Loading...
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