boa_02 27 2012LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27,2012
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 January 30,2012 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
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
AGENDA
FEBRUARY 27,2012
2:00 P.M.
I.OLD BUSINESS:
A.Z-8738 614 President Clinton Avenue
11.NEW BUSINESS:
1.Z-5539-A 5300 Hawthorne Road
2.Z-8742 1706 Lilac Circle
3.Z-8743 1600 N.Grant Street
4.Z-8744 1923 Alden Lane
5.Z-8745 5415 Sherwood Road
6.Z-8746 SE Corner of W.10'"Street and MLK Drive
7.Z-8747 17 Glenleigh Drive
8.Z-8748 49 Pine Manor Drive
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO.:A
File No.:Z-8738
Owner:Dennis Long
Applicant:James O'rien
Address:614 President Clinton Avenue
Description:North side of President Clinton Avenue,east of Sherman Street
Zoned:UU
Variance Requested:Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-353
and the development provisions of Section 36-342.1/36-553 to allow a projecting sign with
increased projection from a building and reduced setback from property lines.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property;Restaurant
Proposed Use of Property;Restaurant
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B.staff Analsis:
The UU zoned property 614 President Clinton Avenue is occupied by a two-story
brick commercial building which houses Juanita's restaurant.The two-story
structure is located approximately 20 feet back from the south property line.An
elevated walkway extends from the sidewalk along President Clinton Avenue to the
second (upper)level of the restaurant.The first level of the building is below street
level.There are two (2)narrow wing walls along the east and west side property
lines,extending from the building to the front (south)property line.
The applicant proposes to install a projecting sign on the south end of the east
wing wall,as noted on the attached photo/sketch.The sign will be approximately
20 square feet in area and overhang the sidewalk.The sign will be located 12 feet
above the sidewalk and extend from the building 5 feet —8 inches.As noted
previously,the east wing wall is located on the east side property line.
Section 36-353(e)(1)c.of the City's Zoning Ordinance (River Market Design
Overlay District)allows projecting signs to extend a maximum of three (3)feet from
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO 'CON'T.
the face of a building.Section 36-553(b)requires that projecting signs be set back
at least five (5)feet from any property line.Therefore,the applicant is requesting
variances from these ordinance requirements to allow the projecting sign with an
increased projection from the building and a decreased setback from the east side
property line,extending across the front (south)property line.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances to allow the projecting sign.Staff
views the request as reasonable.The front wall of the restaurant building is set
back at least 20 feet from the front property line,with the buildings on either side
being on the property line.Additionally,other buildings further west are located
along the street side property line.Therefore,the projecting sign as proposed will
not be out of character with other projecting signs in the River Market area.The
River Market Design Review Committee reviewed the proposed sign on January
10,2012.The Committee approved the sign with the following condition:
a.The bottom of the sign must be at least 13 feet above the sidewalk.
C.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variances,subject to the
following conditions:
1.The bottom of the sign must be at least 13 feet above the sidewalk.
2.A sign permit must be obtained.
3.A franchise permit must be obtained from the Public Works department.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(January 30,2012)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the February 27,
2012 agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to correctly notify the
surrounding property owners.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 27,2012
agenda with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(February 27,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff,
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
kz-a
~~a'r
4iN0
674 Preerdenr Clmron Avenue Luae Rock,AR 722V1 pk:(30/)372-1228
To Whom It May Concern:
The Little Rock sign ordinance (e)Projecting Signs,(I)Location,(c)states "Projecting
signs shall extend a maximum of three (3)feet from the face of the building.We would
propose that the sign be allowed to protrude from the front of the building,5 feet 8 inches
instead of the normal 3 feet.The sign that we are using is designed to be able to be seen
from a distance,since we are at the end of the River Market.This is the same variance
previously approved for the Flying Fish and the Big Whiskey's signs.There is an
ordinance stating that signs must be at least 5 feet froin the property line.We would
propose we be given a variance on the sign ordinance requiring the sign to be at least five
feet from the edge of the property line.The sign cannot be mounted on a pole,and there
is no building present in front of the restaurant on the street,therefore the only way that
the sign can be mounted is on the front of the brick wall that belongs to the Restaurant.
Sincerely,
J es O'rien
Rivere&~Frank Porbeck,Chairman
Larry Jacimore,Vice-Chairman
Design Terry Burruss,Member
Review Presley Melton,Member
Jim Rice,Member
Committee
Planning and Development ~723 W.Markham o Little Rock,Arkansas 72201 ~501-371-4790 ~fax 501-399-3435
January 18,2012 2-s'vs
s'oardofAdjustment
723 West Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
Re:614 President Clinton Avenue,Juanita's
Chairman and Members,
The River Market DRC met on 10,2012 and reviewed the signage at 614 President Clinton
Avenue for Juanita's.The DRC did approve the projecting sign with one condition.The motion
was made to approve the signage with an installation height of thirteen feet (13')clearance
above the sidewalk The applicant stated in the DRC meeting that the sign was to be a
temporary sign and offered that there be a time limit.The final vote was 3 yes,1 noes and 1
abstention.
Brian Minyard
River Market DRC Staff
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO.:1
File No.:Z-5539-A
Owner:Charles and Nancy Banks
Applicant:Carolyn Lindsey
Address:5300 Hawthorne Road
Description:Lot 1,Block 5,Newton's Addition
Zoned:R-2
Variance Requested:Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 and the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a porch addition with reduced
front (steps only)and side setbacks,and 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:
No Comments
B.Buildin 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.
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO.:1 CON'T.
