boa_12 20 2010el
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
DECEMBER 20, 2010
2:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being three (3) in number.
Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The Minutes of the November 29, 2010 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
Robert Winchester, Chairman
Scott Smith, Vice Chairman
Brad Wingfield
Open Position
Rajesh Mehta
City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
DECEMBER 20, 2010
2:00 P.M.
OLD BUSINESS:
No Old Business
NEW BUSINESS:
1.
Z-6991 -A
2.
Z-8617
3.
Z-8620
4.
Z-8621
5.
Z-8622
6.
Z-8623
6124 Northmoor Drive
5424 Hawthorne Road
1624 N. Hughes Street
5608 Hawthorne Road
8 E. Palisades Drive
8501 Shelly Drive
r
OOEdVMHVH
N
I
I
\ v~i
•�7 <I
31
1S IddISSISSIWNII
ON UOAN35 a !/
QPM
r
15
W's
a1Vd
vn ss
2
F-
3
d6 NHOf
IMpH S
o r... .:.`..�/..7
��. C)
t K
Z
• n
ON SONINd:
U
0493H3 0
I �1
Oa Slaa— VS
1
i
x i oa 3�ola A�l11n
...............'
"•� I m OLI a3 dX3IV a
;a�blA 1
ON
C
Z
Oa INVM315 V
i
OI
Z
ON sNavds
L
�� 00
` V
I
W
N\GNWiY 3655'
_�—
ON SVWOHI NVO I
e
U
�u�o1 ZI
_ O I /
V/
IMpH S
o r... .:.`..�/..7
��. C)
t K
Z
• n
ON SONINd:
U
0493H3 0
I �1
Oa Slaa— VS
1
i
x i oa 3�ola A�l11n
...............'
"•� I m OLI a3 dX3IV a
;a�blA 1
ON
C
Z
Oa INVM315 V
i
OI
Z
ON sNavds
L
�� 00
DECEMBER 20, 2010
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.: Z-6991 -A
Owner: Integrity, Inc.
Applicant: Kip A. Moore
Address: 6124 Northmoor Drive
Description: Lot 120 A -R1, Broadmoor North Addition
Zoned: O-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-
502 to allow a building addition with fewer parking spaces than required.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Office
Proposed Use of Property: Office
STAFF REPORT
/0
C
Public Works Issues:
No Comments
Landscape and Buffer Issues:
Should the upgrade to the property exceed fifty percent or more of the replacement
cost the site must comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances
respectively.
The property to the south is zoned 0-3; therefore, the landscape ordinance
requirements shall apply; no buffer required.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends saving any/all on-site trees as
possible during the project.
Staff Analysis:
The 0-3 zoned property at 6124 Northmoor Drive is occupied by a 14,400 square
foot, two-story office building, located within the west half of the property. The
property is located on the south side of Northmoor Drive, with Garfield Drive along
the east property line and Charlotte Drive along the west property line. A paved
DECEMBER 20, 2010
ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.)
parking lot (40 spaces) is located within the east half of the property. A paved
drop-off/pick-up area for three (3) to four (4) vehicles is located at the southwest
corner of the paved parking lot. Access drives from Northmoor Drive and Garfield
Drive serve the parking area. The building is occupied by Integrity, Inc., who has
office, adult day care and child day care uses within the existing building. There is
a playground area located within the rear yard area, south of the existing building.
The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story, 8,000 square foot addition to
the south side of the existing building, as noted on the attached site plan. The
building addition will be located approximately 16.5 feet back from the rear (south)
property line and 35 feet back from the west side property line. The applicant
notes that the proposed addition will relieve existing crowded office conditions and
will add minimal, if any, new office personnel. The applicant is requesting one (1)
variance with the proposed office addition.
Sections 36-502(b)(2)f. and g. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a total of 57
on-site parking spaces for the uses within the entire building, including building
expansion. The existing uses require 38 on-site spaces and the office expansion
requires 19 additional spaces. As noted previously, there are 40 paved parking
spaces on the site. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the
building expansion with no additional on-site parking.
Staff is supportive of the requested parking variance. Staff views the request as
reasonable. The applicant has noted that the building expansion will result in
minimal, if any, new personnel being added. Five (5) of the required parking
spaces are based on the total number of adults and children in the day care uses.
