boa_06 28 2010G
I
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
JUNE 28, 2010
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 May 24, 2010 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: Robert Winchester, Chairman
Scott Smith, Vice Chairman
Leslie Greenwood
Rajesh Mehta
Brad Wingfield
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
I. OLD BUSINESS:
No Old Business
II. NEW BUSINESS:
1.
Z -5252-A
2.
Z -8184-A
3.
Z-8521 -A
4.
Z-8561
5.
Z-8562
6.
Z-8563
7.
Z-8564
8.
Z-8565
9.
Z-8566
10.
Z-8567
11.
Z-8568
AGENDA
JUNE 28, 2010
2:00 P.M.
2608 Maple Street
17846 Colonel Glenn Road
2112 Country Club Lane
29 St. Andrews Drive
17 Oakwood Road
5400 Country Club Blvd.
1019 Main Street
49 Woodberry Road
122 Rice Street
42 Robinwood Drive
4 Lacelle Court
t`m"
d w �♦ O
CD
■ x -----; `3AId a3lZyiid �--- ----- �' V
i a \www..wr
W.
C� co
N
O l O
° en3z
rr I eoN Z OaSVWOHINVO
0')
4x
OSS
TERSTATE 53
• - �V1Sa31Nl
L0 'r 15 VMOyOae f Oaa3H O O�.`�
l 1S HOaV S •1 O N
a'I 1 1
zI o r•
� 3 ARCH ST
i M a000 S � m
N ` z
o j
1 z
p
f - z
♦ F---�'�.\ w SONIadS ¢aV11H
t ms Navd alvd a �'�� W
12 cI n uiSaanwns
C) Oa SONWd 832-1
A3'J
�..�'s 1....:
w
I IS IddISSISSIW M
v W ON IOOIHP
I a MONa? e NHO
Oa alOAa3S3a .r I+
•
I s�� OE>,3115 w p 1
�,� ♦ o�l a WM 8S l --rte � a31N1
�.. Z W 1 �• '•■ ..
� r�•!'� Ob' � Oa 3'JOI8 A•NIA --
Opco 4-a
7"1ZZ I :w� aei • s • 6.00 J
xLu
/ m °p as vx3ly a
♦ r o �� 4 N �. w
w 1 a4 % Nvmm�s
i � � . Oa lala M31S� 'V/i1
HSab
J r
Ll z
00SAVMH`JIHE.._.a_.:7
sNavds
Na3d
zG L O�1
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: Z -5252-A
Owner: Mustafa A. Almagalch
Applicant: Terry Burruss
Address: 2608 Maple Street
Description: Lots 3-5, Block 9, R.C. Butler's Addition
Zoned: C-1 and C-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
299 to allow a commercial building with a reduced front setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Convenience Store with Gas Pumps
Proposed Use of Property: Convenience Store with Gas Pumps
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B. Landscape and Buffer Issue:
1. The site plan must comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer
requirements.
2. A screening fence must be constructed along the north and west property
lines, where adjacent to residential zoned property. Based on the fact that
there is an existing commercial building, the screening fence along the
north property line will be in -lieu of landscape plantings within the buffer
area.
C. Staff Analysis:
The C -1/C-3 zoned property at 2608 Maple Street is occupied by a one-story block
commercial building within the north portion of the property and a convenience
store building with gas pump canopy within the south portion. The property is
located at the northwest corner of Maple Street and Asher Avenue. Driveways
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T)
from Maple Street and Asher Avenue serve the site. There is paved parking within
the south portion of the property.
The applicant recently began remodeling the northernmost commercial building
which had a nonconforming, reduced building setback from the front (east)
property line. The building is located 19 feet back from the front (east) property
line and 5.3 feet back from the north side property line. Because the applicant
actually removed and rebuilt a large portion of the building a variance will be
required to address the reduced front setback. The overall development plan for
the property includes removing the old convenience store building and refurbishing
the gas pump canopy area. The easternmost driveway along Asher Avenue will be
closed with new concrete driveway aprons for the other drives. A redesigned
paved parking area will be located within the southern area of the property. The
northernmost building will house the new convenience store.
Section 36-299(e))(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front
setback of 25 feet for the C-1 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the reconstruction of a portion of the existing commercial building
with a front setback of 19 feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested setback variance. Staff views the issue as very
minimal. The variance is required based on the fact that the applicant actually
removed and rebuilt a portion of the existing commercial building instead of just
remodeling it. The front (east) building wall is located the same distance back from
the front property line as has existed for a number of years. Staff believes that the
overall redevelopment plan for this property is appropriate and will be a quality
improvement along this section of Asher Avenue. Staff believes the continuation of
the reduced front setback for the existing commercial building will have no adverse
impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested front setback variance, subject to
compliance with the landscape and buffer comments as noted in paragraph B. of
the staff report.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
eenr
E. RST.
LIT
LITTLLE ROCK, AR 72201
501-376-3676 FAX 376-3766
l7eUCiUss
A r c n i t e c t design, planning and interiors
May 28, 2010
Mr. Monte Moore
Zoning and Enforcement Administrator
Department of Planning & Development
City of Little Rock
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Asher One Stop
Variance Request
2608 Maple Street
Little Rock, Arkansas
Dear Mr. Moore:
Attached please find six copies of the Site Plan and the Survey on the above referenced
project. Our client is requesting consideration on variances for set -back requirements. As you
are aware, this relates to existing building and existing canopy that do not meet the required
set -backs. 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,
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.:
Owner:
Applicant:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
•
Hector Hortelano and Laura Alvarez
Hector Hortelano
17846 Colonel Glenn Road
Northwest Corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Winsome Drive
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 31-156
to allow an accessory building which exceeds the size of the principal structure.