C.~Staff Anal sis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5300 Hawthorne Road is occupied by a one-story frame
single family residence.The property is located at the northwest corner of
Hawthorne Road and N.Harrison Street.There is a driveway from N.Harrison
Street at the northeast corner of the lot.There is a one-car wide carport at the
north end of the residence.
The applicant proposes to construct a front porch addition,as noted on the
attached site plan.The porch addition will be approximately 10 feet deep,and
span the entire width of the house.The proposed porch will be covered and
unenclosed.It will be located 25 feet back from the front (south)property line and
maintain the same three (3)foot side (east)setback as the existing residence.
Steps to the porch will be located approximately 21 feet back from the front (south)
property line.The applicant also proposes to construct a new fence along the west
side property line,also noted on the attached site plan.The fence will be
constructed of wood,with a height of eight (8)feet.
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 36-254(d)(2)requires a minimum
side setback of five (5)feet.Section 36-516(e)(1)a.allows a maximum fence
height of six (6)feet for fences located along interior property lines.Therefore,the
applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the front
steps with a setback of approximately 21 feet,the porch addition with a side
setback of three (3)feet and an eight (8)foot high wood fence along the west side
property line.
Staff supports the requested setback and fence variances.Staff views each
request as being very minor in nature.The uncovered/unenclosed porch steps will
be the only encroachment into the required front yard setback.The property is
located along Hawthorne Road which has a extra wide right-of-way of 80 feet,30
feet wider than the typical residential street right-of-way.The proposed three (3)
foot side setback for the porch addition will maintain the same side setback as the
house.The porch will be unenclosed which will produce a minimal visual impact
for the surrounding properties.The reduced side setback will be located along N.
Harrison Street which handles a small amount of traffic and serves as a back
entrance to the St.John's development.With respect to the fence height variance,
the proposed eight (8)foot high fence will not be out of character with other similar
fences and decorative walls throughout this neighborhood.Staff believes the
proposed porch/step addition and fence construction will have no adverse impact
on the adjacent properties or the general area.
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO:1 CON'T
D.Staff Recommendation.
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and fence height variances,
subject to the following conditions:
1.The porch addition must remain unenclosed.
2.The front steps must remain uncovered and unenclosed.
3.The porch addition must be constructed to match the existing residence.
4.Compliance with the Building Codes requirements as noted in paragraph
B.of the staff report.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(February 27,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff,
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
Yeary Lindsey Architects
Mr.Monte Moore January 30,2012
Department of Neighborhoods and Planning
723 West Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201 2-5531-e
RE:Zoning Variance Application for
Banks Residence,5300 Hawthorne,Little Rock,AR 72207
Dear Monte,
This project consists of a breakfast room and side porch addition to the west within the
buildable area of the lot,column replacement at an existing rear carport,second floor addition
and a new porch across the entire front of the house.We are requesting a zoning variance to
allow the following:
1)Reduced east side 5'-0"setback to allow the front porch to extend the entire
length of the front elevation.
2)Reduced front setback to allow a 3'-0"encroachment for the portion of the front
porch steps that are greater than 12 inches above grade
3)Installation of an 8 ft.high fence on the Banks'roperty between their house and
the neighbor to the west running along the property line,jogging around existing
trees and turning east to connect to the house just behind the new front porch.
Our new front porch is proposed to extend south to the front setback line allowing for a 10'-0"
deep porch the entire width of the house which will allow for enough furniture to use as a true
sitting porch.The eastern 2'-0"of the current dining room were originally built across the
setback.In order for the porch to look authentic and appropriate,it should extend the entire
width of the house.
Hawthorne has an 80'ight-of-way making the front setback line approximately 50'-0"from the
street edge.Two out of the other three houses on this side of the block have built up to the
front setback with their porch (or their house),but their floor lines are closer to grade and
therefore do not have an issue with steps higher than 12"above grade.It is our opinion that
this porch addition with the slight front setback encroachment for the steps supports and
enhances the existing scale and character of Hawthorne,while in no way compromising
vehicular sight lines.
Also,the house has a beautiful courtyard in the center,but with the higher floor line than their
immediate neighbor to the west and the windows focusing on that area it is necessary to have
an 8'-0"high fence to have any privacy at all.Our plan is to grow ivy on the fence to make it a
"green"edge of the courtyard.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Carolyn A.indsey,AIA
3416 Old Cantrell Road Little Rock,Arkansas 72202 501-372-5940 Fax:501-663-0043
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO.:2
File No.:Z-8742
Owner/Applicant:James Jackson
Address:1706 Lilac Circle
Description:Lot 3,Riverside Addition
Zoned:R-3
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:
No Comment
B.~fftaff Anal ata:
The R-3 zoned property at 1706 Lilac Circle is occupied by a one-story frame
single family residence.There is a one-car wide driveway at the southeast corner
of the property.The property is located on the west side of Lilac Circle and backs
up to Cantrell Road,which runs along the rear (west)property line.There is a
large drainage structure within the rear (west)portion of the property.
The rear yard is enclosed with wood fencing of varying heights.Between the
southwest corner of the house and the south side property is an eight (8)to 8.5
foot high wood fence (six (6)feet of solid wood,with two (2)feet of lattice above).
