. The property contains a 20 foot wide utility easement along the south
property line which was a platted alley right-of-way that was abandoned a number
of years ago.
The applicant proposes to construct a two (2) level parking deck on the property,
as noted on the attached site plan. The parking deck will occupy essentially the
same area as the existing parking lot. The new deck will contain 144 parking
spaces, as follows:
9'— 0" spaces = 44
8'— 0" HC spaces = 5
8'— 6" spaces = 56
8'— 0" spaces = 39
total spaces = 144
An artist rendering of the proposed parking deck has also been provided for Board
review. The deck will have a height not exceeding 15 feet. With construction of
the new parking deck, the pedestrian use/landscaped areas between the deck and
the buildings to the east and west will be maintained and improved with new
landscape materials. The deck will continue to serve both buildings.
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.)
Section 36-11(f) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that proposed easement
encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Section
36-511(a) allows up to 20 percent of the total spaces within a parking deck to be
compact spaces, with a width reduced to eight (8) feet six (6) inches. The
standard width for a parking space is nine (9) feet. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the parking deck to
encroach into the 20 foot wide easement along the south property line, more than
20 percent of the overall spaces to be compact spaces, and some of the compact
spaces to be eight (8) feet in width.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances associated with the construction of a
new parking deck. Staff views the request as reasonable. All of the public utility
companies agree to the encroachment into the utility easement along the south
property line. With respect to the parking space widths proposed, the applicant
has provided information from a parking consultant which notes that many city
jurisdictions allow eight (8) foot wide compact spaces. The parking deck which is
proposed does not fulfill an ordinance parking requirement to serve a specific use.
Uses within the UU zoning district are not required to have parking. The parking
deck will be a private deck and will provide additional parking to serve the existing
office buildings to the east and west. Therefore, staff has no issue with the size
and number of compact spaces proposed. Staff believes construction of the new
parking deck as proposed will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties
or the general area.
F. Staff Analysis:
Staff recommends approval of the requested easement and parking stall
number/size variances, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in
paragraph B. of the staff report.
2. Compliance with the Building Code requirements as noted in paragraph C.
of the staff report.
3. Compliance with the Utility comments as noted in paragraph D. of the staff
report.
4. All compact parking spaces must be properly signed.
5. Compliance with all UU zoning district development requirements.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(November 25, 2013)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was approved.
R
ARCHITECTS INC.
-------------------- - ----
Mr. Monte Moore
Zoning Administrator
City of Little Rock Planning & Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Heritage West Parking Deck
.TJ4,�_r
-----------
------------------------------------ ---- - - -Z -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3 ?e -g-&)
October 24, 2013
Mr. Moore,
We are requesting two variances for a proposed parking deck between the Heritage West and the Stone Ward
Buildings (formerly known as Heritage East).
The first variance is to allow the parking deck to be constructed over an abandoned alley at the south side of
the property. It is our understanding that there is a utility easement still in place at the south side of the
property. We have worked out arrangements that are suitable to the utility companies that presently have
services, and have submitted letters as evidence of these arrangements from Comcast, AT&T and Little Rock
Wastewater. We will also present letters from the other requested utility companies per your requirements.
The second variance is to exceed the number of compact spaces. The present code allows up to 20% compact
spaces. The code also defines a compact space as 8'-6" in width. Our proposed layout has been developed
with consultation from C. Kirk Taylor with PARC, Inc. of Austin, Texas.
Mr. Taylor suggests the following points to support our current layout:
1. These dimensions apply to REQUIRED parking spaces. We are not building any uses that
REQUIRE new parking.
a. They could argue we're replacing required parking.
b. We can argue we are improving on existing substandard spaces.
That said, the design standards are antiquated (1968 ASHTO design vehicle) and do not reflect
industry standards or best practices in other jurisdictions.
a. See City of Austin standards (attached) that reflect National Parking Association
standards for universal, one -size fits all, 8'6" spaces that acknowledge a mix of 9' full-size
and 8' compact spaces.
b. Most jurisdictions permit 8'6 full size and 8'0 compacts. I can find and forward
additional City standards if they are willing to consider other dimensions.