These spaces will be utilized within the existing drop-off/pick-up area located on
the site. Additionally, there is on -street parking located along one (1) side of
Northmoor Drive, Garfield Drive and Charlotte Drive. This is on -street parking that
can be utilized by Integrity, Inc. Based on the surrounding uses, Integrity, Inc. will
have no competition for the on -street parking. Staff feels there is ample parking to
accommodate the building expansion. A recent inspection of the property by staff
revealed several available spaces within the existing parking area and a number of
available on -street spaces. Staff believes the proposed building expansion with no
additional off-street parking will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties
or the general area.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance, subject to
compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B.
of the staff report.
DECEMBER 20, 2010 (
ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval, with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved, as recommended by staff,
with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
IIP A. MOORS, Architect
AIA NCARB CSI
November 16, 2010
Mr. Monte Moore
zoning and Enforcement Administration
Dept. of Planning and Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
P.O. BOX 5756
13519 HWY. 70
501-961-1980
Re: Request for Waiver of Parking for
Proposed Addition to Integrity, Inc.
6124 Northmoor Drive, Little Rock, AR
Dear Mr. Moore:
NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72119
NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72117
FAX 501-961-1981
Integrity, Inc. is planning to add approximately 8,000 sq.
ft. for a two (2) story addition to the south end of their
existing building. Their existing building is two (2) story
containing 14,400 sq. ft. The total square footage after the
addition would be 22,400.
They presently have 40 parking spaces which exceed the
parking requirements for the existing building by four spaces.
With the proposed addition, I understand the parking requirement
would be 55 spaces which would require an additional 15 spaces.
We are requesting a waiver of the additional spaces for the
following reasons:
1. The City of Little Rock will not grant a curb cut on Garfield
Drive. If the space between the existing south parking curb
and the south property line were available for parking, it
would only allow one way traffic from Charlotte Drive to
Garfield Drive which cannot be done due to lack of a curb
cut.
2. The City Landscape Ordinance requires a 9'-0" landscape
buffer along the south property line.
3. The property is zoned 03 and the set back requirement from
the south property line is 15 feet. We plan to utilize most
of the remainder of the space between the set back line and
existing building for our expansion. Anything less than the
8,000 sq. ft. proposed expansion is not feasible to serve
the needs of the Owner.
November 16, 2010
Page 2
4. The Owner, Integrity, Inc., is seeking the expansion of their
building due to relieve the crowded office space in their
existing building making it more functional. Minimal, if
any, personnel is expected to be added due to the building
expansion which would require the additional parking.
5. The State requires an outdoor play yard for the day care
system already existing in the building. This is proposed
to be relocated to the area south of the existing parking
area.
Your consideration in granting this waiver for additional
parking is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
r
lip A. Moore, Architect
Authorized Agent for
Integrity, Inc.
Attachments: Six (6) copies of Site Plan/Survey
Filing Fee Check
cc: Integrity, Inc.
DECEMBER 20, 2010
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.: Z-8617
Owner: Gay D. White
Applicant: Ed K. Willis
Address: 5424 Hawthorne Road
Description: Lot 7R, Block 6, Newton's Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a porch addition with a
reduced front setback and which crosses a 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
up
Public Works Issues:
No Comments
Staff Analvsis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5424 Hawthorne Road is occupied by a one-story brick
and frame single family residence. The property is located at the northeast corner
of Hawthorne Road and a private road access to St. John's Place Addition
(formerly Polk Street). There is a two -car wide driveway from the private roadway
to a garage on the west side of the residence. The lot contains a 25 foot front
platted building line, as well as a side platted building line along the old Polk Street
frontage. The residence is currently being remodeled.
As part of the remodeling project, the applicant proposes to construct an eight (8)
foot by 28 foot covered porch on front of the residence, as noted on the attached
site plan and elevation sketches. The proposed porch will be unenclosed on its
south, east and west sides. It will be located 18 to 19 feet back from the front
(south) property line, and cross the front platted building line by six (6) to seven (7)
feet.
DECEMBER 20, 2010
ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.)
Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front
setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that
building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to
allow the building addition with reduced front setback and which crosses a front
platted building line.
Staff is supportive of the requested setback and building line variances. Staff
views the request as reasonable. The existing residence has no front porch or
covered entry area. The proposed porch will provide a protected entry to the
residence as well as add to the structure's street appeal. The proposed porch will
not be out of character with other structures in this immediate area along the north
side of Hawthorne Road. Other structures within this block and the blocks to the
east and west have similar front setbacks as proposed by the applicant. Staff
believes the proposed porch addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent
properties or the general area.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete
a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the porch
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.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and building line variances,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted
building line as approved by the Board.
2. The building addition must be constructed to match the existing residence.
3. The south, east and west sides of the porch addition must remain
unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval, with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved, as recommended by staff,
with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
pn5'dent
November 10, 2010
Board of Adjustment
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Z-8617
5424 Hawthorne Road
Little Rock, AR
To Whom It May Concern:
96 i-7
The purpose of this Application is to request permission from the City of Little
Rock Board of Adjustment to allow the construction of an 8 foot open porch to be built in
conjunction with a major interior remodeling project currently under construction for the
following reasons:
1. The existing front entrance door does not allow for any protection or cover
from the outside elements.
2. The lot does not allow for any yard or outside activities on the back and/or
side property lines.
3. The only yard and/or outside sitting area is the front yard which would be
provided by a front porch.
4. The construction of a front porch will add greatly to both the exterior
appearance and enjoyment of the owner.
Please contact me at 680-2814 if you or your staff would like to see the plans or
tour the remodel project.
EKW/lk
Sincerely
Ed K. Willis
t iliac : !It a; e:.,.. PJ.". o, '63 50 Lt.ii:: ` ow , AR 712". 4
DECEMBER 20, 2010
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.: Z-8620
Owner: Harry and Vicki Rollins
Applicant: Harry Rollins
Address: 1624 N. Hughes Street
Description: Lot 45, Hall Cove No. 2 Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
156, the building line provisions of Section 31-12, the easement provisions of Section 36-
11 and the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow construction of an accessory
building with reduced street side setback and which encroaches across a platted building
line and into an easement; and a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
Encroachments to the City's right-of-way are prohibited. Sight distance at this
intersection is currently a concern. The proposed fence addition could worsen the
problem. Public Works does not recommend approval for the fence addition in the
right-of-way. Public Works does recommend approval of the garden shed within
the easement.
B. Utility Issues:
Central Arkansas Water — no objection to location of accessory building within
easement.
Little Rock Wastewater - no objection to location of accessory building within
easement.
Centerpoint Energy - no objection to location of accessory building within
easement.
DECEMBER 20, 2010
ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.)
Entergy — no objection to location of accessory building within easement. The
accessory building is to have a height not to exceed eight (8) feet at its peak and
six (6) feet on the north building wall.
AT&T - no objection to location of accessory building within easement.
C. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 1624 N. Hughes Street is occupied by a one-
story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the
northeast corner of N. Hughes Street and Florida Avenue. There is a two -car wide
driveway from Florida Avenue which accesses a carport on the west end of the
residence. The rear yard is fenced with a six (6) foot high wood fence. The fence
runs along the west (Florida Avenue) property line and ties into the northwest
corner of the residence. The lot contains a 25 foot platted building line along both
street frontages (south and west property lines), and a 14 foot wide utility
easement along the north (rear) property line.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 10 foot by 16 foot accessory building
(garden shed) near the northwest corner of the property, as noted on the attached
site plan. The building will be located nine (9) feet back from the west (street side)
property line and approximately six (6) feet back from the rear (north) property line,
extending into the utility easement by approximately eight (8) feet. The applicant is
also proposing to move a portion of the six (6) foot high wood fence along the west
(Florida Avenue) property line to approximately four (4) feet into the Florida
Avenue right-of-way. The portion of the fence to be moved is proposed in order to
fence two (2) mature oak trees into the rear yard area. The trees are currently
located just outside the existing fence. The applicant is requesting four (4)
variances with the proposed project.
The first variance is from Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
This section requires a minimum street side setback of 15 feet for accessory
buildings. The proposed building will be located nine (9) feet back from the west
street side property line.
The second variance is from Section 36-11(f). This section requires that building
encroachments into utility easements be reviewed and approved by the Board of
Adjustment. As noted earlier, the proposed accessory building will encroach
approximately eight (8) feet into the existing utility easement located along the
north property line.
The third variance is from Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
This section requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and approved
by the Board of Adjustment. The proposed accessory building will be located
between the 25 foot street side building line and the west property line.
The last variance is from Section 36-516(e)(1)a. This section allows a maximum
fence height of four (4) feet between a building setback line and a street right-of-way.
DECEMBER 20, 2010
ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.)
The applicant is proposing to bump -out the existing six (6) foot high wood fence
approximately four (4) feet into the Florida Avenue right-of-way.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances associated with the accessory
building (garden shed) construction. As noted in paragraph B. of the staff report,
all of the utility companies support the encroachment into the utility easement. The
other setbacks proposed for the accessory building are fairly typical. The
proposed accessory building will not be out of character with other accessory
buildings in this neighborhood. The structure will occupy a very minimal area
within a rather large back yard area. The single family lot backs up to a rather
large multifamily development. Staff believes the proposed accessory structure
will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
Staff does not support the requested fence variance. As noted in paragraph A. of
the staff report, the Public Works Department does not support relocation of the
fence section into the Florida Avenue right-of-way. Public Works notes that sight
distance is presently a concern at the intersection of Florida Avenue and N.
Hughes Street/Missouri Avenue, and the fence encroachment could worsen the
situation.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete
a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted street side building line for the
accessory building. 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 approval of the requested setback, easement and building line
variances associated with the accessory building, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the side platted
building line as approved by the Board.
2. Compliance with the Entergy requirement as noted in paragraph B. of the
staff report.
Staff recommends denial of the requested fence variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2010)
Harry Rollins was present, representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval of the
variances associated with the accessory building and denial of the fence height
variance.
Harry Rollins addressed the Board in support of the application. He discussed the
proposed fence encroachment into the Florida Avenue right-of-way and presented
DECEMBER 20, 2010
ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T )
photos to the Board in support of his application. He explained that in his opinion there
would be no sight -distance problem with the proposed fence. The issue was discussed
further.
Vice -Chairman Smith explained that Public Works had reviewed the fence issue and
determined the proposed fence to be a potential sight -distance problem. He stated that
he would have to side with the Public Works assessment.
The fence issue was discussed further. Mr. Rollins explained that he wanted to
incorporate the trees in the Florida Avenue right-of-way into a flower bed in the rear
yard area. The maintenance of the existing fence was also discussed.
There was a motion to approve the variances associated with the proposed accessory
building, as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1
absent and 1 open position.
There was a second motion to approve the fence height variance, as filed. The motion
failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 3 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
To: Dept of Planning and Development ?_ 2-0
All interested parties
From: Harry & Victoria Rollins
1624 North Hughes St.
Little Rock, Ar 72207
RE: Building of garden shed and moving of privacy fence
We, Harry & Victoria Rollins would like to have a garden shed built in the corner of our
lot. We have decided on the location for ease of use and aesthetic purposes. This space
has never been used for any utility purpose and we have permission from all concerned
utilities to build on the proposed location.
We would also like to rebuild our fence. The tree roots have grown into the bottom of the
fence making replacement necessary. They have caused extensive damage to the fence.
We would like to move the fence out to the other side of the trees to keep future damage
from occurring. There are no utility lines in the proposed location. it will also improve
the appearance of our property.
Regards,
Harry Rollins
Victoria Rollins
DECEMBER 20, 2010
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.: Z-8621
Owner: Scott and Meredith Beau
Applicant: Rodney Parham
Address: 5608 Hawthorne Road
Description: Lot 18 BRR, Forest Heights Place Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
156 to allow construction of a pool and pool house with reduced side and rear setbacks
and with an increased rear yard coverage.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
0
Public Works Issues:
Encroachments to the City of Little Rock's right-of-way is prohibited. Public Works
does not recommend approval for this application, as long as the pool equipment
is located in the right-of-way.
Buildina 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.
DECEMBER 20, 2010
ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.)
C. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5608 Hawthorne Road is occupied by a two-story rock
and frame single family residence. The property is located on the north side of
Hawthorne Road and backs up to N" Street (north property boundary). There is a
circular driveway from Hawthorne Street within the front yard area. A one -car wide
driveway, extending to a two -car width, is located at the northwest corner of the
property from N" Street. The driveway leads to a garage at the rear of the
residence. There is a retaining wall near the rear (north) property line. The
northeast portion of the rear yard area is located four (4) to five (5) feet above the
grade of N" Street.
The applicant proposes to construct a pool and pool house with overhang within
the rear yard at the northeast corner of the property, as noted on the attached site
plan. The pool house will be 10 feet by 18 feet in area and located on the east
side of the pool. The overhang portion will extend over the pool to near the garage
portion of the residence. The overall structure will be approximately 20 feet by 30
feet in size. The proposed pool, pool house and overhang will occupy
approximately 624 square feet (41 percent) of the required rear yard area (rear 25
feet of the lot). The pool house/overhang structure will be located two (2) feet back
from the rear (north) property and 2'-4" from the east side property line. The
overhang structure will be located approximately three (3) feet from the house.
The remainder of the rear yard area, south of the proposed pool/pool house, will be
landscaped, including pavers, planters and a covered grill area. The pool
equipment associated with this project is proposed to be located on the north side
of the rear (north) property line, within the N" street right-of-way. The applicant is
requesting four (4) variances with the proposed pool/pool house project.
The first variance is from Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
This section requires a minimum rear (north) setback of 60 feet for accessory
buildings on double -frontage lots. The proposed pool house/overhang structure is
located two (2) feet from the rear (north) property line.
The second variance is also from Section 36-156(a)(2)c. This section also allows
a maximum rear yard coverage of 30 percent for accessory structures. The
proposed rear yard coverage is 41 percent.
The third variance is from Section 36-156(a)(2)f. This section requires a minimum
side setback of three (3) feet for accessory buildings. The proposed pool
house/overhang structure will have an east side setback of 2'-4".
The final variance is from Section 36-156(a)(2)b. This section requires that
accessory structures be separated by at least six (6) feet from principal structures.
The proposed pool overhang structure will be located approximately three (3) feet
from the principal structure.
Staff is supportive of the requested setback, coverage and separation variances,
with one (1) exception. Staff, including Public Works does not support placement
DECEMBER 20, 2010 (
ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.)
of the pool equipment in the "V" Street right-of-way. The proposed rear yard
coverage, accessory building setbacks and building separation are not out of
character with other structures and properties in the Heights neighborhood area.
"V" Street essentially functions as a alley right-of-way and has been treated as
such by staff and the Board of Adjustment in addressing past building variance
issues for other properties which back up to the right-of-way. Staff believes
construction of the pool, pool house and overhang structure will have no adverse
impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. However, if the applicant
cannot make the project work without locating the pool equipment in the " V" Street
right-of-way, staff feels that the project may be too intense for the rear yard area of
the lot. If the applicant were willing to relocate the pool equipment out of the "V"
Street right-of-way, staff could support the project, with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Building Codes requirements as noted in paragraph B.
of the staff report.
2. The north, south and west sides of the pool overhang structure must remain
unenclosed.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variances, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
application noting that the applicant had revised the application to remove the pool
equipment from the "V" Street right-of-way and locate on the west side of the house.
Staff recommended approval of the revised application, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with the Building Codes requirements as noted in paragraph B. of
the staff report.
2. The north, south and west sides of the pool overhang structure must remain
unenclosed.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved, as revised and
recommended by staff, with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
November 15, 2010
Monte Moore
Little Rock Department of Planning & Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Scott & Meredith Beau
5608 Hawthorne Street
Little Rock, AR
Mr. Moore:
Scott & Meredith Beau, request a Variance for their residence, 5608 Hawthorne Street,
for approval to build a detached pool house and pool on the north side of their property.
Currently, the lot has a one foot block wall and fence running north/south on the east
side of their property along the property line. This wall returns to run east/west at the NE
corner. A portion of this wall along the north end of the lot is not inside their property
line. This existing wall will remain. The proposed pool house will have a footprint of 10'-
0" x 18'-0", and will be positioned 2'-0" off the north property line and 2'-4" off the east
property line. The pool house is located in this corner to increase the amount of backyard
space for the owners, while allowing adequate space for the pool and covered grill area
to be located. These additions to the Beau property will all be enclosed within the
existing block wall and fence, although the pool house will encroach upon the setbacks
from their property lines. We are requesting a variance to place the pool house closer to
the property lines.
Please refer to the attached survey, which shows all existing and proposed additions to
the property. Should there be any questions, feel free to contact me at 501.907.5802.
Once again, thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
�
O f a nco�,�
Rodney Parham
}' 17:A 9:
2Y11�i�e�,..a.�......�
R l ITEC r5
LITTLE ROCK
%222 C:otiondale Lana
Suite 100
L,ttlu Rock, AR 72202
501 378.0878
FAYE77EVILLE
.509 W jpring St.
Suite 150
fayelt-dle, AR 72701
::79.444•0.473
DECEMBER 20, 2010
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.: Z-8622
Owner: Philip and Gina Tappan
Applicant: Philip Tappan
Address: 8 E. Palisades Drive
Description: Lot "D", Block 1, East Palisades Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254
to allow a building addition with a reduced side setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
ra
Public Works Issues:
No Comments
Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 8 East Palisades Drive is occupied by a two-story brick
and frame single family residence. The property slopes downward from front to
back. The residence is one-story as viewed from the front and two-story from the
rear. There is a two -car wide driveway from East Palisades Drive at the
southwest corner of the property. The driveway accesses a carport within the west
portion of the residence. The applicant is preparing to remodel the residential
structure. The lot contains a 40 foot front platted building line.
The applicant is proposing to make additions to the existing residence, as noted on
the attached site plan. The additions include a two-story garage addition on the
west end of the residence. The proposed garage addition will be located five (5) to
seven (7) feet back from the west side property line. All portions of the additions
will be located behind the front platted building line.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
setback of eight (8) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
a variance to allow the reduced side setback for the proposed garage addition.
DECEMBER 20, 2010 (
ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T )
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as
reasonable. Because of the downward slope of the property from front to back and
the increased front setback platted for this property (40 feet instead of the typical
requirement of 25 feet), the applicant has very little option in placement of a garage
addition to the residence. The proposal will not be out of character with other
structures in the area. The homes along both sides of East Palisades Drive are
fairly large structures with varying front and side setbacks. Staff believes the
proposed garage addition with reduced side setback will have no adverse impact
on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, subject to the
building additions being constructed to match the existing residence.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff noted that the
applicant had agreed to defer the application to the January 31, 2011 agenda, based on
the fact that circumstances regarding the application had changed. Staff supported
deferral of the application.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 31, 2011
agenda with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
~A
�� �U
X �—��~�D~~~�-��8 �� 11700 xA/wvv000 noAo' sunE ONE / LITTLE noox' Anx^wsAx 72212/ 50�.224.0119
1':,aKP'd V te:r
11/01/2010
Little Rock Department ofPlanning 0'Development
723 West Markham
Litt|eRock, AR 72203
Dear Board of Adjustment,
My wife and I have purchased the home at 8 East Palisades in Little Rock and are planning
a substantial renovation and upgrade. This house will serve as our principal residence. The original
house was developed in1955and ixdated tothat era. The house currently offers only exposed parking
under a carport.
The reason for a zoning variance on this renovation is primarily due to a conversion from carport
to enclosed garage. Most houses built in this era did not have an enclosed garage but now that is
certainly standard procedure. While the current carport is located on the west end of the house
it has a restriction on the turning space making for an almost inoperable situation once that space would
beenclosed. |tcurrently has a 90degree turn into the carport but with the variance approval wewill
drive straight into the garage when coming off ofE.Palisades. While the lot has adequate space for a
garage onthe rear ofthe house the slope from the front tothe rear makes the space unusable for
the addition there due tothe severe grade transition.
While the variance does ask for closer placement of the garage to the west side property line, it also
restricts the view from adjacent property into an open carport where garbage containers, autos and
I hope you will strongly consider our request.
DECEMBER 20, 2010
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.: Z-8623
Owner: Della Marks -Grandy
Applicant: Robert Holloway
Address: 8501 Shelly Drive
Description: Lot 70, Windamere Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254
to allow a building addition with a reduced side setback.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
a
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.
DECEMBER 20, 2010 (
ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.)
C. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 8501 Shelly Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and
frame single family residence. The property is located on the east side of Shelly
Drive, south of Keats Drive. There is a one -car wide driveway from Shelly Drive at
the southwest corner of the property. The driveway extends to a two -car width
within the property. There is a new concrete slab on the south side of the
residence, adjacent to the garage portion of the house.
The applicant proposes to construct a 6.5 foot by 20 foot addition on the south side
of the residence on the new concrete slab, as noted on the attached site plan. The
addition will allow for expansion of the existing garage space. The proposed
addition will be located 3.2 feet to 3.75 feet back from the south side property line.
It will be located approximately 30 feet back from the front (west) property line.
Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
setback of 7.3 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance from this ordinance standard to allow the garage expansion with a reduced
side setback.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as
reasonable. The applicant is requesting to expand a rather small garage area
within the existing residence. Staff feels that this is a good option for garage
expansion, with the garage not being located any closer to the front property line.
Staff believes the proposed expansion will have no adverse impact on the adjacent
properties or the general area. The house immediately to the south is located 13
feet back from the dividing side property line, according to a survey provided by the
applicant. Esther Harris, owner of the lot immediately to the south, submitted a
letter of support for the proposed addition.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The building addition must be constructed to match the existing residence.
2. Compliance with the Building Codes requirements, as noted in paragraph
B. of the staff report.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval, with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved, as recommended by staff,
with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.
The 9followay Tinn, Ind,
Civil and Environmental Design
Robert D. Holloway
Prof. Engineer Registration
Arkansas Mississippi
Louisiana Alabama
Prof. Land Surveyor Registration
Arkansas
November 19, 2010
Monty Moore
City of Little Rock Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
200 Casey Drive
Maumelle, AR 72113
Telephone
(501) 851-8806
(501) 851-3366
Facsimile
(501) 851-3368
E -Mail
hollowayfirm@sbcglobal.net
RE: Variance of Zoning Request for 8505 Shelley Drive, Little Rock, AR (Lot 70 Windamere
Addition to the City of Little Rock)
Dear Mr. Moore,
Please find attached 6 copies of the survey, application and cash for the $85.00 review fee. We -
are submitting this proposal on behalf of Mrs. Della Grandy at 8505 Shelley Drive, Little Rock,
Arkansas.
The proposal is to widen her garage to accommodate two cars and to improve her ability to
safely enter her house with automatic door closures. There is enclosed a letter from the owner of
the house on South Ms. Esther Harris, stating that she has no problem with this extension.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert D. Hollo ay
RDH/ba
ENGINEERING ® DESIGN ® SURVEY/MAPPING
LMs. Esther Harris
8503 Shelley Dr.
Little Rock, AR 72209
y .� 1
1�'Awe- ICS7�V
L
I e
i L) 9 A.16-7AT— 060,L' T -D 6UZZAI /Z J/(/J
7ai �V 4aP--
LO 7 4V
c:
N�
O
U
W
W
O
w
L�L �
v/
J
LL
O
v k
m
L
0
ISO
PC
L
ii
Q
CO
m
E
O
w
'
D
0
m
0
<
A
<
o
OU
cnww
z
Q
=,L
U
LU
Z
Z_
z
Z_
=
U)
m
m
0
<
LLI
<
i
o0
W
m
o
w
Q
cnww
=
LL
LIJ_
Z
ZLU
L
0
ISO
PC
L
ii
Q
CO
m
E
O
w
=
0
m
0
<
c��F-�m
Q
<
o
OU
cnww
z
Q
=,L
U
LU
Z
Z_
z
Z_
�5;
U)
L
0
ISO
PC
L
ii
Q
CO
m
E
December 20, 2010
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:18
p.m.
Date: /' 21 —� (
�14 / -
W-Z!�2
Chairman
x -I 1�� 4. -.
Secret -'