A six (6)foot high wood fence is located along the south side property line.A
wood fence ranging in height from 6.5 to 7.5 feet is located parallel to the rear
(west)property line.Because of the drainage structure,this fence section is set in
approximately 15 feet from the rear property line.The fence is six (6)feet of solid
wood,with lattice below.This is to allow water to flow under the fence.The same
type of fence is located along the north side property line,ranging in height from
7.5 to eight (8)feet,and tying into the northwest corner of the house.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a.of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence
height of six (6)feet for fences located along interior lot lines and four (4)feet for
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO:2 CON'T.
fences located between a building setback line and street right-of-way.Therefore,
the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the
increased fence heights as noted.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance.Staff views the request as
reasonable.The combination of the traffic noise along Cantrell Road and the
drainage issues in this area create the need for the fence heights as exists on the
site.The applicant has experienced flooding problems in the past,and the lattice
at the bottom of the fence allows the flow of water across the rear yard area.The
proposed fence heights are not out of character with other fences and decorative
walls along Cantrell Road,within rear yards of residences.Staff believes the fence
heights,as existing,have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the
general area.
C.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance,as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(February 27,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff,
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
Wz
JANUARY 30,2012 V —F'7'f2-
JAMES M.JACKSON (HOME OWNER)
1706 LILAC CIRCLE
LITTLE ROCK,AR 72202
661-9822
TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
ALL FENCES ARE WELL OFF PROPERTY LINES THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED WITH TWO FEET OF TRELLIS UNDERNEATH TO STOP
EXCESSIVE FLASH FLOOD DRAIN WATER FROM DAMAGING FENCES
AND FLOODING HOUSE.
FENCE ON CANTRELL ROAD IS DOWN IN EXCESSIVE SLOPE ALONG
ROADSIDE.THE FENCE IS STAGGERED ALONG TERRAIN AND IS
ONLY 0-3'BOVE LEVEL OF ROAD,EASILY LOOKED OVER AND
WELL OFF PROPERTY LINE.
PROPERTY IS FULLY LANDSCAPED,EVERYTHING IS DESIGNED TO
BLEND IN WITH LANDSCAPE TO BE NON-OFFENSIVE.
SECURITY IS NEEDED ON CANTRELL SIDE OF PROPERTY TO STOP
PEDESTRIAN:.'TRAFFIC FROM ENTERING NEIGHBORHOOD,ELIMINATE
BREAK-INS AND VEHICLE/WRECKS ENTERING PROPERTY.
SINCERELY,
JAMES MICHAEL JACKSON9m~A).~
z-gad Z-
((~qs~~)/,:Wc
L &(36)-Ok~~i 1
z.P&y'r-Sv
as3&z c i=p~,03'-c (e~
/7''/L.&L4 C CzC,
P»e~~c&~a iz ~7 74 Prc~l 7
ffzr C ~l92'Sy+g o ghee L ~47$g Tp
j 4~3 VWi3iz,'c F'E~ClL,
~g~(g C)j,l3 t J~.g «5
5/j ~z ~44,
~.3.L -g7d.W/7~,
i-gg3-&&~l
January 26,2012 Z -S702-
P/~~y g~k)
To whom it may Concern,
We are Bill and Dawn Anderson.We are new homeowners at 1722 Lilac Circle.We
have been here for 10 months and love the neighborhood and the people.We understand
that someone Iiom your office has received a call with a complaint about a designer
petition at 1706 Lilac Circle owned by James Michael Jackson.The complaint is about a
designer pefltion that is more than 6 feet tall.It was legal at 6 feet but the flooding
washed it out and knocked it down twice,therefore,he raised it to help the situation with
everyone involved in the flood drain area which we are a part of.Part of the complaint
was the font part being raised as welk This was necessary to make it all look the same
height instead of jagged.
In addition,this petition helps block the noise coming off Cantrell Road.
This petition is part of the landscape,is well kept and looks very nice on Mr.Jackson's
property.We feel it helps the looks of the area and appreciates the area not depreciate it.
This complaint should be dismissed as it is not a legitimate complaint.
Your attention in this matter is greatly appreciated.
S'etel,
Bill and Dawn Anderson
January 26,2012 a-pv 9z(i ~g ~~4)
Regarding:Complaint against Michael Jackson at 1706 Lilac Circle,Riverdale Subdivision
Dear City of Little Rock,
This letter is in response to concern from Mr.Michael Jackson about a complaint filed against him for a
fence into his back yard being too high.We have owned the home across the street at 1705 Lilac Circle
since 1997.I believe Michael Jackson to be a reliable neighbor who looks out for others.
Regarding legality,it is my understanding that there are ordinances on fence height,and also possible
variances.I question if the fence is beyond what ordinances allow.
Further,I believe the reasoning for creating these ordinances is to regulate property values,maintain
safety of citizens and to maintain general aesthetics of neighborhoods.Mr.Jackson's home is one of the
most attractive homes on Lilac Circle.It is very well maintained and thoughtfully landscaped.As a
neighbor,it never crossed my mind that the fence is the cause of anything threatening the safety of
others.It actually creates a bit of a sound barrier for him and his next-door neighbor from the noise on
Cantrell Road directly behind Mr.Jackson.
I understand the complaint was filed by the man next door to me,whom has not maintained the
property value of his home nor surrounding homes.There are at all times five or more cars in his front
yard,most not being used as well as a very unkempt yard with rotting storage buildings.It would be out
of character for this neighbor to be concerned with aesthetics,property value or even safety.
This letter is to request there be no action against Michael Jackson as a result of this complaint,as he
has been a leader in caring for neighbors and this aging neighborhood.
enny and Kevin Withrow
(l-W &'vr ~)
To whom it may concern:February 2,2012
As a resident of the Lilac Circle neighborhood,I must tell you of my acquaintance with J.Michael
Jackson,I have lived in the house at 1740 Lilac Circle for almost 6 years.J.Michael introduced himself
to me and my family as soon as we moved in.I have always known him to be friendly and courteous.