2. Required stall width is a function of aisle width, meaning wide stalls can have narrow aisles, and
narrow stalls can provide equal convenience (or Level of Service) with wider aisles.
a. Required stall widths can be reduced 1" for every 3" of additional aisle width.
b. CoLR requires 20' aisles for 9' spaces.
201 E. Markham St. 150 Little Rock, AR 72201
501.375.0378 T 501.375.6601 F
1. 8'-6 spaces with 18" additional inches of aisle width ( 21'6") would provide
equal convenience.
2. The current design provides 24' or better.
c. Col -R standards require 20' stall depths.
Cars are generally 16'- 17' long.
2. The Col -R standard requires useless striping behind vehicles at the expense of
aisles.
d. Col -R standards require, and the project provides, 60' bays or better.
In addition to Mr. Taylor's points, I would like to add that as a current occupant of the building and having
parked in this lot for years, the spaces in the proposed deck will be a vast improvement over the tight
dimensions of the existing lot.
Thank you for your consideration.
incerely,
Frank Barksdale, AIA
President
AMR Architects, Inc.
TABLE 9-1
PARKING LOT CRITERIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
Angle of
Parking
(degrees)
Width of
Stall
Depth of
Stall 90 to
Aisle
Width of Aisle
Width of
Stall
-Parallel to
Aisle
Module Width
One Way
Two Way
One Way
Two Way
Standard Parking Spaces
30
8'6"
16'
13'
--
17'
45'
--
30
9'
16'
12'
--
18'
44'
150'
--
45
8'6"
17'
16'
--
12'
--
45
9'
17'
14'
127
48'
--
60
8'6"
18'6"
17'
--
9110"
54'
--
60
9'
1816"
16'
--
1015"
53'
--
75
8'6"
18'6"
21'
--
8'10"
58'
—
75
9'
18'6"
18'
--
9'4"
55'
--
Compact Parking Spaces
45
7'6"
15'11 "
13'
18'
107'
45'
50'
60
17'6"
7'6"
16'8"
18'
--
8'8"
52'
75
16'5"
18'
--
7'10"
51'
--
90
7'6"
15'
--
18'
7'6"
--
48'
Parallel Parking Spaces
0
8'6"
8'6"
(Width)
12'6"
25'
22'
(Length)
30'
42'
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.: Z-8893
Owner: Flora Coldicott
Applicant: Stanley Schulte
Address: 5624 N. Grandview Road
Description: West half of Lots 4-6, Block 8, Parkview Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to
enclose an existing carport and cover and screen -in an existing deck 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
0
Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Building Codes Comments:
The required fire separation distance (building to property line) prescribed by the
building code terminates at five (5) feet. Buildings are allowed to be closer than
five (5) feet if they have properly constructed fire walls which provide the
requisite one (1) hour fire resistance rating. When buildings are five (5) feet or
more from the property line, the requirement no longer applies to the wall itself,
only the projections such as eaves or overhangs.
Openings such as doors and windows are limited when the exterior wall is three
(3) feet from the property line, and are prohibited when the exterior wall is less
than three (3) feet from the line. There is no restriction on openings when the
exterior wall is more than three (3) feet from the property line.
Contact the City of Little Rock Building Codes at 371-4832 for additional details.
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
C. Staff Analysis:
The R-3 zoned property at 5624 N. Grandview Road is occupied by a one-story
brick and frame single family residence. A one -car wide driveway from N.
Grandview Road is located at the southeast corner of the property. The driveway
leads to a one -car carport at the southeast corner of the house. The carport is
unenclosed on its north and south ends. A small raised deck area (approximately
12 feet by 12.5 feet) is located on the north end of the carport. The property
slopes downward from front to back. The front (southeast) corner of the carport is
approximately three (3) feet above grade, with the back (northeast) corner of the
deck being approximately seven (7) feet above grade. The existing carport and
raised deck have a three (3) foot setback from the east side property line.
