boa_03 29 2010Q
.0
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
MARCH 29, 2010
2:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being four (4) in number.
Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The Minutes of the February 22, 2010 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent
Robert Winchester, Chairman
James Van Dover, Vice Chairman
Leslie Greenwood
Scott Smith
David Wilbourn
City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
I. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Z-8507
B. Z-8520
II. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Z -8238-A
2. Z-8526
3. Z-8527
4. Z-8528
AGENDA
MARCH 29, 2010
2:00 P.M.
814 West 7t" Street
49 DuClair Court
5821 Kavanaugh Blvd.
35 Chenal Circle
39 St. John's Place
2822 N. Grant Street
co
CH
N
IHVM31s
0
a SPI
OaB 1s H
ixp
t7 N
3 0°
3
paaoo s
Nle Nabd UIVJ G
41-ISa3A)Nn s rn
N
F -I
3
as MOaaVH NHO
2
O
9/
oasNavds
LNVa
°al
MIN3Ha 0
t o �
-.N s`ONladsWTHm
x❑�'•w' C� ••ti
r11
v J
E
a)
U
co
CH
N
IHVM31s
0
a SPI
OaB 1s H
ixp
t7 N
3 0°
3
paaoo s
Nle Nabd UIVJ G
41-ISa3A)Nn s rn
N
F -I
3
as MOaaVH NHO
2
O
9/
oasNavds
LNVa
°al
MIN3Ha 0
t o �
-.N s`ONladsWTHm
x❑�'•w' C� ••ti
MARCH 29, 2010
ITEM NO.: A
File No.:
Owner:
Applicant:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z-8507
Robert Berry
Terry Burruss
814 W. 7th Street
North side of W. 7th Street, between State and Izard Streets.
UU
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-553
to allow a projecting sign which exceeds the maximum area allowed.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Vacant Commercial Building
Proposed Use of Property: Tattoo Shop
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (Bennie Nicolo, 371-4818) for
the private improvements located in the right-of-way.
B. Staff Analysis:
The UU zoned property at 814 W. 7th Street contains a one-story brick commercial
building which is currently vacant. The property is located on the north side of W.
7th Street, between State and Izard Streets. The building was previously occupied
by Eaton Beauty Stylist College. There is on -street parking in this general area
which serves the commercial building. There are two (2) existing wall signs on the
building which previously identified the Eaton College use. The wall sign on the
front (south) of the building is approximately 15 square feet in area and the wall
sign on the east building fagade is approximately 48 square feet in area.
The applicant proposes to remove the two (2) existing wall signs and replace them
with one (1) projecting sign on the front of the building to identify a new tattoo shop
use for the building. The proposed projecting sign will be five (5) feet wide and
eight (8) feet tall (40 square feet). The applicant originally submitted a proposal for
a 60 square foot projecting sign, but has amended the size as noted. It will be
located 1 V-1" above the sidewalk along W. 7th Street. The sign will extend
approximately 3 feet 7 inches above the roof of the building.
MARCH 29, 2010
ITEM NO.: A (Con't.
At the January 25, 2010 meeting the Board of Adjustment determined that the
proposed sign is not a "roof sign" as defined by ordinance.
Section 36-553(a)(2)b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a projecting sign with
a maximum area of 12 square feet for this UU zoned property. The ordinance
would typically allow approximately 82 square feet of wall signage for the south
fagade of this building. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow
the 40 square foot projecting sign as proposed. The applicant has noted that the
proposed projecting sign will be in -lieu of any wall signs.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff's support is based on the fact
the Board determined this sign not to be a roof sign and the applicant agreeing not
to place any wall signs on the front building fagade. Staff views the request as
reasonable. The 40 square foot projecting sign will not be out of character with
other signs in the UU downtown zoning district. There are other projecting signs
larger than 12 square feet in area in and near the River Market District of
Downtown Little Rock. Staff believes the proposed projecting sign will have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The projecting sign must not exceed 40 square feet in area.
2. There are to be no wall signs attached to the building.
3. A sign permit must be obtained for the projecting sign.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 30, 2009)
The applicant was not present. Staff recommended the application be deferred to the
December 21, 2009 agenda, to allow the applicant time to address the "roof sign"
issue.