He is a great neighbor.Not only does he keep his yard raked,mowed,and well-groomed,he has some
fine landscaping which gives great curb appeal to his home.He is a conscientious homeowner.
J.Michael recently mentioned an issue he is dealing with regarding the fence in the back of his
house.I understand he built it up or raised it to allow water to flow under.This is because of prior
incidents of flooding in the backyard and into the home.I want you and other concerned parties to
know that if he completes any projects at his house,it is with the best interest of his property in mind as
well as that of the neighborhood.
If you have any questions,please call me at 681-2452.
Thank you,
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO.:3
File No.;Z-8743
Owner/Applicant:Chris Huddleston
Address:1600 N.Grant Street
Description:Lot 5,Block 25,Mountain Park Addition
Zoned:R-2
Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156
to allow construction of a detached garage with reduced street 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 Comment
B.Buildin 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.
C.~Staff Anal ala:
The R-2 zoned property at 1600 N.Grant Street is occupied by a one-story frame
single family residence.The property is located at the northwest corner of N.
Grant Street and aOa Street.A 20 foot wide alley right-of-way is located along the
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO 'CON'T.
rear (west)property line.A 20 foot by 20 foot concrete slab is located at the
southwest corner of the lot.A garage accessory structure which previously existed
at this corner of the lot was recently removed due to its poor condition.
The applicant proposes to construct a new one-story garage structure on the
existing slab,as noted on the attached site plan.The proposed garage will be
located 3,4 to 4 feet back from the south,street side property line.It will have a
setback of approximately one (1)foot from the rear (west)property line,along the
alley right-of-way.
Section 36-156(a)(2)c.of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 15 foot
street side setback for accessory buildings in R-2 zoning.Therefore,the applicant
is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement to allow the accessory
garage structure to be re-built with a street side (south)setback ranging from 3.4 to
4 feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance.Staff views the request as
reasonable.The proposed accessory building will not be out of character with
other similar structures in the area.The accessory structure will be fairly in line
with the accessory structure across the alley to the west,and the single family
residence across N.Grant Street to the east.The proposed setback will allow
room for vehicles to back out of the structure."0"street at this location carries a
very small amount of traffic.Additionally,the property is located across "0"Street
from a large office complex.Staff believes the proposed accessory building with
reduced street side setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties
or the general area.
D.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested street side setback,subject to
compliance with the Building Codes requirements as noted in paragraph B.of the
staff report.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(February 27,2012)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the March 26,
2012 agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to correctly notify the
surrounding property owners.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 26,2012
agenda with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
19Januttry 2012
Zornug turd 1'.nforccmcnt Administrator
City of Litde Rock
723 West Markham St,1"Floor
Little Rock,AR 72201-1334
Dear Mr.Mo&&rc and whom ii.may&on&em,
I,Chris Huddleston,resident and owner of the property at 1600 North Grant.Street,Little Rock,Arkansas,request a
variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in regards to a detached garage with access fiom 0 SneeL At the
fime of purchase,a detached garage was already present on the property.Upon further review after my purchase,I decided
the garage needed to be rebuilt.To comply with the Zoning Ordinance,the new garage must be built 15 feet from the
property line adjacent 0 Street.
A gatay:was present at this location on the property at the time of purchase.I cannot say when the garage was built,
however,do to the poor construction and the additions on the rest of the house,I would estimate the garage was built some
time after the house was completed.The entrance to the garage would be greater than once car length from the roadside.I
understand the 15-foot rule is intended to have sullicient room to check both directions when pulling out of thc garage.I
believe,given the lack of obstructions to the view,and a lack of trallic on thc road,less than 15-feet tom the property line is
acceptable.Also,of note,is the lack of traffic on 0 Sueet.In my own observation,most the uallic on 0 Street is residential
traffic,not related to the Prospect Buildittg.Most trallic headurg to/from the Prospect Building transits on Grant St or exits
from the property's entrance/exit on University Avc.
Chris I 1uddlcslou
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO.:4
File No.:Z-8744
Owner/Applicant:Ernest Autrey
Address:1923 Alden Lane
Description:Lot 12,Block 3,Forest Park Addition
Zoned;R-4
Variance Requested:Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
156 to allow a deck addition to an existing accessory building with reduced side and
street side setbacks,and an increased rear yard coverage.
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 Comment
S.~fftaff Anal sls:
The R-4 zoned property at 1923 Alden Lane is occupied by a one-story frame
single family residence located within the west half of the property.The property is
located at the southeast corner of Alden Lane and Richard B.Hardie Drive.A one-
story accessory building is located within the east half of the property,in the rear
yard area.There are no driveways to the property.On-street parking is allowed
along both street frontages.
The applicant recently constructed an eight (8)foot wide wood deck on the north
and west sides of the accessory building,as noted on the attached site plan.The
deck is located approximately three (3)feet above grade.It is unenclosed with an
arbor above.The deck is located 13 feet back from the north street side property
line and 1.5 feet back from the south side property line.The deck in combination
with the accessory building occupies 38 percent of the required rear yard area
(rear 25 feet of the lot).
Sections 36-156(a)(2)c.and f.of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
street side setback of 15 feet and a minimum interior side setback of three (3)feet.
Section 36-156(a)(2)c.also allows a maximum rear yard coverage of 30 percent
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO.:4 CON'T.