The applicant proposes to enclose the existing carport to create additional living
space. The applicant is also proposing to cover and screen in the existing deck
structure. The proposed construction will maintain the existing three (3) foot side
setback.
Section 36-255(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
setback of five (5) feet for this R-3 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
a variance to enclose the existing carport, and cover and screen in the existing
deck area while maintaining the existing reduced side setback of three (3) feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as
reasonable. The alterations the applicant is proposing are relatively minor and will
come no closer to the east side of the property line than the existing three (3) foot
setback. There is approximately ten (10) feet of separation between the house in
question and the adjacent house to the east. Staff feels that the separation is
adequate. Staff believes the proposed alterations to the existing carport and deck
structures will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general
area.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance, subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Building Code requirements as noted in paragraph B.
of the staff report.
2. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent
property to the east.
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(November 25, 2013)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was approved.
CONTRACT
PROPOSAL •
� 1 Inc.
"A Name You Can 71hust Since 1945"
7905 Foxchase Road • Little Rock, AR 72227 3
(501) 224-0968 • CELL (501) 912-7674
For
Adc
20 L t
State ccs
TOTAL AMOUNT Balance of payment to be made as follows:
DEPOSIT
BALANCE
— Notice
It is understood that this company will not be responsible for any agreements, oral or written, or assumed made by anyone other than what Is written in agreement specification space above.
It is also understood that this comparry will not be responsible for any damage, delay or default caused by man or an act of God that is beyond our control.
All work and materials to be guaranteed to be as near as possible according to standard practices.
Customer: Mr
Representative
Accepted Mrs.
President, Schulte Construction, Inc.
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.: Z-8894
Owner/Applicant: Elizabeth Andreoli
Address: 72 Pine Manor Drive
Description: Lot 12, High Circle Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156
to allow an addition to an existing garage with reduced setbacks.
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
0
n.
C
Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
Building Codes Comments:
The required fire separation distance (building to property line) prescribed by the
building code terminates at five (5) feet. Buildings are allowed to be closer than
five (5) feet if they have properly constructed fire walls which provide the
requisite one (1) hour fire resistance rating. When buildings are five (5) feet or
more from the property line, the requirement no longer applies to the wall itself,
only the projections such as eaves or overhangs.
Openings such as doors and windows are limited when the exterior wall is three
(3) feet from the property line, and are prohibited when the exterior wall is less
than three (3) feet from the line. There is no restriction on openings when the
exterior wall is more than three (3) feet from the property line.
Contact the City of Little Rock Building Codes at 371-4832 for additional details.
Staff Analysis:
The R-3 zoned property at 72 Pine Manor Drive is occupied by a two-story single
family residence located within the west half of the property. A creek runs along
the front (west) property line. A two -car wide driveway from Pine Manor Drive is
located at the northwest corner of the lot. The driveway includes a small bridge
over the existing creek. A detached garage is located on the north side of the
house, near the northwest corner of the property. A covered walkway leads from
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.)
the detached garage to the house. A covered patio area is located on the north
side of the garage structure, with an in -ground pool in the rear yard area. The
property slopes upward from front to back.
The applicant proposes to enlarge the existing detached garage by constructing an
eight (8) foot wide addition to its north side, as noted on the attached site plan.
The addition will be located approximately 42 feet back from the front (west)
property line and 1.9 to two (2) feet back from the north side property line. The
addition will be one (1) story in height. The existing flat roof will be raised one (1)
to two (2) feet at the garage's south side to accommodate the increased garage
width. The addition is proposed to enlarge the garage for three (3) vehicles.
Section 36-156(a)(2)c. and f. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
front setback of 60 feet and a minimum side setback of three (3) feet for accessory
structures in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from
these ordinance standards to allow the addition to the existing garage with reduced
front and side setbacks.
Staff is supportive of the requested setback variances. Staff views the request as
reasonable. The residential lot contains a 40 foot platted front property line, with
the existing garage being located 40 to 42 feet back from the front property line.