The Chairman placed the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the December
21, 2009 agenda. The Consent Agenda was approved with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays
and 2 absent. The application was deferred.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 21, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and informed the Board that the applicant had requested deferral of the item
to the January 25, 2010 meeting. There was no further discussion. The item was
placed on the consent agenda and deferred to the January 25, 2010 meeting by a
vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
MARCH 29, 2010
ITEM NO.: A (Con't.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 25, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred to the February 22,
2010 Agenda. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on
the consent agenda and deferred to the February 22, 2010 meeting by a vote of
4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(FEBRUARY 22, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred to the March 29,
2010 Agenda. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on
the consent agenda and deferred to the March 29, 2010 meeting by a vote of
5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 29, 2010)
Terry Burruss and Robert Berry were present, representing the application. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval. There were no objectors
present.
Vice -Chair Van Dover made a brief statement regarding justification for the variance.
He noted that he could not support the application based on the percent of increase in
size for the proposed projecting sign.
Terry Burruss noted that an existing projecting sign at another location would be used
for this location. He stated that there would be two (2) businesses at this location.
Scott Smith asked about hardship with respect to this application as opposed to other
variances such as building setbacks. Debra Weldon, City Attorney, quoted the
hardship section of the ordinance with respect to the Board of Adjustment. The issue
of hardship was briefly discussed. Dana Carney, City Planning staff, addressed the
Board with respect to hardship and how it should be addressed.
Scott Smith asked about the size of the proposed projecting sign. Mr. Burruss
explained how the projecting sign at another location would be modified for the two (2)
businesses at 814 W. 7t" Street. Chairman Winchester asked where the existing
projecting sign was located. Mr. Burruss noted that it was just to the west on W. 7t"
Street.
There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The motion
passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. The application was approved.
im 614 CEN, cR 5T.
171tLITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
�/ 501-376-3676 FAX 376-3766
e
uriuss
Architect design, planning and inferiors
March 16, 2010
Mr. Monte Moore
Zoning and Enforcement Administrator
Department of Planning & Development
City of Little Rock
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Seventh Street
Sign Variance
814 7'n Street
Little Rock, Arkansas
A/E # 0933
Dear Mr. Moore:
Attached please find the Exterior Elevations on the above referenced project. We are
proposing to install a projecting sign above the existing canopy. Overall sign dimensions will be
approximately 5' wide by 8' tall "(40 square feet). The ordinance would allow us to have wall
signage of approximately 82 square feet. We are requesting permission to install the projected
sign in lieu of larger wall signage.
We appreciate your consideration on this request. If there are any questions or additional
information is needed, please call. We can also be reached by email at
tbadesignplanning@sbcglobal.net.
Yours very truly,
Terry G. Burruss, AIA
MARCH 29, 2010
ITEM NO.: B
File No.: Z-8520
Owner/Applicant: Turag Ronaghi
Address: 49 DuClair Court
Description: Lot 11, Block 4, Chenal Valley Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-
516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 49 Duclair Court is occupied by a one-story brick single
family residence. There is a paved alley located along the rear property line. A
driveway from the alley serves as access to a garage on the rear of the residence.
The applicant recently began construction of a six (6) foot — nine (9) inch tall wood
fence to enclose a portion of the rear yard area, as noted on the attached site plan.
The new fence consists of standard six (6) foot high (1 inch by 4 inch) wood
pickets (dog -eased), on top of two (2) 2 X 6 timbers running horizontally on end. A
portion of the fence along the south property line has not been completed, as the
applicant stopped work when he was informed of the need for a variance.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence
height of six (6) feet for fences in R-2 zoned areas. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow the newly constructed fence with an overall height of
approximately six (6) feet — nine (9) inches.
MARCH 29, 2010
ITEM NO.: B (Con't.)
Staff is supportive of the requested fence variance. Staff views the issue as a
relatively minor increase in fence height. There are several six (6) foot tall fences
located along the alley. Several of the fences have decorative posts with heights
near seven (7) feet. When viewing the new fence from one end of the alley or the
other, it does not have the appearance of being out of character, height -wise, with
the other fences along the alley. Staff believes the fence, as constructed, will have
no negative impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The applicant
should be aware that there may be an architectural review committee for this
neighborhood which could include fence construction.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(FEBRUARY 22, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred to the March 29,
2010 Agenda. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on
the consent agenda and deferred to the March 29, 2010 meeting by a vote of
5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 29, 2010)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred to the April 26,
2010 Agenda. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the
consent agenda and deferred to the April 26, 2010 meeting by a vote of 4 ayes, 0
noes and 1 absent.
MARCH 29, 2010
ITEM NO
File No.: Z -8238-A
Owner: David Hadidi
Applicant: Jacob Chi
Address: 5821/5823 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Description: Southeast corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. and Grant Street
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-
502 to allow expansion of a restaurant use with reduced parking.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Restaurant and Vacant Retail Space
Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant With Expansion
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned property at 5823 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by a one-story
masonry commercial building. The property is located at the southeast corner of
Kavanaugh Blvd. and N. Grant Street. The building is approximately 1,650 square
feet in area and is part of a larger shopping center/commercial use area along the
south side of Kavanaugh Blvd., extending from N. University Avenue to beyond
N. Taylor Street to the west. The building previously housed retail -type
commercial uses and had no off-street parking. On July 30, 2007 the Board of
Adjustment approved a parking variance to allow conversion of the 1,650 square
foot retail space to a restaurant, The Sushi Cafe. At that time, the applicant
submitted a parking study, with respect to the on -street parking spaces located
along Kavanaugh Blvd. and N. Grant Street. The applicant showed that there was
ample on -street parking during peak restaurant hours.
The applicant has recently acquired the 2,100 square foot commercial space
immediately to the east (B.A. Framer). The applicant proposes to expand the
Sushi Cafe restaurant into 1,350 square feet of the space (rear portion), with
MARCH 29, 2010
ITEM NO.: 1 (Con't.)
additional seating/banquet room and storage. The front 750 square feet of the
space is proposed for an ice cream shop operated by The Sushi Cafe. The
applicant notes that there will be no exterior or structural changes to the building.
Section 36-502(b)(3)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of
seven (7) off-street parking spaces for a 2,100 square foot retail use. Section 36-
502(b)(3)c. requires a minimum of 21 off-street spaces for a similar size restaurant
use. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide 14 off-street parking spaces for
the conversion of the retail space to a restaurant use (the difference between the
number of spaces required for the restaurant use and the non -conforming parking
requirement for the past retail use). The applicant is requesting a variance from
this ordinance standard in order to have the expanded restaurant use utilize the
existing on -street parking in the area and provide no additional off-street spaces.
The applicant recently conducted a parking study of the on -street public parking
within 1,000 feet of the property at 5821/5823 Kavanaugh Blvd., as well as the
private parking lots within a 500 foot radius. The study was conducted during peak
restaurant hours on a week day and a Saturday. The results of the study are
attached with the applicant's cover letter, and show that there is ample on -street
parking available during peak restaurant hours.
Staff is supportive of the requested parking variance. Staff believes there is
adequate on -street parking to serve the proposed restaurant expansion/ice cream
shop in conjunction with the other commercial and restaurant uses in the area.
The majority of the commercial buildings along the south side of Kavanaugh Blvd.,
east of N. University Avenue, were developed with very little or no off-street
parking and have thrived as such (including restaurant uses) for a number of
years. Staff believes the proposed restaurant expansion at 5821 Kavanaugh Blvd.
will have no adverse impact on the parking situation in this general commercial
area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance, subject to the
variance being only for a restaurant use owned by Jacob Chi, Sushi Cafe at 5821
Kavanaugh Blvd.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 29, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the "staff recommendation:
above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent
February 19, 2010
TO: City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
FR: Sushi Cafe
c/o Jacob Chi
5823 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Little Rock, AR 72207
RE: Parking Variance
To whom it may concern:
My name is Jacob Chi and I am writing on behalf of Sushi Cafe located at 5823 Kavanaugh Boulevard in
Little Rock. Our business is proposing to occupy the lease space located directly to our east. The
structure is currently being utilized by a framing shop and houses approximately 2,100 square feet of
lease space. The proposed location will house storage areas, a private room to be used for special
occasions, as well as an area dedicated for frozen dessert service.
At this time, we are submitting an application for variance of parking requirements pursuant to Section
36-502 (b)(3)(c) of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. Because of the location of the space, a hardship
is placed on the business to provide dedicated on or off street parking for customer use. Many
businesses located within close proximity to the proposed location use various communal parking areas
throughout the neighborhood. This is also true for the business that is currently occupying the proposed
space.
The existing communal parking areas located within a 600 ft. radius of the proposed location would
provide adequate parking for the proposed location and its proposed use as restaurant space. Results of
parking studies performed on behalf of Sushi Cafe can show that adequate communal parking currently
exists and its capacity would be able to support the expansion of our business into the neighboring lease
space.
There are no exterior or structural changes expected in the renovation process. All changes are
expected to be cosmetic. The majority of the proposed location is to be used as an occasional facility.
Sushi Cafe does not expect to see a significant increase in vehicular parking demand as a result of this
expansion. Sushi Caf6 and its staff respectfully request a parking requirement variance in this case.
WChi
rds,
Sushi Cafe LLC
rJ
m
N
l}
N
N
00
d
�
00
N
O
d
`
Ol
ry
P
LO
O
N
r 1
LL(
J
d0 G
M1
00
OM
O
0
N
00
N
Q
aJ
CD
g
0
�
N
a
a
Ln
Q1
n
Ln
lJ
tt7
M
,fib.
N
In
O. �
a
w
CL
dCL
N -i
eN-i
�
rm-1
V
Q
d'
lD
N
M
ri
r -t
co
Ln
tt1
Q
m
N
r„i
N
Q
tD
N
~
Z
N
�-i
i7
;y
co
M
�"t
r`
N
r-�
r4
Ln
a)
m
CL
A
3
p
Cf
r0
K
w
W
O
o
00
a
to
ate''
W
c
v
ro
y
N
Q
o'�zw`�'va.L.°-
jw7>m
v
o
0c
E
ma
<
co
a
Ct
W
LLU
1
tl
-W
'10
F-
00
0
0000x2w►-
Q�-
.-j��,�,-
MARCH 29, 2010
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.: Z-8526
Owner: Julie Pruet
Applicant: Bennett Pruet
Address: 35 Chenal Circle
Description: Lot 15, Block 2, Chenal Valley Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-
516 to allow construction of 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. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 35 Chenal Circle is occupied by a two-story stucco
single family residence. There is a circular driveway from Chenal Circle which
serves as access. Within the rear yard area, there is a six (6) foot high wood fence
along the east side property line and a seven (7) foot high masonry wall along the
rear (south) property line. The wall was constructed by the two (2) lot owners to
the south. An eight (8) foot high wood fence which was located along the west
side property line was recently removed. The applicant is requesting to construct a
new eight (8) foot high fence along this west property line, as noted on the
attached site plan.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence
height of six (6) feet in residential zones. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the eight (8) foot high fence along the west side property line,
within the rear yard area.
MARCH 29, 2010
ITEM NO.: 2 (Con't.)
Staff is supportive of the requested fence variance. Staff views the request as
appropriate. The property immediately to the west has a rear yard relationship with
this property. The deck on the rear of the residence next door faces the rear yard
of this property and is approximately two (2) to three (3) feet above grade
overlooking the rear yard of the applicant's property. The proposed eight (8) foot
high fence will add to the privacy of both properties given the difference in
deck/patio elevations. Additionally, the applicant has submitted a letter of support
from the property owners immediately to the west. Staff believes the requested
eight (8) foot high fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or
the general area. As noted above, the proposed eight (8) foot high fence will only
be located along the west property line, within the rear yard area, of 35 Chenal
Circle.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 29, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the "staff recommendation:
above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent
Bennett and Julie Pruet
35 Chenal Circle
Little Rock, Ar. 72223
February 8, 2010
Department of Planning and Development J-�-`
2—
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas � _ ����
To Whom It May Concern:
Please accept the following as our proposal and justifications for a fence variance height
change at our present address 35 Chenal Circle.
Proposal: Reinstall a replacement eight foot high pressure treated pine fence at the same
location as the original "seven foot five inch" high fence which had to be removed due to
twenty years of deterioration and damage.
Justifications:
(1) Provide privacy screening between properties that existed until old fence had to
be removed. Both parties desire proposed height increase (see attachment).
(2) Construction of the fence would only affect one neighbor on the west boundary
between, 35 Chenal Circle and 37 Chenal Circle since we already have eight foot
high walls to the back of our property (41 Chenal Circle and 43 Chenal Circle)
and a fence between us and the neighbors to our east (33 Chenal Circle).
(3) Since our existing patio is 1 foot above grade with steps up to higher levels and
the Morton's outdoor decks are approximately "five feet" above grade, a six foot
high fence does not provide the privacy between our back yards that we desire.
This is significant because the Morton's back yard deck is very closely adjacent
to our back yard patio due to the configuration of the end lot of 37 Chenal Circle.
(4) Front north walls of our house between brick columns and iron gate are already
eight feet high and proposed replacement fence should be reinstalled to match
"original design" (see attached photographs).