(rear 25 feet of the lot).Therefore,the applicant is requesting variances from
these ordinance standards to allow the accessory deck structure with a street side
setback of 13 feet,an interior side setback of 1.5 feet,and a rear yard coverage of
38 percent.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances.Staff views the request as
reasonable.The residential lot is adjacent to a large church/school facility across
Richard B.Hardie Drive to the north,with a paved church parking lot immediately
to the east.The deck represents a relatively minor addition to the existing
accessory building.There are other equally large accessory buildings within this
general residential neighborhood.Staff believes the requested deck with reduced
setbacks and increased rear yard coverage will have no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties or the general area.
C.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with the deck
construction,subject to the following conditions:
1.The deck must contain no solid roof structure.
2.The deck must remain unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(February 27,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions.
Vice-Chairman Smith noted that the applicant had been a client of his in the past,but he
had no financial interest in the subject property/proposal.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff,
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
pagezof4
z4~~V
z-r z&V
Proposal:I am proposing that:
1.The deck extend 1.7feet into the 15 foot setback from the Northern
property line parallel to Hardie Dr.
2.The deck extend 6 feet into the 25 foot setback from the East property line
adjacent to the church parking lot.
3.That a stair be allowed to extend from the Eastern portion of the deck an
additional 5 feet into the 25 foot setback.
Reasoning and Justification:
1.The nominal length of lumber is 8 feet.The width of the deck (8 feet)is
built to accommodate this length.This dimension allows for placement of patio
furniture giving space for walkways and placement of plants and other
accessories (heaters,sculptures etc.)
2.The justification of the eastern extension is twofold.The 25 foot setback
boundary is in the existing building's door.To utilize this door the deck must
extend east.In addition to the door,a beautiful Black Walnut tree,which I took
care to save,makes it difficult to use the door without extending the deck.(See
Picture)
3.The proximity of the main house structure to the deck does not allow an
exit from the home addition away from the main house in case of fire or need.My
hope is that my mother (age 82)will utilize this area.She needs to have ease of
access and alternatives to exit her dwelling.
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO.:5
File No.:Z-8745
Owner:John and Anne Emerson
Applicant:Eugene P.Levy,Cromwell AE
Address:5415 Sherwood Road
Description:Lot 1,Villareal's Replat of Lot 188 and part of Lot 187,Prospect
Terrace No.3 Addition
Zoned:R-2
Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254
to allow a building 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 Comment
B.Buildin 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.
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO.:5 CON'T
C.~fftaff Anat sis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5415 Sherwood Road is occupied by a three-story
frame single family residence.The property slopes downward from front to back
(north to south).The house has the appearance of being one (1)to 1 "l~stories in
height from the street level.There is a two-car wide driveway from Sherwood
Road at the northwest corner of the lot.There is a two-car wide carport at the west
end of the residence,The lot contains a 20 foot front platted building line.
The applicant proposes to remove the carport portion of the residence and
construct a two-story garage at the west end of the house,as noted on the
attached site plan.The proposed garage will be located four (4)feet to six (6)feet
from the west side property line.The proposed addition will have a two-car garage
on the first level and a library on the second floor.The addition will be located well
behind the front platted building line,approximately 38 feet back from the front
(north)property line.
Section 36-254(d)(2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
setback of eight (8)feet for this R-2 zoned lot.Therefore,the applicant is
requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement to allow the garage addition
with a side (west)setback ranging from four (4)to six (6)feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested side setback variance.Staff views the request
as reasonable.The slope of the property limits the amount of available buildable
area on the lot.The applicant is proposing to construct the garage slightly wider
than the existing carport to accommodate today's vehicular widths.The proposed
side setback will allow more than adequate separation between the garage
addition and the residence to the west.The residence to the west is set back over
20 feet from the dividing side property line,with a very wide driveway/parking area
separating the two (2)structures.Staff believes the proposed 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 building addition being constructed to match the existing
residence.
2.Compliance with the Building Codes requirements as noted in
paragraph B.of the staff report.
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO 'CON'T
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(February 27,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff,
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
Janus'0,2012
Board of Adjustment z4 +5
Department of Planning and Development,
City of Little Rock 2 —s mfa
723 W.Markham,Little Rock,AR,72201
Re:Application for Residential Zoning Variance at 5415 Sherwood Road
Dear Board Members:
At our residence at 5415 Sherwood Road,we request a variance from Zoning Ordnance 36-254
for a reduction of the side yard setback to four feet (4').A site plan,elevation,and an aerial
photo of existing conditions are enclosed to assist in visualizing the geometry.
We are proposing to construct a 2-story addition on the west side of our house.The addition will
contain a 2-car garage on the first floor,replacing the existing 2-car catport,and will provide a
library on the second floor The exisfing carport is so narrow that the side clearances are not
adequate for today's sized vehicles;and if sidewalls were to be installed on the carport to make it
a garage,the side clearances would be totally inadequate to allow for reasonable access to the
cars.If we can be authorized to construct the west wall of the new gatage/library addition to
within 4'f the west property line,the garage width will be adequate for normal use.
A 4 foot side yard setback in this location will not,in any manner,adversely affect our neighbor,
or the neighborhood,because there will be no significant change in factors affecting light,air,
visibility,and fire separation.There is an approximately 10'ide evergreen landscaped buffer
area immediately west of the west property line,and a wide concrete driveway exists on our
neighbor's property beyond the buffered landscaped area.Our western neighbor's house is
approximately 50 feet from our common property line.This condition places our proposed
addition more than 50'rom the western next-door house structure.