With the covered walkway connection, the garage has the appearance of being
part of the principal structure. The property owner immediately to the north has
submitted a letter (attached) in support of the reduced side setback. The
residence immediately to the north is located at least 20 feet back from the dividing
side property line. Therefore, adequate separation will exist between the
structures. The proposed addition to the existing garage structure will consist of
only 230 square feet of new building construction. Staff believes the garage
addition with reduced setbacks will have no adverse impact on the adjacent
properties or the general area.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances, subject to
compliance with the Building Codes requirements as noted in paragraph B. of the
staff report.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(November 25, 2013)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was approved.
Elizabeth Andreoli
72 Pine Manor Drive
Little Rock, AR 72207
(501) 690-5069
elizabeth@andreolifirm.com
October 15, 2013
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Request for Residential Zoning Variance
To Whom It May Concern:
I am requesting a variance in the side setback to my residence to expand my garage. My
property is located at 72 Pine Manor Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72207; Lot 12, High Circle
Addition.
The current structure is a one-story, two -car garage, measuring 21.4 ft. wide x 28.7 ft.
long. I would like to extend the garage by 8 ft. toward the North -side property line for a third car
bay and storage area. The expansion would place the side of the garage within 2 ft. of the
neighboring property line. There is no easement between these two properties. The properties
are separated by an approximately 18 inch brick wall and a 6 ft. high wooden fence.
The neighboring property owner, Jerry Sullivan, has no objection to this expansion. I
have attached Mr. Sullivan's letter, a copy of the survey completed October 7, 2013, and
photographs of the current garage.
Respectfully
1
*1zath AndreoliOwner
cc: Mr. Jerry Sullivan
74 Pine Manor Drive
Little Rock, AR 72207
Enclosures
_
44+o
.,
,
E
5 t�
4Y
I�y
YY.'f
7
_
.,
,
E
INS
7
'1
?z
s%
S,.
October 15, 2013
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR
To Whom It May Concern:
-- 43
Elizabeth Andreoli, my next door neighbor at 72 Pine Manor Drive, wishes to extend her
garage to within two feet of the property line. I understand this will require a variance from the
Board of Adjustment.
I have discussed her plan with her and viewed the property. I have no objection to her
plan.
III
Jerry Sullivan
74 Pine Manor Drive
Little Rock, AR 72207
(501) 960-7050
cc: Elizabeth Andreoli
72 Pine Manor Drive
Little Rock, AR
(501) 690-5069
elizabeth@,andreolifirm.com
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z-8895
Owner: Duong Nguyen
Applicant: Horasio Gutierrez
Address: 6624 Colonel Glenn Road
Description: North side of Colonel Glenn Road, east of W. 36th Street
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-502
to allow use of the property with a reduced number of parking spaces.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Vacant Commercial Building
Proposed Use of Property: Sports Bar
STAFF REPORT
0
Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned property at 6624 Colonel Glenn Road is occupied by a one-story,
commercial building located near the center of the lot. The building contains
approximately 3,400 square feet of floor space. The property is located on the
north side of Colonel Glenn Road, east of W. 36th Street. A driveway from Colonel
Glenn Road serves as access to the property. A total of 15 paved parking spaces
exists on the site, along the east and south sides of the existing building.
The applicant proposes to convert the existing building to a "sports bar" use. The
proposed use will include televisions for sporting events, pool tables, a hockey
table and ping pong table. A live DJ and karaoke will take place on Friday and
Saturday nights. Drinks and small food items will be served.
Section 36-502(b)(3)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 34
on-site parking spaces for the proposed "sports bar" use. Therefore, the applicant
is requesting a variance to allow the proposed use of the property with a reduced
number of on-site parking spaces. The existing number of parking spaces
complies with ordinance standards for a retail -type use which previously existed on
the site. The applicant has a written, signed agreement with the owners of the
properties immediately east and west to use those existing parking areas. The
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.)
properties to the east and west contain office and retail uses which will be closed
the majority of the times when the sports bar will be open.