(5) Finally, there are existing evergreen holly bushes/trees along the Morton's
property that have not filled out fully leaving significant gaps (see attached
photographs).
Thank you for your consideration and approval with our variance request.
Sincerely,
�Zt(
Bennett and Julie Pruet
Bennett and Julie Pruet
35 Chenal Circle
Little Rock, AR. 72223
January 24, 2010
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas
To Whom It May Concern:
Please accept this letter as an additional support for our request to replace a wooden fence
on our western property boundary. This boundary is adjacent to our neighbor's, Dr. and
Mrs. William Morton, who live at 37 Chenal Circle. They are the only neighbors directly
affected by the installation of the fence because we are already surrounded by 8 foot high
walls and fence on all other sides. They understand and support our request for this
variance to rebuild a new wooden fence by Ingle Fence Company. The new eight foot
high fence will replace the original fence which was seven feet five inches high. This
fence had to be removed due to twenty years of gradual deterioration and will be replaced
with a fence of treated lumber.
We, Dr. and Mrs. William Morton, support the Pruet's project in reconstructing a wooden
fence that is eight feet high to provide privacy between our back yards. Since both of our
houses step up with patios and decks at a higher level, the eight foot high fence provides
the desired privacy for both of us. Please accept the following signatures as our support
and agreement for this project.
illiam Morton Mary Nprton
Thank you for your consideration and support with this request.
Sincerely,
Bennett and Julie �'�et
�I�
1{jf.
3 � .7�
tf
�' _ ,. #�
� VVV�
��
MARCH 29, 2010
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.: Z-8527
Owner: Phil and Paula Schmidt
Applicant: Rodney Parham
Address: 39 St. John's Place
Description: Lot 8R, Block 6, Newton's Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254
to allow a building addition with reduced rear yard setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analvsis:
The R-2 zoned property at 39 St. John's Place is occupied by a one-story brick and
frame single family residence. There is a driveway from St. John's Place at the
southwest corner of the property. The driveway is a shared driveway (within a 25
foot wide ingress/egress easement) between this residence and the two (2)
residences immediately to the south. The driveway leads to a garage on the south
side of the residence. The rear yard portion of the property is fenced and has a
slight slope downward from front to back and side to side (south to north). A small
accessory building is located near the northeast corner of the lot. The lot contains
a 35 foot front platted building line.
The applicant proposes to construct a one-story addition on the rear of the
structure, at its southeast corner, as noted on the attached site plan. The addition
and roof line will be constructed to match the existing residence. The proposed
addition will have a setback of approximately six (6) feet from the rear (east)
property line, and 14.2 feet back from the south side property line. The addition
will not encroach into the ingress/egress easement.
MARCH 29, 2010
ITEM NO.: 3 (Con't.)
As part of this project, the applicant is also proposing to construct a swimming pool
with raised pool deck (slab) on the north side of the addition, within the rear yard
area, also noted on the attached site plan. The pool deck (slab) area will also be
located six (6) feet back from the rear (east) property line, and 8.9 feet back from
the north side property line. The pool deck area will be approximately 42 inches
above the grade of the rear yard area at its highest point. The pool and deck area
will not be covered or enclosed.
Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard
setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the room addition and pool/deck addition with a rear setback of
six (6) feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested rear setback variance. Staff views the request
as reasonable. As noted above, this R-2 zoned lot contains a 35 foot front platted
building line. The R-2 zoning typically requires a 25 foot minimum front setback.
The porch/entry portion of the residence is located at the 35 foot front setback, with
the main front wall of the house having a front setback of approximately 52 feet.
Therefore, the house is located far back on the lot which decreases the amount of
buildable rear yard area substantially. With the proposed addition, the overall lot
coverage will be compatible with the lots in St. John's Place PRD and many of the
lots in the overall Heights neighborhood. There is a rather large vacant yard area
immediately east of the applicant's lot, and the proposed addition will have no
separation issues with any adjacent structures.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The addition must be constructed to match (exterior and roofline) the
existing residence.
2. The pool deck (slab) area must remain uncovered and unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 29, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the "staff recommendation:
above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent
February 18, 2010
To whom it may concern:
We have recently assumed possession of a family owned residence at 39 St. John's Place
in Little Rock. We are submitting this variance application in order to add a third
Bedroom to the current home. The house currently has two Bedrooms and we would like
to add this third Bedroom so our children will have a Bedroom when they come to our
home. We are constructing the additional Bedroom and Bath onto the rear of our home
and the exterior wall line will be at 6'-0" from our rear property line.