We have discussed the project with our western neighbor,and he has no objection to the proposed
addition.All neighbors within 200 ft will be notified.
Thank you for considering this request.
ohn and Anne Emerson Eugene P.Levy,F IA,.gent
5415 Sherwood Rd
Little Rock,AR,72207
501-907-2555:John
501-603-9778:Anne
enclosed:Application for zoning variance,affidavit,and 6 copies of survey
rv-tanz y atttt.art4g semcrl.
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO.:6
File No.:Z-8746
Owner:Shreeji Krupa Equity Group
Applicant:Kunal Mody
Address:SE Corner of W.10"Street and Martin Luther King Drive
Description:West 100 feet of Lots 1,2 and 2,Block 405,Lincoln Addition
Zoned:C-3
Variance Requested:Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
301 and the parking provisions of Section 36-502 to allow construction of a
restaurant/office building with reduced rear and street side setbacks and a reduced
number of parking spaces.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Vacant
Proposed Use of Property:New Restaurant /Office Building
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B.Buffer and Landsca e Issues:
1.Site plan must comply with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2.The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this site.Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6)inch caliper or
larger.
C.~Staff Anal ala:
The C-3 zoned property at the southeast corner of W.10'"Street and Martin Luther
King Drive contains a vacant residential structure located within the south half of
the property.A building which once contained a funeral home use was recently
removed from the north half of the property.There is a small amount of paving
within the northeast quarter of the property.
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO 'CON'T
The applicant proposes to redevelop the site and construct a new two-story
restaurant/office building within the east half of the property,as noted on the
attached site plan.The first floor will contain 2,000 square feet and house a
"Subway"restaurant.The second floor will have 2,100 square feet and contain
offices.The building will be located 49.5 feet back from the front (west)property
line,18.5 feet from the rear (east)property line,13.67 to 15 feet from the north
street side property line and 57.5 feet back from the south side property line.A
small area of outdoor seating will be located on a patio area (approximately 375
square feet)on the north end of the building,along the W.10'"Street frontage.
The proposed building will have a drive-thru window on its east side.
The applicant is proposing three (3)driveways to serve the development.The
main drive will be from MLK Drive at the southwest corner of the property.Two (2)
exit drives will be located along the W.10'"Street frontage.Paved parking will be
on the south and west sides of the building.A total of 14 parking spaces is
proposed.The driveway on the east side of the building will serve the drive-thru
window.This drive will allow stacking of seven (7)or eight (8)vehicles on the site.
Landscaped areas will be located along all property boundaries.The Public Works
Department has approved all driveway locations.
The applicant is requesting three (3)variances with the proposed development.
The first variance is from Section 36-301(e)(2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance,
which requires a minimum 25 foot street side setback for structures in C-3 zoning.
The applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement to allow the building
with a street side (north)setback of 13.67 to 15 feet.
Section 36-301(e)(3)requires a minimum rear (east)setback of 25 feet.The
applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the
building with a rear (east)setback of 18.5 feet.
The final variance is from Section 36-502(b)(2)/(3)of the code which requires a
minimum of 28 off-street parking spaces for this office/restaurant development.
The applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement by
providing 14 paved off-street parking spaces for the proposed office/restaurant
building.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances.Staff views the request as
reasonable.Staff is viewing the development as urban in nature,very similar to
the restaurant developments along Broadway.The property is located a short
distance from the UU zoning district (across 1-630 to the north),which requires no
specific building setbacks (in most cases)or minimum off-street parking.This
property is located across MLK Drive from the very large Arkansas Children'
Hospital campus and a half block from State DHS offices.The applicant
anticipates that a large amount of the restaurant business will be walk-up traffic
from these surrounding developments.Staff concurs with this anticipation.
Additionally,there will be stacking space for seven (7)or eight (8)vehicles on the
site which will serve the drive-thru window.Staff feels that it is appropriate to allow
more urban development standards for this property,with the reduced setbacks
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO.:6 CON'T.
and parking.Staff believes this proposed development will have no adverse
impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.Staff will suggest tying the
parking variance to this proposed restaurant use (Subway)only,as other
restaurant uses could possibly produce more traffic than a "Subway"restaurant.If
the restaurant use changes to a different brand,the parking variance must be
brought back to the Board of Adjustment for review.
D.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested building setback and parking
variances,subject to the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
2.The number of seats within the area of outdoor seating must not exceed
50 percent of the number of seats inside the restaurant.
3.The parking variance will be for the "Subway"restaurant use only.If at
any time the restaurant brand changes,the parking variance must be
brought back to the Board of Adjustment for review.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(February 27,2012)
Alim Muhammad and Ron Woods were present,representing the application.There
were three (3)objectors present.Staff presented the application with a
recommendation of approval.
Ron Woods addressed the Board in support of the application.He explained the
proposed use of the property.He noted that the site plan complied with the Public
Works requirements.
Kent Taylor and Lori Howard,of Arkansas Children's Hospital,addressed the Board in
opposition.Mr.Taylor explained that he was not opposed to the proposed use,but had
concerns with traffic and its impact on the area.He explained that the drive-thru could
back-up onto Martin Luther King Drive.Ms.Howard explained that there was a crossing
guard at the corner of W.10'"Street and Martin Luther King Drive in the mornings to
serve the school across W.10'"Street.She further discussed the issue of traffic related
to the school use.She also questioned where the employees of the office and
restaurant uses would park.
Jim Whitaker also addressed the Board with concerns.Mr.Woods met with Mr.
Whitaker in the hallway to discuss the project.After re-entering the hearing,Mr.
Whitaker noted that he was not opposed to the project and left the hearing.
Chairman Yates asked about the Public Works issues with the application.Nathan
Charles,of Public Works,noted that Bill Henry (Traffic Engineer)had approved the
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO 'CON'T.
proposed site plan.Monte Moore,of the Planning Staff,explained that Mr.Henry had
signed-off on the proposed plan.
Mr.Woods explained that the site was a challenging property and felt that the site plan
was appropriate.He noted that he relied on the traffic engineer's review of the issue of
traffic circulation.
Rajesh Mehta asked if there was going to be a dumpster on the site.Mr.Woods noted
that a dumpster would be located at the southeast corner of the property.Staff noted
that a small dumpster could be located adjacent to parking space ff7 and shown on the
plan,with the average buffer width being maintained along the east property line.
Chairman Yates asked Mr.Taylor about the traffic engineer's approval of the site plan.
Mr.Taylor noted that Mr.Henry was usually tough on site plan review,but explained
that he still had concerns.Staff explained how the driveways would function,noting that
the two (2)drives to W.10'"Street would be exit only and the drive from Martin Luther
King Drive would allow entry and exit.
The issue of crossing guard hours for the school was discussed.Vice-Chairman Smith
explained that the market would take care of any traffic issues,and people would not
come to the site if there were traffic problems.The issue of emergency traffic in the
area was discussed.The issue of proximity of the city's UU zoning district was also
discussed.
There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff.The motion
passed by a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.The application was approved.
Kunal Mody (
Shreeji Krupa Equity Group
3418 Commonwealth Drive
Bryant,AR 72022
January 31",2012
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock,AR 72205
Dear City of Little Rock,
I am proposing to build a strip center building on the corner of Martin Luther King Jr.
and 10~Street,The building will have a Subway Restaurant located on the first floor,and
office space available for lease on the top floor.
Currently,the location has an old funeral home and a vacant house on the lot.We are
proposing to tear down the existing structures and build a brand new building and
accompanying parking.We currently meet all governing laws and rules,and are asking
for the following variances:
4 Request variance from the off-street parking requirements of approximately
twenty (20)spaces to seventeen (17)spaces,as shown on the Site Plan.
2 Request variance to encroach into the 25'uilding Setback line 11.33'n the
north side of the property,adjacent to 10'"street.
Our development will bring an estimated 30-40 jobs during the construction period and
another 15-30 jobs once the building is opened.We will also bring much needed taxable
revenue to the city,and bring new development to an area that truly needs it.
Thank you for your time and looking forward to working with all the city officials during
this process.
Sincerely,
c
Kunal Mody
President,Shreeji Krupa Equity Group
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO.:7
File No.:Z-8747
Owner:James Phillip and Catherine Malcom
Applicant;Bill Hearnsberger
Address:17 Glenleigh Drive
Description:Lot 29,Robinwood Valley Addition,Phase I
Zoned:R-2
Variance Requested:Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 and the easement provisions of Section 36-11 to allow a building/deck addition with a
reduced rear setback and construction of an accessory building which encroaches into a
utility easement.
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.Buildin 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.
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO 'CON'T.
C.Utilit Comments:
Little Rock Wastewater:No objection to easement encroachment.
Central Arkansas Water:No objection to encroachment as proposed.
AT&T:Concurs with request to encroach upon utility easement.
CenterPoint Energy:No objection to easement encroachment.
Entergy:No objection to easement encroachment/structure addition.
D.
~Staff
Ana sis:
The R-2 zoned property at 17 Glenleigh Drive is occupied by a two-story frame
single family residence located within the west half of the property.There is a one-
car wide driveway from Glenleigh Drive at the southwest corner of the lot.The
driveway widens to a two-car width and accesses a garage at the west end of the
house.The property slopes downward from front to back (south to north)and side
to side (west to east).The east half of the property is tree-covered.
The applicant proposes a two-story addition,with deck and porch,as noted on the
attached site plan.An 18 foot by 24 foot accessory garage structure is also
proposed at the northwest corner of the lot.The proposed room addition is located
22 feet to 34 feet back from the rear (north)property line.The deck portion of the
addition is located 12 feet to 21 feet back from the rear property line,with the porch
section of the addition being set back over 40 feet from the rear line.The
proposed deck will be uncovered and unenclosed,with the porch section being
covered and unenclosed.The applicant also proposes to construct a detached
garage at the northwest corner of the lot.The garage will be one-story in height
and located three (3)feet back from the rear (north)property line and three (3)feet
from the west side property line.The accessory garage will encroach
approximately seven (7)feet into a 10 foot wide utility easement which runs along
the rear property line.
Section 36-254(d)(3)of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear
setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots.Section 36-11(f)requires that the Board of
Adjustment review and approve proposed easement encroachments.Therefore,
the applicant is requesting variances to allow the building/deck addition with a
reduced rear setback and the accessory garage which encroaches into a utility
easement.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances.Staff views the request as
reasonable.There is a large wooded tract immediately north of the lot which is
owned by a partnership,of which this property owner is a part.The tract was
purchased to serve as an undeveloped buffer area.The extreme slope within the
rear yard area greatly decreases the amount of buildable area on the lot.Also,as
noted in paragraph C.of the staff report,all of the utility companies concur with the
proposed encroachment into the utility easement.Based on all of these issues,
staff believes the proposed addition with reduced rear setback and accessory
garage with encroachment into the utility easement will have no adverse impact on
the adjacent properties or the general area.
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO.:7 CON'T.