Staff does not support the requested variance for reduced parking. Staff does not
view the request as reasonable. The commercial building at 6624 Colonel Glenn
Road is located on a relatively small lot (approximately 0.28 acre), with the building
occupying almost 30 percent of the lot area. The parking which exists on the site
does not conform to ordinance standards with respect to design and maneuvering
area. The spaces are angled into the east side of the building. Vehicles have to
back out of these spaces and onto the adjacent property to the east to exit. Staff
feels that introducing a use such as a sports bar which will have an increased
demand for parking (as opposed to an office or small retail shop) will be
detrimental to the surrounding properties. Additionally, the adjacent properties to
the east and west contain paved parking areas which are not properly striped.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested parking variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(November 25, 2013)
Horasio Gutierrez was present, representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval.
Horasio Gutierrez addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that
he will have employees available to help park vehicles on his site and the adjacent
properties. He also explained that only a certain number of patrons will be allowed
inside the building.
Rajesh Mehta referred to the written agreement to use the parking on the adjacent
properties. He asked if a lease could be obtained for the adjacent parking. Mr.
Gutierrez indicated that he could probably obtain a lease. Mr. Mehta asked if the
parking on the site could be re -designed. Staff explained that a re -design would reduce
the number of spaces. The issue of parking design was briefly discussed. Staff
explained that the existing parking design was nonconforming.
The issue of alternate uses for the building and parking requirements was briefly
discussed.
Chairman Yates indicated non-support for the parking variance because a lease for the
adjacent parking did not exist. He explained that a lease for the parking on the adjacent
properties needed to be for a specific length of time.
Vice -Chair Smith asked if Mr. Gutierrez's proposed use was permitted in C-3 zoning.
Staff noted that it was. The issue was briefly discussed.
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.)
The issue of deferring the application was discussed. Debra Weldon, City Attorney,
noted that the Board could defer the application, on their own motion, in order to allow
time for more information to be submitted by the applicant. Mr. Gutierrez agreed to a
deferral.
There was a motion to defer the application to the January 27, 2014 agenda in order for
more information to be obtained. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The
application was deferred.
HORASIO GUTIERREZ
BILLAR EL 7 LETRAZ G o
6624 COLONEL GLENN RD O /
LITTLE ROCK, AR
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Billar El 7 Letraz
Billar El 7 Letrazs goal is to provide a safe and fun atmosphere for young adults where they will be able
to hang out with friends and have a good time. In order to accomplish this I will have large flat screen
TVs in every corner and a huge screen projector for a real life experience. No matter where you turn
you will be able to view whatever is on TV; this will make it the place to be when popular fights are going
on and any other sporting events. There will also be four pool tables, a hockey table and a ping pong
table for use. On Friday and Saturday nights there will be live DJ and karaoke for entertainment. I will
also have drinks and finger foods available at all times. There will be seating areas and lounge tables also
available. There aren't many places where young adults can go and hang out with friends. Being near a
university this will give students at the university the opportunity to go hang out with friends without
much driving distance. There will be security personnel escorting customers to their vehicle for safe
purposes. I have gone around talking to the community and asking for their opinions and interest in a
business of this type opening in the area and the responses have been great and they are excited to see
it finally opened for business. The businesses next to my building have agreed to let my customers use
their parking lot space after business hours providing more parking spaces for my customers. I am very
passionate with this project; providing this type of service and entertainment to the local community
has been a dream of mine. I have worked hard on putting together my ideas and what the market I'm
reaching out to wants.
I� give Horasio Gutierrez permission to use the parking space after
business hours and pick up any trash left behind by costumers.