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 17846 Colonel Glenn Road is occupied by a 16 foot by
56 foot manufactured home. The property is located at the northwest corner of
Colonel Glenn Road and Winsome Drive. The property consists of two (2)
separate parcels (real estate records), but is considered one (1) zoning lot as per
the City's Zoning Ordinance definition. There is a gravel driveway from Colonel
Glenn Road which serves as access to the residence. The property is located out
of the Little Rock City Limits, but within the City's extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction.
On March 26, 2007 the Board of Adjustment granted a variance from Section 36-
156(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a 40 foot by 50
foot metal accessory building on the property, as noted on the attached site plan.
The proposed accessory building was to be located over 90 feet back from the
front (south) property line. The accessory building was proposed to serve as
storage for the existing residence and will aid in storing materials and tools when
the applicants construct a new home on the lot in the future. The previous Board
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
of Adjustment approval expired after two (2) years since the applicant did not begin
construction of the accessory building. Therefore, the applicant is back before the
Board of Adjustment asking that the variance be again approved. Some site work
has recently takes place on the site where the accessory building is proposed.
Section 36-156(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory
buildings or structures be subordinate to the principal structure on the lot and
contain less gross floor area. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to
allow the 2,000 square foot accessory structure on the lot with an 896 square foot
principal structure. The proposed accessory structure meets/exceeds all other
setback requirements.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as
reasonable, as the proposed metal storage building/garage will not be out of
character with the general area. There are numerous large storage buildings,
barns, etc. in this general area along Colonel Glenn Road. The proposed structure
and residence represent a very minimal coverage of this two (2) acre property. As
noted in the applicants' letter, there are plans to construct a larger single family
home in the future. Staff believes the proposed accessory structure will have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested accessory structure variance, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The accessory structure will be for the use of persons residing in the
principal structure only. It cannot be rented out, or used as a
dwelling or in conjunction with a business.
2. The accessory structure must be located at least 90 feet back from
the front (south) property line to allow for future right-of-way
dedication.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 2010)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff noted that the
applicant had not completed the required notifications to surrounding property owners.
Staff recommended the application be deferred to the July 26, 2010 agenda. The item
was placed on the consent agenda and deferred to the July 26, 2010 agenda. The
vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
I -so g'
one
"7_0
"7_0 0 -
--
.a�ho:l�_
r _. _ v Com►` �.-C�.�c��.,.a�{r�� L ter' ez.
j_��.�_
%n�.-- a—v G�� i � aC—e- m e `Zo n_i A -Q_r i_6-cKC�
f p
------ --
Yom► e-�_{ o' -._t – C� �ot c�L
Jr_kL1a—_tu ►'s pct.
---.--.—__
_tL�tC� •l__Gti_rvfenLC?i�� :.0 i5 hQC-L (tlt� �C��0Cdi�G�--
5,00
Ila
-------
tincj _Ls -10 r _
n:' j
1.-V%L� 1_I��l���,���.lit.L �/��: l•�(�_l�l 1 %r �G�-���<n _
l�.L.j�\-..l`_�I_���_��.�-.
---_
o rd �ob��o s
lt_
- — --
[di�n� . --
_--
CC
D-1—p-,MCC--
UJ;.
W i �P� t.a_L W_ _
y
tui �1ec,� �iy
_--
r� cr�cx�rn car sait1S�t.t2�
r
-e—an-ca-
alt n_� h�zrznln,9-�ce t�.t Le�e2_
cc1-v v_e r �/ ` e.r_i e - L�i_c���Q
1.
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.: Z-8521 -A
Owner: Brian and Caren Norris
Applicant: Caren Norris
Address: 2112 Country Club Lane
Description: Lot 5 and part of Lot 4, Block 3, Country Club Heights Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the height provisions of Section 36-
254 to allow a new residence with a height which exceeds the maximum 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 2112 Country Club Lane is occupied by a two-story
(with finished basement) single family residence which is in the process of being
constructed (framing). There will be a driveway along the south side of the
residence leading to a carport on the rear of the residence. There is a 10 foot alley
along the rear (west) property line. The property slopes downward from front to
back (east to west) and side to side (north to south). Because of the slope of the
property, the residence has the appearance of a two-story structure as viewed
from the front (east) and north side. It has the appearance of a three-story
structure as viewed from the rear (west) and south side. On February 22, 2010 the
Board of Adjustment granted rear and side yard setback variances for this
residential structure. The applicant is now back before the Board to request one
(1) additional variance for which a need was not known at the time of the previous
Board of Adjustment action.
Section 36-254(c) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum building
height of 35 feet for structures in the R-2 zoning district. According to the
ordinance definition of building height, it is measured from the lowest finished floor
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.)
level to the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable or hip roof.
Because the basement level of this residence will be finished (game room,
bathroom etc.), the height of the structure measures approximately 43 feet. As
noted previously, this is primarily as viewed from the rear and south side. The
height as measured is for the main portion of the residential structure and does not
include the carport section as the rear of the structure which is well under the
maximum height allowance. If the basement level of the residence were not
finished space, the building height measurement would be approximately 34 feet.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the new single family
residence with a height of approximately 43 feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested height variance. The fact that this structure
has a finished basement level is the only reason that the building height
measurement does not comply with ordinance standards. A portion of the finished
basement will be below the finished grade of the yard area. As noted previously, if
the basement level was not finished space, the building height measurement would
be approximately 34 feet and comply with the ordinance. Additionally, the overall
height of this residence, as measured from the finished grade of the yard area to
the peak of the roof, will not be out of character with the neighborhood. There are
other residences within one (1) to two (2) blocks of this residence which have
overall heights similar, and possibly greater, than this residence. The changing
slopes from property to property within this area of the neighborhood play a major
role in how the overall building heights are viewed, without respect to the
ordinance definition of height. Staff believes that the building height as being
constructed will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general
area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building height variance, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
}
f�
r R�,
°ft'FES: y,rvra7t
_T4, =03
Brian Slake Norris & Caren Rebecca Norris
2112 Country Club Lane • Little Rock, AR • Tel • 501-951-5400 or 501-912-1900
May 28, 2010
Monte Moore
Zoning and Enforcement Administrator
City of Little Rock Planning & Development
723 West Markham Street, 1St Floor
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Mr. Moore:
The R-2 zoned property at 2112 Country Club Lane was proposed and approved
for a two-story frame single-family residence with a basement. There is a one -car
wide driveway from Country Club Lane to an alley that is accessible from Country
Club Blvd.