E.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building setback and easement
encroachment variances,subject to the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the Building Codes requirements as noted in paragraph
B.of the staff report.
2.The addition must be constructed to match the existing residence.
3.The deck portion of the addition must remain uncovered and unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(February 27,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff,
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
HEARWSBEXC;jEV CONSmeC r~e~t,$XC.
EP)u Pf If V R IPif.'7Cfyn!I&'TRI!f7Tf Oxi
Januaiy 31."012 Z-~797
hdr.Monte Mw)re
&7I,R --Zoning and Enl'orc»ment I )fficcr
723 'A!cat Markham
Littk Rock,Att7 '01
Rc:17 Glenlcigh 13!ivc
13ear Mr.hlooiv.
Encl!ised is a Va!lance Application for the construetk&n ol an addi)i!&n io the above singlefamily
i&side)ice.%c iue altachnlg:
I.Application form
Aftidavit authorixing f3ill I learn&hen ger to act a Agenl
3.Six ff))copies of a iuirvey showing tile proposeil building addi&in)is
A check in the alnoUnt of ggd
We ill&e rc&tucstin t)vo 1'aflai)ces.
1.Pormissinn io build beyond lh»"5'ear yard linc,'11)e property behind this lot is undeveloped
and is o)vncdb&a calli)ion ot pmperiy &nvners inctn&ling!tile owners of 17 Citenteigh.This
coalition was fi)rmed lo protect this are&II'oil)fiiilll'c dcv'cloj)nlciti.R titian nppl'oval f1om this
group will he I'ortlmumin 'I he peivcma &of il)e rear yard ci)&erage i.&»ry small considering
the lar c sire ot ihe rear yard.
Permission to build over a poli!&n OI')lie utility einsmnent.The oljjeciiic is io prx)vide addition
additional proiecied parkin &ill th&gamge,but io mainiain the cxisiiiig oft stre&0 Innkina,
VII USC Cnlltili I n)e V)a pllunu Oi'-ituli I
Ceil
I
!I 11CO')'Stl4 rg&7!!&Itgt)I Shoil lil ))OU Iia VC ques(inns &if UCed
additional informati&m.'I'lmnk ynn for your assistance
You!S tl'lily
radii.iefw
ftill I.lcarnsbcrger,P.E.
I resident
en&.I.
cc:Githio ihtalc&rm
269t)t ffighwa)10-Roland,+R'12)35
Oflice 501-367-26t)6 Fax 50)-367-2607
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO.:8
File No.:Z-8748
Owner:Adam and Julia Crow
Applicant:Adam Crow
Address:49 Pine Manor Drive
Description:Lot 52,Pine Manor Addition
Zoned:R-2
Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the building line provisions of Section
31-12 to allow a porch addition which crosses a front 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.~StafIAnal ss:
The R-2 zoned property at 49 Pine Manor Drive contains a one-story brick and
frame single residence.There is a two-car wide driveway from Pine Manor Drive
at the southwest corner of the property.The property slopes downward from side
to side (west to east).The residential lot contains a 35 foot front platted building
line.A small porch located on the front of the house crosses the front platted
building line by approximately 4.5 feet.The single family home is in the process of
being remodeled.
As part of the remodeling project,the applicant proposes to construct a new front
porch as noted on the attached site plan.The porch will be covered and
unenclosed.It will be located 29 feet back from the front (south)property line and
maintain the 7.8 foot side (east)setback as the existing house.The proposed
porch will cross the 35 foot front platted building line by approximately six (6)feet.
Section 31-12(c )of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line
encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment.Therefore,
FEBRUARY 27,2012
ITEM NO.:8 CON'T.
the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the
porch addition which crosses a front platted building line.
Staff is supportive of the requested building line variance.Staff views the request
as reasonable.The ordinance typically requires a minimum 25 foot front setback
for single family residential structures.The proposed porch will be located 29 feet
back from the front (south)property line.Additionally,with the slight curvature of
the roadway,the front porch will have the appearance of not being out of alignment
with the fronts of the residences to the east.Staff believes the requested building
line 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
addition.The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk'
office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
C.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line variance,subject to the
following conditions;
1.Completion of a one-lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted
building gline as approved by the Board.
2.The building addition must be constructed to match the existing residence.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(February 27,2012)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the March 26,
2012 agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to correctly notify the
surrounding property owners.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 26,2012
agenda with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
Mr.and Mrs.Adam H.Crow
49 Pine Manor
Little Rock,Arkansas 72207 p-s7%h
January 31,2012
City of Little Rock VIA HAND DELIVERY
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock,Arkansas 72201
Re:49 Pine Manor
Little Rock,Arkansas 72207
Dear Sir or Madam:
I propose to build an unenclosed porch on the front part of the property,extending eight
(8)feet from the front of the house,as shown on the enclosed survey.The porch would extend
over the current building line.
Sin erely yours,
Adam .Crow
AHC:sls
Enclosures
~I
I
0 ~0 ~W
~\I ~I ~
~~~I
IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIEIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
-IIIIIIIIIIII Illllllj~illl .
IIIIIIIIIIII Illlllf4511
IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIEEEII
.-EIIIIIIIIIII EIIIIIIIEIII".IIIIIIIIIII Illlllllllll
Illlllllllll IIIIIIIIIIEI
IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIEIE
IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
.Illlilllllll IIIIIIIIIIII:IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
-IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
February 27,2012
There being no further business before the Board,the meeting was adjourned at 2:42 p.m.
a4@m (Z
tJi~L4jg
Chairman Secre ary