Signature Date
� Si�1 t� C �� � len � Rs��- '� --13W4
Business address
give Horasio Gutierrez permission to use the parking space after
business hours and pick up any trash left behind by costumers.
xg� ZL&
ig ature Date
J� / 8 Co Inn =e
Business address
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.: Z-8896
Owner/Applicant: Brian Taylor
Address: 5908 Hawthorne Road
Description: Lot 3, Forest Heights Place Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to
allow an unenclosed 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
0
D
C
Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
Building Codes Comments:
The required fire separation distance (building to property line) prescribed by the
building code terminates at five (5) feet. Buildings are allowed to be closer than
five (5) feet if they have properly constructed fire walls which provide the
requisite one (1) hour fire resistance rating. When buildings are five (5) feet or
more from the property line, the requirement no longer applies to the wall itself,
only the projections such as eaves or overhangs.
Openings such as doors and windows are limited when the exterior wall is three
(3) feet from the property line, and are prohibited when the exterior wall is less
than three (3) feet from the line. There is no restriction on openings when the
exterior wall is more than three (3) feet from the property line.
Contact the City of Little Rock Building Codes at 371-4832 for additional details.
Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5908 Hawthorne Road is occupied by a two-story frame
single family residence. The property backs up to "V" Street right-of-way. A two -
car wide driveway from "V" Street leads to a garage on the north end of the house.
The applicant proposes to construct a 5.5 foot by 23 foot covered patio area at the
northeast corner of the house, as noted on the attached site plan. The covered
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.)
patio will be unenclosed on its north, south and east sides. It will be located two
(2) feet back from the east side property line. The covered patio will have a six (6)
inch overhang with guttering, which will tie into an existing French drain system.
The covered porch will have the same architectural style as the other existing
porches.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
setback of six (6) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
a variance to allow the covered porch with a reduced side setback.
Staff is supportive of the requested side setback variance. Staff views the request
as reasonable. The proposed covered patio will be a one-story, unenclosed
structure located within a fenced rear yard area. The applicant notes that it is
difficult to grow grass in the area where the patio is proposed and that the area
often stays muddy. Staff feels that the proposed covered, unenclosed patio is a
good solution, which will provide the applicant with additional useable rear yard
space. The house on the property immediately to the east is located
approximately seven (7) feet from the dividing side property line. Adequate
separation will exist between the two (2) houses. Staff believes the proposed
covered patio with reduced side setback will have no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties or the general area.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The covered patio must remain unenclosed on its north, south and east
sides.
2. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent
property to the east.
3. The covered porch must be constructed to match the architectural style of
the existing porches.
4. Compliance with the Building Codes requirements as noted in paragraph B.
of the Staff Report.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(November 25, 2013)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was approved.
October 29"', 2013
RE: Request for Zoning Variance at 5908 Hawthorne Road
To the Board of Adjustments:
I'm writing in regards to my application for a zoning variance at my residence at 5908 Hawthorne Road,
Little Rock, AR 72207. 1 would like to add a covered patio adjacent to my garage on the west side of my
residence. The patio will have pillars and a roof but no exterior walls. I'm requesting a zoning variance
as the proposed patio would extend closer to the property line than is normally allowed.
The proposed area for the addition next to my residence is currently unsightly and not useful. The
proposed addition will go in between my house and a privacy fence that separates my yard from my
neighbor's yard. The area is currently unable to grow grass due to overhang from nearby trees and roof
lines. The area is also muddy most of the time due to sitting down grade from my neighbor's yard and
lack of sun, making it difficult to even walk through the area. The addition will make the area look much
more attractive and will make it a more efficient use of space. With no walls, it will also be easy to pass
through the area as necessary without obstruction. There will be rear access to the patio from my rear
entry driveway as well as front access to the patio through a privacy fence gate.
The base of the structure will be a concrete slab that is 5'6" wide (extending from the house) and 23'
long (running adjacent to the house). The concrete slab will extend to 2' from the west property line.
The roof over the patio will connect to my residence. There will be an additional 6" of overhang beyond
the concrete slab in order to match the existing architecture of the house. The new roof will have a
gutter, which will directly connect to a french drain system that is currently in place in my front yard.
The architectural style of the roof will match my residence with attractive exposed rafters and the same
shingles. The addition will be minimally visible from the front of my residence as a privacy fence gate
and trees closer to the front of the house will block most view of the structure. The overall appearance
of the area will be considerably improved.