The new residence currently meets the City's Zoning Ordinance building height
and ridgeline elevation requirement; however, we are requesting approval to
complete the basement, which changes the grade plane but not the current
structure of the pre -approved plan. The property slopes downward from front to
back (west to east) with the residence being two stories from the front elevation
(west) and three stories from the rear elevation (east). The yard area also slopes
downward from side to side (north to south). The previous resident had a
walkout basement with both rear and side entries, The new home kept the
basement ceiling height the same as the previous resident but has entry from the
rear only.
The proposed residence is comparable in design and scale to other residences
on Country Club Lane. In addition, the carport in the back is covered by a
separate shed roof, which is twelve feet lower than the main residence at its
highest point and twenty-four feet in length from back to front (east to west).
Sincerely, ' /
/v_", -;"L� ��./ut� X &pa
Brian Blake & Caren Rebecca Norris
norrisl2@comcast.net • bbnorris@comcast.net
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z-8561
Owner: William and Laura Titus
Applicant: Bill Titus
Address: 29 St. Andrews Drive
Description: Lot 7, Block 13, Pleasant Valley Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254
to allow a room/patio addition with reduced setbacks.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Any guttering and downspouts should direct stormwater flows away from
adjacent property.
2. Measures to control the increase in stormwater runoff from the increased
impervious surface should be implemented to not damage adjacent property.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 29 St. Andrews Drive contains a two-story brick and
frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from St. Andrews
Drive which serves as access. There is a carport at the west end of the residence.
The lot contains a 35 foot front platted building line.
The applicant is proposing to construct a room addition on the rear (south side) of
the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The addition will be one-story in
height and contain a new master bath area. The east portion of the addition will be
a covered patio area. The patio area will be enclosed with the exception of the
east side. The proposed addition to the residence will be located 19 to 20 feet
back from the rear (south) property line, and 7.5 feet back from the west side
property line.
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 4 (Con't.)
Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 25 foot
rear setback for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a minimum side
yard setback of eight (8) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to
allow a rear setback of 19 to 20 feet and a side setback of 7.5 feet for the proposed
room/covered patio addition.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as
reasonable. As noted previously, this R-2 zoned lot contains a 35 foot front platted
building line, with the house actually located 50 feet back from the front property
line. When the residence was constructed, it was pushed further back on the lot in
order to line up with the other residences along St. Andrews Drive to the east and
west. If the residence were on the front platted building line, the rear setback
would not be an issue. With respect to the side setback, the 7.5 foot setback is
simply a continuation of the setback of the existing residence along the west
property line. Staff believes the requested reduced side and rear setbacks will
have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The
nearest structure to the south is located approximately 40 feet back from the
dividing rear property line between the two (2) lots.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side and rear yard setback variances,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The addition must be constructed to match the existing residence.
2. A building permit must be obtained for the construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
May 25, 2010
Little Rock Aoard of Adjustments
Dear Sirs;
Let me begin by thanking you for taking the time to look at our variance application. My wife,
Laura, and I are applying for a rear set back variance at my property located at 29 St. Andrews
Drive. The current rear setback is 25 feet and we are asking for a 5 foot variance for a total set
back of 20 feet. We would like to do an addition on our home be adding a downstairs master
bath and an outdoor living area. We believe that this will obviously increase our property value,
but also increase the neighborhood in general. Again, thank you for your time and I look
forward to your decision at the next meeting in June.
Sincerely,
William J. Titus
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.: Z-8562
Owner: Matt Bell
Applicant: Jessica C. Szenher/Jim and Ellen Yeary (Yeary Lindsey Architects)
Address: 17 Oakwood Road
Description: Lot 9, Cedar Hill Terrace Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254
to allow a garage addition with 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:
1. Any guttering and downspouts should direct stormwater flows away from
adjacent property.
2. Measures to control the increase in stormwater runoff from the increased
impervious surface should be implemented to not damage adjacent property.
B. Building Codes Comments:
The required fire separation distance (building to property line) prescribed by the
building code terminates at five (5) feet. Buildings are allowed to be closer than
five (5) feet if they have properly constructed fire walls which provide the requisite
one (1) hour fire resistance rating. When buildings are five (5) feet or more from
the property line, the requirement no longer applies to the wall itself, only the
projections such as eaves or overhangs.
Openings such as doors and windows are limited when the exterior wall is three (3)
feet from the property line, and are prohibited when the exterior wall is less than
three (3) feet from the line. There is no restriction on openings when the exterior
wall is more than three (3) feet from the property line.
Contact the City of Little Rock Building codes at 371-4832 for additional details.
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.)
C. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 17 Oakwood Road is occupied by a two-story/split-level
brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from
Oakwood Road which serves as access to the property. There is a one -car wide
carport at the south end of the residence. The property slopes downward from
side to side (south to north) and front to back. The lot contains a 25 foot front
platted building line.
The applicant proposes to widen the carport area to create a two -car wide
enclosed garage at the south end of the residence, as noted on the attached site
plan. The garage addition will run the entire depth of the residence and include
storage room space. The proposed garage expansion will be located
approximately two (2) feet back from the south side property line at the southwest
corner of the addition, and approximately five (5) feet back at the addition's
southeast corner. The garage expansion will be one (1) story in height. The
driveway will be widened with a short retaining wall, if necessary.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
setback of eight (8) feet for the R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is '
requesting a variance to allow the garage addition with a reduced side setback
ranging from two (2) feet to five (5) feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested side yard setback variance. Given the slope of
the property from side to side and front to back, the house has been pulled up to
the front building line. Expansion of the garage area to the side is the most
reasonable option for this structure. The single family residence to the south is
located at least 20 feet back and at a higher elevation from the dividing side
property line between the two (2) lots. Therefore, ample separation will exist
between the two (2) houses. Staff believes the proposed garage addition with
reduced side setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or
general area.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works comments as noted in paragraph
A. of the staff report.
2. Compliance with the Building Codes comments as noted in
paragraph B. of the staff report.
3. The garage addition must be constructed to match the existing
residence.
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
--
- � -�, '2 -
May 27, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
My husband, Doug Szenher, and I have made an offer to buy the single-family
home at 17 Oakwood Road in Little Rock. We have received authorization from
the current owner, Matt Bell, to apply for a variance.
We propose to add a two -car garage to the property, which will mean an addition
to the existing driveway and the side of the existing structure. Because of the
hillside lot, a retaining wall will be required.
Ellen Yeary is our architect, and she has drawn in the proposed addition on the
survey completed May 3 by Brooks Surveying, Inc.
We respectfully request a variance for the construction of the garage and retaining
wall. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
e sica C. Szenher
June 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.: Z-8563
Owner: The GWC Revocable Trust
Applicant: Gertrude W. Cromwell
Address: 5400 Country Club Blvd.
Description: Lot 14, Block 9, Newton's 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 5400 Country Club Blvd. is occupied by a one-story
brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the northwest
corner of Country Club Blvd. and N. Tyler Street. There is a two -car wide driveway
from N. Tyler Street which accesses a garage on the east side of the residence.
The applicant is proposing to remove an existing fence between this residence and
the residence immediately to the west, and replace it with an eight (8) foot high
wood fence. Approximately 90 linear feet of fence is proposed, running from the
front corner of the residence to rear corner of the residence. The new fence will tie
into an existing fence in the rear yard area. The applicant has been working with
the property owner immediately to the west regarding the fence issue, in order to
provide additional privacy for both structures.
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.)
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence
height of six (6) feet for R-2 zoned property. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
a variance to allow the eight (8) foot high wood fence as proposed.
Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff views the request
as reasonable. The eight (8) foot high fence is proposed in order to provide
additional privacy based on the location of windows on the two (2) opposing
structures which are separated by approximately 14 feet. An eight (8) foot high
fence along an interior property line will not be out of character with other fences in
the neighborhood. The Board of Adjustment has granted several variances for
increased fence heights within this neighborhood in the past. Staff believes the
proposed eight (8) foot high fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent
properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to a
building permit being obtained for the fence construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
Trudie W. Cromwell
5400 Country Club Blvd.
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 501-663-8668
Cell: 501-350-1099
E-mail: twcromwell@mac.com
May 16, 2010
Mr. Monty Moore
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Fence Height Variance Request for 5400 Country Club Blvd., Little Rock,
AR 72207
Dear Mr. Moore,
Attached is an application for a variance of the fence height restrictions of Section
36-516 of the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance. I am requesting permission to
construct an eight -foot maximum privacy fence along a portion of the west
property line of my property. The fence will be constructed of overlapping
treated pine with cap and trip and 8" box posts at the ends and at the step downs
caused by the elevation changes.
I am asking for the variance to allow the greater fence height due to difference in
grade between the two yards. A fence conforming to the restrictions in the code
of ordinances does not provide adequate privacy for either property, therefore, the
reason for this request. The enclosed survey shows the extent of the fence.
Please let me know if you need any additional information on this matter.
Sincerely,
1
Trudie W. Cromwell
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.: Z-8564
Owner: Besser-Modi, Inc.
Applicant: Steve Modi
Address: 1019 Main Street
Description: Lot 6 and part of Lot 5, Block 11, Original City of Little Rock
Zoned: UU
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the development provisions of
Section 36-342.1 to allow outside display of rental equipment.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Retail Hardware Store
Proposed Use of Property: Retail Hardware Store with Equipment Rental
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
If the area of outdoor display creates a sight distance problem, the area may need
to be reduced or adjusted to provide adequate sight distance.
B. Staff Analysis:
The UU zoned property at 1019 Main Street contains a one-story commercial
building, part of a two -building commercial development which houses a hardware
store business. The property is located at the northeast corner of Main Street and
the 1-630 frontage road. A driveway from Main Street serves the development.
Paved parking is located between the two (2) buildings. There is some outdoor
storage of bagged landscape materials which has existed on the site for a number
of years.
The applicant recently began renting small equipment as part of the hardware
store business, within the southernmost of the two (2) commercial buildings. As
part of the equipment rental portion of the business, the applicant proposes to have
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.)
a small area of outdoor equipment display on the paved area along the west side
of the building, as noted on the attached site plan. The equipment rental will
include smaller equipment, targeting the homeowner and not commercial
contractors. The applicant has noted that the equipment displayed will be moved
into the building at the close of each business day.
Section 36-342.1(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance states that all permitted uses
within the UU zoning district must be inside or enclosed, except outdoor dining.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this development criteria to
allow the outdoor display of small equipment.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as
reasonable. This property is located near the outer edge of the UU zoning district
and along Interstate 630. There is a history of businesses with outdoor display in
this area. The vacant property across Main Street to the west previously housed
an auto dealership. There was additional auto display to the north across W. 10th
Street. Also, the hardware store at the southwest corner of Main Street and W. 9th
Street was granted approval by the Board of Adjustment to have outdoor
display/storage of materials. Additionally, there are a number of surface parking
lots in this general area. The proposed outdoor display of small equipment at this
location will not be out of character with other uses in this area of the UU zoning
district. Staff believes that the area of outdoor display will have no adverse impact
on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow outdoor equipment
display, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works comments as noted in paragraph A. of
the staff report.
2. The equipment displayed must be moved inside the building at the close
of each business day.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
Besser Modi, Inc
Besser Hardware & Rental
1015 & 1019 Main St.
Little Rock, AR- 72202
May 6, 2010
Mr. Dana Carney
Mr. Monte Moore
Department of Planning & Development
City Of Little Rock
723 West Markham St. 1st Floor
Little Rock, AR 72201
.T419-116- -* 7
C:
Subject: Requesting variance for displaying Sales & Rental equipment.
Dear Sir/Madam:
This is Steve Modi, from Besser Hardware located at 1015 Main st., downtown Little
Rock, AR. This hardware store has been at this location since 1968 or longer. We added a
new rental department to the hardware business. The rental department needed more
space to store equipment and to rent, we start using the adjacent building of 1019 main
street which is part of the Besser Hardware for a long time. That building was used as a
part of office for hardware store, outdoor item sales and lawn & garden equipment and
supply storage. Plus timely we use for any excess inventory to store. The outside of the
building was used as a parking space. Now we decorate the building inside and outside to
use as a rental department. Our rental department requires to display equipment in front
of the building.
We request a zoning variance from City of LR, Planning and developing commission, to
display our rental equipment in front of the 1019 Main st. building. As per survey, the
south 15 feet of lot 5 and all of the lot 6, block 11, of the original city of Little Rock,
Pulaski county, Arkansas. We will use the existing parking space, 32'00", for our display
of the rental equipment. We will make sure, we will not block any side walk or other
public access at the time of display. We promise that any of the display at any time will
be stayed inside the property line of Besser Hardware and Rental.
If you have any questions, please call me at (501) 352-4054 or e-mail me at
besserhardwre@gmail.com
Sincerely,
Gaurang(Steve) Modi
President
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 8
File No.: Z-8565
Owner: Howard M. Knoff
Applicant: John Beneke
Address: 49 Woodberry Road
Description: Lot 53, Longlea Subdivision
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 Woodberry Road is occupied by a two-story brick
and frame single family residence. The property is located at the northwest corner
of Woodberry Road and Holly Springs Court. A two -car wide driveway from Holly
Springs Court serves as access to the property. There is also a circular driveway
from Woodberry Road. The lot contains a 25 foot platted building line along the
front (south) and street side (east) property lines.
The applicant is in the process of making extensive landscape improvements to
the property in the rear yard area. The improvements include a new deck/gazebo
structure, covered outdoor kitchen area, firepit and water feature. As part of the
landscape upgrade the applicant is proposing to construct a new fence to enclose
the rear yard area, as noted on the attached site plan. The new fence will be eight
(8) feet in height, six (6) feet of solid wood with two (2) feet of lattice on top. This
fence will have eight (8) foot high brick columns. It replaces a six (6) foot high
wood fence. The applicant is also proposing to replace the existing six (6) foot
high wood fence along the remainder of the rear (north) property line and within the
east (street side) yard area. This area of fencing will be located between existing
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.)
brick columns. A portion of this fence will be located between the 25 foot platted
building line and the east (street side) property line.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence
height of four (4) feet for fences located between a building setback line and street
side property line, and six (6) feet elsewhere on a single family lot. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the new
eight (8) foot high wood fence within the rear yard area, and replacement of the
existing six (6) foot high fence located within the east side yard area, between the
25 foot platted building line and east street side property line.
Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff views the request
as reasonable. The property immediately to the west is located below the grade of
the rear yard of this lot. The proposed fence will help screen the adjacent property
from the new elevated deck/gazebo area within the rear yard. The six (6) foot high
fence within the east street side yard area will simply replace an existing wood
fence of the same height. Additionally, the higher fencing will not be out of
character with other fences in this neighborhood. Staff believes the proposed
fences will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. , Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to a
building permit being obtained for the fence construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
Mr. Monte Moore
Little Rock Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Mr. Moore,
As the agent for Dr. Howard Knoff and his wife Julie, I request a Residential Zoning Variance for
their residence at 49 Woodberry Road, Little Rock, AR 72212. The request is for two (2) items:
1. To allow construction of an 8' fence (6' screen fence with a 2' framed lattice panel
above) within back yard area to replace existing 6' screen fence that has deteriorated. The
properties abutting the Knoff residence are several feet lower in elevation and, from the
deck off the back of the Knoff residence, the view to the west is dominated by the
neighbor's trampoline. The fence will be constructed of treated pine and supported by
16"x16" brick columns at 12' intervals. Drawings of the proposed 8' fence have been
submitted with the application.
2. To allow replacement of existing 6' screen fence between existing 16"x16" brick
columns in area between building setback on north side of residence and Holly Springs
Street. The existing fence has deteriorated and needs to be replaced. The brick columns
supporting the fence remain in good condition but were designed and constructed for a 6'
fence. Drawings of the proposed 6' fence have been submitted with the application.
As Dr. Howard Knoff s agent, I will appear at the hearing scheduled for June 28, 2010 and try to
answer any questions that you or the board may have. Please call me at (501) 944-9577 if
additional information or documentation is needed.
Sincerely,
John eneke
Copy: Dr. Howard Knoff
PO Box 250203 0 Little Rock, AR 72225 0 (501) 944-9577
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 9
File No.: Z-8566
Owner: Pearl, LLC
Applicant: David Pearlstein
Address: 122 Rice Street
Description: Lot 8, Block 4, Capitol View Addition
Zoned: R-4
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-4 zoned property at 122 Rice Street contains a one-story frame single family
residence. The property is located at the northwest corner of Rice Street and W.
2nd Street. There is a gravel driveway from W. 2nd Street which serves as access to
the property. The property slopes downward from back to front (west to east). The
front yard area of the lot is approximately four (4) to five (5) feet above the grade of
Rice Street.
The applicant recently constructed a wood fence along the front (east) and south
side property lines, as noted on the attached site plan. The fence varies in height
and steps down with the slope along the south property line. The portion of the
fence which is in the front yard area is constructed of three (3) to four (4) feet of
solid wood with approximately two (2) feet of lattice -type woodwork (non-opaque)
on top. The fence along the south side property line is six (6) to eight (8) feet in
height with similar construction to the portion in the front yard area. The vast
majority of the fence along the south property line is six (6) to seven (7) feet in
height. It only nears the eight (8) foot high mark near the southeast corner of the
lot.
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.)
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence
height of four (4) feet for fences located between a building setback line and street
front or side property line, and six (6) feet elsewhere on a single family lot.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow those portions of the
fence which are located between the building setback lines and the street side
property lines to exceed the maximum height allowed.
Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff views the request
as reasonable. The yard elevation along where the fence is located is several feet
above the grade of the adjacent streets. This gives the fence the appearance that
it is taller than it actually is. Additionally, the new fence is not out of character with
other fences in the general area. The property immediately to the south across W.
2nd Street recently received a variance to allow an eight (8) foot high fence along
the street side property line. Staff believes the new fence is a nice improvement to
the property and will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the
general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to a
building permit being obtained for the fence construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 2010)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff noted that the
applicant had not completed the required notifications to surrounding property owners.
Staff recommended the application be deferred to the July 26, 2010 agenda. The item
was placed on the consent agenda and deferred to the July 26, 2010 agenda. The
vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
"—/ 2c),D
-T
C._ j 6 12�CJL
pea V,f i,�
Fro�v,' Do�o(
Jz' 2 Z
vkA
9 r �4- - evAtQ- ckl�
7-
qc) / -O,,, 76 7-It-e-
(t/l OkQ12 C
dl
TA,�tAk
Coo
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 10
File No.: Z-8567
Owner: Thomas L. and Nancy Baxley
Applicant: Mark Spradley
Address: 42 Robinwood Drive
Description: Lot 72, Robinwood 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 42 Robinwood Drive contains a one-story brick and
frame single family residence. A circular driveway from Robinwood Drive serves
as access to the property. A garage is located at the east end of the residence.
The property slopes downward from front to back (south to north).
The applicants recently constructed a new eight (8) foot high wood fence along the
rear (north) property line, as noted on the attached site plan. New wood fencing
ranging in height from six (6) to eight (8) feet was constructed along the rear yard
portion of the west side property line. The fence was constructed in October,
2008, and has a "finished" appearance on both sides.
Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence
height of six (6) feet for R-2 zoned lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the eight (8) foot high wood fence along the rear (north) property
line and the six (6) to eight (8) foot high wood fence along a portion of the west
side property line.
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 10 (CON'T )
Staff is supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff views the request
as reasonable. As noted previously, the fence was constructed in October, 2008,
with both sides of the fence being finished. With the property sloping downward
from front to back, the increased fence height provides additional privacy screening
between this property and the property immediately to the north. Additionally, the
eight (8) foot high fence is not out of character with other fences in this
neighborhood. Staff believes the existing fence has no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to a
permit being obtained for the fence construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 2010)
Thomas and Nancy Baxley and Mark Spradley were present, representing the
application. There were two (2) persons present with concerns. Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval.
Mark Spradley addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that several
neighbors he had talked to had no objections to the fence height variance. He
discussed the elevation of this property in relation to the property to the north. He
explained that the eight (8) foot high fence as proposed was an asset to he
neighborhood.
Alan Abston addressed the Board with concerns. He discussed the issue of drainage
between the two (2) properties. He noted that he had no issue with the proposed fence
height.
Suzanna Abston also addressed the Board with concerns. She noted that the fence
panels were seven (7) inches off the ground in places. She discussed the issue of
drainage, noting that she had tried to work with the Baxley's on the drainage problem.
She stated that she had no issue with the fence height.
There was additional discussion of the drainage issue in the area. Chairman
Winchester noted that the only issue before the Board was the variance for the
increased fence height, and that the Board could not address the drainage issue.
There was a motion to approve the requested fence height variance, as recommended
by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. The application was approved.
Imspradley@sbcglobal.net
Ms. Leslie Greenwood
2308 South Taylor Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72204
Mr. Scott Smith
2701 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
Mr. Bob Winchester
8521 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, Arkansas 72227
ATTORNEY AT LAW
8114 CANTRELL, SUITE 240
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72227
May 28, 2010
TELEPHONE: (5'561) 5'537-4290
TELECOPIER: (501) 219-6895
Mr. Raj esh Mehta
209 Deauville Place
Little Rock, Arkansas 72223
Mr. Brad Wingfield, P. E.
15 Ison Creek Cove
Little Rock, Arkansas 72223
Re: Application for Residential Zoning Variance; Lot
72 Robinwood, an Addition to the City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas (42 Robinwood
Drive)
Dear Ms. Greenwood and Gentlemen:
The undersigned, as agent for Mr. and Mrs. Tom Baxley, owners and residents of
42 Robinwood Drive, request your consideration and support regarding their application
for a zoning variance. Their residence is in the City of Little Rock and is zoned for and
used as a single family residence.
They purchased their home in 1974. In October, 2008, they replaced their
backyard chain link fence with an attractive privacy fence. The fence is eight feet tall
where it parallels the rear lot line and adjoins the sideyard fence — see attached
photographs.
The Baxleys, not aware of the six foot maximum height zoning requirement, and
relying on their builder, did not obtain a building permit or a variance. With these errors
brought to their attention, they now respectfully request a variance to permit their fence
to remain as constructed.
In support of their request they point out that their lot slopes to the rear, the same
as the lot directly behind them slopes to its rear. The common boundary between the two
lots is the low point for both properties. Added to that, both properties have elevated
back porches or patios well above the common boundary. A six foot fence between the
two residences would afford neither property any material degree of privacy. However,
the eight foot height, while not achieving complete privacy, is extremely compatible with
the adjoining owners living arrangements by adding a degree of privacy most, if not all,
observers would agree is an enhancement to the two properties and is a benefit for their
owners. Conversely, if the applicants are required to lower the rear fencing to six feet it
would to most, if not all, observers create a separation that would be less attractive and
less beneficial to both parties.
The fence, as shown, is constructed of top quality materials and workmanship
with quality of design. It was constructed to present a "finished" appearance on both
sides so the owner and neighbor enjoy essentially the same "finished grade" appearance.
When constructed the fence was accepted by the neighbors as the enhancement that it is.
The neighbors who share, in common, the applicants' rear boundary purchased their
property prior to the 2008 construction of the existing fence and for more than a year and
a half following made no objection to its height.
Your favorable consideration of the Baxley's application to allow their fence at
the rear of their lot to remain at eight feet in height would be appreciated.
Enclosures
'C )1`�4 •YA•Z�a S t. �. 4 � �; f C, .� n/.. Q \ a1y �'. k ,
'. r5''
.yR .' s ?:rtr"t"�•''�-'�'� "{.yu�r-mom ttxr�+Y _ .',� 'rd .l. sj, ..- � r r •
1 n.,rg'Y,
xiy, � t� <.�� r ' >> ' J . y'''x o r �' i:•. �yi 4t�9 / -f• � {�'. vi ., 7�,,
r j
k-
�.'} • '� i'� t ` � t9'��4t�r �• a''v �iW �.�,C 1�rt �f, y .] �t '{,-,�
a ••,y .., iy ;�tH+ k t;w .�' t_ i. •�; 1 ! 1 a 5 Y S , t. - a
+:L}`p z�aa
Tlk�
'J`t,.. + a L( ,. �,,w,°e ..�c. fi � a W � k s - J � + e�l� 1C ,P � •,8,���b' 1`
N. Ai
rF a tl 3�f�,
Lt7s'I F41
,
risR* � � 3r}1C ��•5\u.. , ��iS�r '�'!�_$� � �Il I� -s .�rj�Y �}�'1fLTti + ,' ��•n\
7.
,� 4!r J k"}p,!\i, ' �,�
f'4
e t �7i� f 3 s
ao�'.. i t t:.�° \`"*xY :%"
rwtEE T� a i;
r tt ye i , car r, t' k t � •r � \ 1�'j
•t- � 6d� �,S r n`I.� 4T�d'���{ ,t�i4.' of {7
� -.�� �vy,_' �t�i�i�(, � " � � � �''ixG� F �'t47 +•�'�rY�'� rt�i qvi� 'Ay'.'�,L r� ��'i .e�: ° f, � ��,r�t�'H\ ,�at�'
� i� >4� -��lil . �f F� �, , + f 9 �r en x �1 s yi v.� y, �:eti ��r r '� + a �`y� 1'•�'�' .
'jt• M1 �t 1,�,•�S .5� C Y.�1+� A��l i� t�-; 'W-Fy�;+ ;}
•�.+`��
L i� aa y
y�A�� :
m
WS
I�y-';v
i tL ; c y �( .may yY .�/,Y,+y✓'- y''
i,°
��R`�' I l�( ti'. R"•'' 'y"
;�+ \ T7 a t 5 i .krj• 7 f J ,
�} }� v
...:V k.' .i 7Jli� h'- ��'af .` B 5.7�`. _ I 2i ? vl A �„�. e,t:"� . •-�
\ y
1
d
a� � ' � 'far;, .r' ,�, �,� t ,- ^'� 7 c 47" d��1 i ri a,RRt ".u, a, y�•'Y't�
AM
10 M
g`�:5t rY � t 14 71 7 .��� � t �; •� rx � 4 :. �-�'SSr r,�v
d✓ `0�rS.ey„ e.
%-M -4 15 ' t�I ri � t 'kgr `K�, S ' t � •g "",'' f ji V'4��6.,, ','.: ,it T:.. .
1
ixW���d�� ..kr�. <' / 7{{ t,�.y i� /' � '1 tt -�- �. '� •.cx�c..
y''r�i`� lP" F +�� �v�x,�,p � ��' , .+-7 `�`S. .;Dt ' r.. ,s •F v. �
./e,s{7./y�r_'xF'511:,YrB' 'I i �, },(in .• y , r F
<e' J a t .,..T ss..y�., ro T �' fYji 9� t 4 r rl f. C,• eN
t$
!q,
tr +
V ,+ ^( i-•.
lrrr• i`f J- r.i, •a. +�t -'v ✓fit ,�j w , +.o q. n stlY s i. a .`l
��C,y� < �Y,��"'x ''j +'����- 7'��r �rr� �s'4E hr �J �'� A r b�Y �i• 4'• , + ,�
�{ �c,•g� �?,�' :9�`��.a"� ''n y ay m Y J eh' t'• � �,xtryR 1 - 5 : `�,e � t _ x.,� i ,
r m fill r- r/ �� � x�{{�� t ' {y +, t !R�•Tc�. t '� ( t �n L' -^ > _
v � SS6 k �r r "�+5 tIP.:�36x}'�! .t..l+�.'�4.f 3• �� �,.(t`4r .k ` � Q(,'g�, l ,��' w
. { ` 'ii • ry ~� -r r ° r t.Yh',
ftiVIA
_. i`r I (tj;,. rt lj. 1 :!'�i �4 •5'`rz.
�3 : y. 1 is b . r � 1�1 � 1 r ,..i �+I• a , �� j`r � .'�
kit'
.. F ' Yl : �� Ear . 5 r' `-L. � ra, j, J l i_S.l .F. .. •,t ` J 4
B C
- 7c�
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 11
File No.: Z-8568
Owner: Larry and Theresa Middleton
Applicant: Burt Taggart
Address: 4 Lacelle Court
Description: Lot 15, Block 14, Chenal 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 side setback. A variance is also requested from
Section 31-12 to allow a second addition which crosses a rear 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
0
Public Works Issues:
No Comments
Building Codes Comments:
The required fire separation distance (building to property line) prescribed by the
building code terminates at five (5) feet. Buildings are allowed to be closer than
five (5) feet if they have properly constructed fire walls which provide the requisite
one (1) hour fire resistance rating. When buildings are five (5) feet or more from
the property line, the requirement no longer applies to the wall itself, only the
projections such as eaves or overhangs.
Openings such as doors and windows are limited when the exterior wall is three (3)
feet from the property line, and are prohibited when the exterior wall is less than
three (3) feet from the line. There is no restriction on openings when the exterior
wall is more than three (3) feet from the property line.
Contact the City of Little Rock Building Codes at 371-4832 for additional details.
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 11 (CON'T.)
C. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 4 Lacelle Court is occupied by a two-story brick single
family residence. Lacelle Court is a private, gated street running east from Chenal
Valley Drive. There is a paved circular driveway from Lacelle Court which serves
as access. The driveway leads to a garage on the west end of the residence. The
property backs up to the Chenal Valley golf course.
The applicant is proposing to construct two (2) additions to the existing residence,
as noted on the attached site plan. A new master bedroom/bath addition is
proposed at the northwest corner of the residence. This addition conforms to
ordinance standards with respect to minimum setbacks from all property lines.
However, the northwest corner of the addition crosses a rear platted building line,
which was platted as a line of sight between the residences to the west and the
golf course.
The second addition is proposed at the northeast corner of the residence. This
addition will consist of a trellis -like structure attached to the northeast corner of the
residence which ties into a covered (unenclosed) outdoor living/patio space. This
addition will be located one (1) foot to 17 feet back from the east side 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. Section 31-12(c) of the Subdivision
Ordinance require that building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by
the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow
the reduced side setback for the proposed building addition at the northeast corner
of the residence. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow a rear
building line encroachment for the proposed building addition at the northwest
corner of the residence.
Staff does not support the proposed variances, as requested. Staff has no
problem with the requested building line encroachment near the northwest corner
of the residence, as long as written approval is obtained from the Chenal property
owners association. However, staff does not support the reduced side setback for
the proposed covered patio at one (1) foot from the side property line. Although
the one (1) foot side setback is proposed for only one (1) corner of the structure,
staff feels that there is ample area to work with in this rear yard and could support
a variance to allow the nearest corner of the covered patio area at a minimum of
three (3) feet from the side property line. If the applicant were willing to increase
this side setback, staff could support the application.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete
a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted rear building line for the
addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's
office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variances, as filed.
JUNE 28, 2010
ITEM NO.: 11 (CON'T.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff noted that the
applicant had revised the application by withdrawing the requested side setback
variance along the east property line. Staff explained that the applicant would provide
the minimum eight (8) foot side setback as required. Staff recommended approval of
the requested building line encroachment subject to completion of a one -lot replat
reflecting the change in the side platted building line as approved by the Board. Staff
also noted that the Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee and two (2) adjacent
neighbors had submitted letters of approval. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff.
The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
Dana Carney
City Of Little Rock
Planning And Development Department
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock. Arkansas 722CI
Dear Board Of Adjustment,
The owners of the property at #4 Lacelle Court in Chenal wish to make an addition
to the rear of their residence which will impede the southeast side setback. This
addition will allow for a new master bedroom & bath as well as a detached outdoor
living space. All materials are to match existing and roof forms will be stepped
down and scaled appropriately to the site & neighborhood.
Please see attached materials & residential zoning variance form for additional
information.
Best regards,
Burt Taggart Jr., AIA
D
m
%v
z
D
m
I�
D
cn
m
z
M
O
v
iZ
m
z
z
m�
2
x
-n==DZm
_
=
D
Z
Z
rn
O
M
cp
:�E
z
v
m
D
Z
�=r-
M
o
'pO
D
W
M0
00
W
=
Cl)
m
0o
r
O
Fn
c
M
O
v
m
z
z
Z
m
x
-n==DZm
M
cp
:�E
;a
m
O
D
O
D
M0
00
W
=
r-
m
0o
m
r
m
N
1
M
O
v
June 28, 2010
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Date:
-Chairman
' J
Secr ary