We would appreciate your approval of this variance application.
Respectfully yours,
Phil Schmidt Paula Schmidt
2 y�
MARCH 29, 2010
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z-8528
Owner: James I. Lasley, III
Applicant: Ross McCain
Address: 2822 N. Grant Street
Description: Lot 12 and part of Lot 11, Block 13, Park View Addition
Zoned: R-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-255
to allow construction of a new residence with reduced rear yard setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-3 zoned property at 2822 N. Grant Street is occupied by a one-story frame
single family residence. The property is located at the southwest corner of N.
Grant Street and Ampersand Street. There is a one-story storage building/carport
along the rear (west) property line. A gravel driveway from Ampersand Street
serves as access to the carport.
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing residence and accessory
building from the property and construct a new two-story single family home, as
noted on the attached site plan. The new residence will be located 25 feet back
from the front (east) property line. The main portion of the structure will be located
five (5) feet back from the south side property line and 10 feet back from the north
street side property line. There will be a two-story garage portion located in the
rear yard area. The garage (with playroom above) will be connected to the main
portion of the house by way of a second floor, heated and cooled, hallway. This
connection makes the garage structure part of the principal structure and not a
MARCH 29, 2010
ITEM NO.: 4 (Con't.)
separate accessory structure. The garage portion will be located five (5) feet from
the north street side property line and 15 feet from the rear (west) property line.
Section 36-255(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear
setback of 25 feet for this R-3 zoned property. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow the garage portion of the residence with a rear
setback of 15 feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested rear yard setback variance. Staff views the
request as reasonable. The overall massing/lot coverage proposed is similar to
other lots in the area. The overall building coverage proposed is approximately 35
percent of the total lot area. If the garage were detached, it would only need a
variance for street side setback (15 feet typically required). The existing
carport/storage building on the site is approximately 3.5 feet from the rear (west)
property line. As noted above, the proposed new rear setback is 15 feet. Staff
believes the proposed residence with reduced setback will have no adverse impact
on the adjacent properties or the general area. The applicant should be aware that
no portion of the front step structure (more than one (1) foot above finished grade)
may extend into the front 25 foot setback.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance, subject to
no portion of the front step structure, which is more than one (1) foot above
finished grade, extending across the 25 foot front setback.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 29, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the "staff recommendation:
above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent
1. Koji MUM, gig
01 YOW URUE
UTTLQ KOU, AR 72205
Dept. of Planning Ft Development
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Request for Variance
To Planning Staff and the Board of Adjustment,
The applicant is requesting a variance from the required 25' rear yard building
setback to allow construction of an attached garage within 15' of the rear
property line. The new garage will be attached to the new home by means of a
second floor hallway which will connect the children's bedrooms on the second
floor of the house to the playroom above the garage. The reason for the
request is to allow ample space between the house and the garage for a
covered back porch and landscaping.
It should be noted that the new garage structure will be located approximately
11' farther away from the rear property line than the existing detached
structure (which will be removed). The new house and the new garage will be
the only structures built on the lot.
If there are any questions concerning the proposed plan please contact me at
(501) 517-0511.
Sincerely,
W. Ross McCain, AIA
9
D
O
U
W
w
LLJN
0
z
LUO
Q
LL
O
Q
O
m
-0
Q)
P
0
Ill
ii
ii
z
w
V)
m
Q
Q
w
z
�vlI,
~
w
O
-J
C)_
m
UJ
LLJ
J
>
cG
m
W_
C)0
Cr'
o
z
J
0LU
o
w
m
a
Q
J
_
>
O
m
Z
w
Q
Q
�
�
�
LU
O
m
O
LLJ
Lij
t-
0
�v>>LU
U
w
m
w
0
2
0
U
W
ui
m
z
z
r
>�
-0
Q)
P
0
Ill
ii
ii
z
w
V)
m
Q
Q
w
z
~
w
O
-J
C)_
m
UJ
LLJ
J
>
cG
m
C)0
Cr'
o
z
O
0
z
o
w
W
a
Q
�:
C
O
w
Z
w
0
=
o
LU
L
m
Q
z
t-
0
-0
Q)
P
0
Ill
ii
ii
z
w
V)
m
Q
Q
w
z
March 29, 2010
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:24 p.m.
Date: 2 l
11
Vice -Chairman
Secr tary