Please feel free to call me at 501-607-0528 with any questions. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Brian Taylor
Homeowner -5908 Hawthorne Road
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.: Z-8897
Owner/Applicant: Brady and Danielle Davis
Address: 10 Pine View Place
Description: Lots 6-8, Woodland Farm Estates Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to
allow a new residence with a reduced rear setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Lots
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 10 Pine View Place is comprised of three (3) platted
single family lots (Lots 6-8, Woodland Farm Estates). The lots are currently
undeveloped and partially tree covered. There is a retaining wall (approximately
12 foot tall) along the front (south) property line which was constructed when the
street was constructed. The property slopes upward from front to back, to a rock
outcropping near the center of the lots. The property then slopes downward to the
rear property line. The slope in the rear is less severe than the slope in the front.
There is a 20 foot wide utility easement which runs along the rear property line of
the lots and eight (8) foot easements which run along the dividing side property
lines. The lots contain a 25 foot platted front building line.
The applicant proposes to construct a new two-story residence on the property, as
noted on the attached site plan. Almost the entire residence will be constructed
within Lot 7, with a small portion of the garage extending onto Lot 6. Because of
the slope and rock outcropping, the house is proposed to be located in the rear
(north) half of the property. A rear setback ranging from seven (7) feet to 22.5 feet
is proposed. A proposed driveway will extend from Pine View Place along the side
and rear property line of Lot 6. A portion of the proposed house will be located
within the 20 foot utility easement at the rear of Lot 7 and the eight (8) foot
easements between Lots 7 and 6. The applicant has noted that if this application
is approved, he will file a separate application to abandon these portions of the
easements.
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
ITEM NO.: 6 (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 property. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow the new residence with a reduced rear setback.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as
reasonable. The slope and rock outcropping(s) within the front half to two-thirds of
the property make construction very difficult. The applicant has identified the area
of the property with the least severe slope to locate the new residence. The
property backs up to a rather wide platted green space/open space. The green
space/open space is approximately 130 feet to 150 feet wide. Therefore, the
proposed house will not back up to another single family lot. Staff's support is
based on the applicant following-up with a request to abandon the portions of the
easements the proposed house encroaches into. Otherwise, staff believes the
proposed reduced setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties
or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, subject to the
easements which the proposed structure encroaches upon being abandoned or
partially abandoned.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(November 25, 2013)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the December 16,
2013 agenda based on the fact that the applicant did not complete the required
notifications to surrounding property owners. All signatures from surrounding property
owners were obtained late.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the December 16, 2013
agenda as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The
application was deferred
Dear Board Member,
Thank you for considering our request. We would like to reduce the rear building setback line on lots
6&7 to 7' or 5'. This lot while having beautiful views and trees has several significant topographical
challenges to building as well as a major natural feature that we would like to retain. This lot, which is
actually comprised of 3 lots (8,10,12 pineview cove), has three very difficult features which make us
have to request this variance. First, there is a 12 —16' retaining wall which runs completely in front of
each lot along the street except for 10' at either end. This is because the front slope of each lot is
extremely steep and virtually unbuildable. The front slope rises up to a crest on each lot. This crest is
formed by a solid rock ridge that runs almost the length of the three lots. The ridge is 20'-25' in width.
The rear slope of the lot is more gentle and allows for construction. Originally, we thought the lot lines
were much farther behind the rock ridge, but upon survey, found we were mistaken. There is a large,
treed buffer behind the area where we have requested the setback reduction. We believe this to be a
green belt platted by the original developer of the area. Because of this buffer, we feel there would be
little to no effect on neighboring property owners. I encourage you to go look at this site. Thank you for
your consideration.
Thank You
Brady & Danielle Davis
O
U
W
w
W
H
O
H
Z
LU
Cl) '
Q
L
O
Q e
O
m
V
Q
N
FW -
Q
0
NOVEMBER 25, 2013
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:28 p.m.
Date: