Loading...
boa_04 30 2007LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES APRIL 30, 2007 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 March 26, 2007 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Andrew Francis, Chairman Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman James Van Dover David Wilbourn Robert Winchester Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA APRIL 30, 2007 2:00 P.M. I. OLD BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: A. Z -7903-A 316 E. 11 th Street/1020 Rock Street B. Z-8125 5130 "P" Street C. Z-8190 73 Aberdeen Drive A NEW BUSINESS: Z-8191 1224 N. Polk Street ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: 1. Z-8195 2104 West 18th Street 2. Z-8201 16 Fawn's Point 3. Z-8202 15 Glade Court 4. Z-8203 3316 Dorset Drive 5. Z-8204 41 Shannon Drive 6. Z-8205 922 Barber Street 7. Z-8206 18 Tallyho Lane O I ■ > 3NId a31ZVa1 MO 1lnV8tH1 co ( Y ) �� y�L �Oy n NVw830 Q X ~ - b- w O NIVw AtlMOtl0a8 HOW Alo N ti a S3H7 o a3H380 x x o MOKOOM 3NId 3NId z o Hpdb m atl033 NO1lIWV 1103S z s 66Niyd6 h� Na d altl3)aisomw E3 AlISa3nINn SONIadS 83A30 S3HOnH x `g I IddISS SIN (V 6 1001H0 M088VE NHOP 3 y alOna3S3a b cQ' 3NNGH —slpays Oa0331hOVHS o iLLI Oa T V S o w 0 z p� "HNVd A3NOOa Ntlw oe llwn � �bpp3polS o � 3001a Awln n 1 W BR � Q ? V Nvmm0s 1avM31s ySdb/Y sllwn ula��, 0 a'lplN0 31VON831 mO W APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z -7903-A Owner: Barbara G. Core Applicant: Barbara G. Core Address: 316 E. 11 t" Street/1020 Rock Street Description: Lot 7, Block 45, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: R -4A 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: No cover letter at This time. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments Staff Update: The application for the proposed fence was deferred from the March Little Rock Historic District Commission meeting to their April 9, 2007 agenda. There are issues which need to be resolved, and a Little Rock Historic District Commission recommendation is needed prior to Board of Adjustment action. Therefore, staff requests this application be deferred to the April 30, 2007 Board of Adjustment agenda. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the April 30, 2007 Agenda, based on the fact that the application is still pending before the Little Rock Historic District commission and is on their April 19, 2007 agenda. APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 30, 2007 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. Staff Update: The Little Rock Historic District Commission deferred this issue to their May 14, 2007 agenda. Therefore, staff recommends the application be deferred to the May 21, 2007 Board of Adjustment agenda, as a recommendation from the Historic District Commission is needed prior to Board of Adjustment Action. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 30, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the May 21, 2007 agenda, based on the fact that it was deferred to the May 14, 2007 Historic District Commission agenda. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z-8125 Owner: Todd Wilson George Applicant: Todd Wilson George Address: 5130 "P" Street Description: Lot 17, Block 3, McGehee's Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a carport addition with a reduced side setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located at 5130 "P" Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one car wide driveway from "P" Street at the southwest corner of the property. The driveway extends along the west side of the house. There is a small accessory storage building in the rear yard, with an alley running along the north (rear) property line. The applicant proposes to construct a 10 foot by 25 foot carport structure on the west side of the existing residence, over the existing driveway. The proposed carport addition will be unenclosed on its south, west and a portion of the north sides. The carport structure is proposed to be located one (1) foot from the west side property line, and 42 feet back from the front (south) property line. APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of five (5) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the reduced side setback. The applicant is also proposing room and deck additions to the rear of the residence. These proposed additions conform to ordinance standards and are in the process of being constructed. Staff does not support the requested side setback variance. It has been staff's past policy to support setbacks of no less than 18 inches for this type of unenclosed structure. Staff views an 18 inch side setback as a minimum area needed to construct and maintain the carport structure without encroaching onto the adjacent property to the est. If the applicant were willing to provide an 18 inch side setback, including overhang, staff could support the application. The application would have to install guttering to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the west. The guttering could be within the 18 inch side setback. With these changes, staff would view the carport structure as having no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested side setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the December 18, 2006 Agenda due to the fact that the applicant failed to complete the required notification to surrounding property owners as required. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 18, 2006 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 18, 2006) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the January 29, 2007 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. APRIL 30, 2007 TEM NO.: B (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the February 26, 2007 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 2 open positions. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 26, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the applicant contacted staff on February 23, 2007 and requested the application be deferred to the March 26, 2007 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 5 ayes and o nays. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2007) Todd George was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Staff noted that the property owners to the west had submitted a written agreement to grant a maintenance easement for the carport structure. Todd George addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that the property at 5124 had a similar variance granted for a carport structure. There was a brief discussion of the new construction on the rear of the house. The issue of the maintenance easement was discussed. The proximity of the house immediately to the west was discussed. Chairman Francis requested the application be deferred to obtain information on the separation of the structures. There was a motion to defer the application to the April 30, 2007 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was deferred. APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 30, 2007) Todd George was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Staff noted that the separation between the proposed carport and the house immediately to the west was 6-8". Staff noted that the City's Fire Marshall had visited the site and had no problem with the separation as long as the carport had metal framing and was an unenclosed structure. Todd George addressed the Board in support of the application. He confirmed that the carport addition would have metal framing. At the request of James Van Dover, there was a motion to table the item until the end of the meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The Chairman reopened the public hearing on the application. James Van Dover expressed difficulty in supporting the application. The issue of constructing the carport in the rear yard was discussed with respect to the new addition on the rear of the house. Mr. George amended the application to have an 18 inch side setback, as recommended by staff. Staff supported the amended application, with the following conditions: 1. The carport addition must be constructed of metal framing. 2. The carport structure must remain unenclosed. 3. Guttering must be provided in order to prevent water run-off onto adjacent property to the west. There was a motion to approve the revised application, subject to the conditions as noted by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The amended application was approved. 11/13/2M6 17:32 87n2468694 APTC PAGE 02 Todd George 5130 P Street Little Rock, AR. 72207 -:?- -- I' / 2- 5 November 13, 2006 Mr. Monty Moore Lirde Rock Planning & Development Board of Adjustments 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR.. 72.201 Re: Request for variance at 5130 P Street, Little Rock; AR. 72207 .Dear Members of the Board: This letter is to respectfully request a variance in order to place an open -sided carport within the boundaries previously established. As mentioned, this open -sided carport would have guttering and no sides within the boundary. The neighbors to the rest, Michael & Dina Yates have given their consent to this project. Should you require any additional information please feel free to contact me at 501-425-2340. Sincerely, Todd Gecr e TG:jh Mike and Dinah Yates 5132 P Street Little Rock, AR 72207 January 4, 200P City of Little Rock RE: ZONING VARIANCF- To Whom It May Concern: t 2 - This letter is to serve as notice that we are aware and do not contest the zoning variance requested by Todd George at 5130 P Street to build a carport between our houses. We are owners and reside at 5132 P Street. The carport between our houses is fine with us. Please call if us at 501-661-0490 if you have any questions or need fiu-fher information regarding this letter. Sincerely, Mike an Dinah Yates 63/26/2007 6B:12 87R746B694 C -PTC PA13E -:12 l/ Ntareh 25, 2-007 Cify of Little � O CQ To Whom It May Concern: We own and live at 5132 P 5treOt and will grant a utility c�,,,ernent per request to Todd George fin' the Iett;;th of his propos ed carport rieki to otir property, Please contaot us at A il' any further inform2tirm is needed. Sinc.re�y, � • /C � Rke and Dinah Yates I APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: C File No.: Z-8190 Owner: The Fulenwider Living Trust Applicant: Barry Rush Address: 73 Aberdeen Drive Description: Lot 13, Block 18, Chenal Valley Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the building line provisions of Section 36-12 to allow an addition which crosses a side platted building line. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 73 Aberdeen Drive is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence. The property is located at the northwest corner of Aberdeen Drive and Berney Way Drive. There is a three -car wide driveway from Berney Way Drive which accesses a garage at the northwest corner of the residential structure. There is a 25 foot platted building line which runs along the front (east) and side (north) property lines. There is an open space drainage area located on the tract immediately to the west. The applicant is proposing to enclose the existing garage portion of the residence for additional heated and cooled living space. The proposed project includes the addition of a 24 foot by 26.5 foot garage at the northwest corner of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The northeast corner of the proposed garage addition will extend across the 25 foot side platted building APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) line by approximately 11 feet. The northwest corner of the addition will be located on the 25 foot building line. This will result in a side yard setback ranging from 14 feet to 25 feet. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of 8 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. 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 a variance to allow the garage addition to cross the side platted building line. Staff does not support the requested building line variance. Staff views the proposed encroachment as being out of character with the surrounding properties. Upon surveying this newer neighborhood, staff found no similar encroachments across platted building lines. Although there is an open space tract immediately to the west, staff feels the proposed encroachment across the side platted building line could have an adverse visual impact on the surrounding properties. Additionally, the proposed 11 foot building line encroachment is a fairly major encroachment for a newly established neighborhood with consistent platted building lines throughout. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted side building line for the garage 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 denial of the requested building line variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the April 30, 2007 agenda due to the fact that the applicant failed to complete the required notification to surrounding property owners. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 30, 2007 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 30, 2007) Lloyd Fulenwider and Barry Rush were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) Lloyd Fulenwider addressed the Board in support of the application. He discussed the size of the existing garage and how many vehicles could be parked in it. The issue of garage size was briefly discussed. James Van Dover asked what the room above the garage was used for. He noted that it was used as a bedroom for guests. He explained that the only way to access the bonus room was through the stairway in the garage. Mr. Fulenwider presented a photo to the Board showing where the addition would be placed on the lot. This issue was briefly discussed. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked if the existing garage door openings could be utilized and construct only a portion of a new garage, with a minimal encroachment across the platted building line. Mr. Rush noted that the existing beams could cause a problem with that type of addition. The issue was discussed. Chairman Francis explained that the addition as proposed could have an adverse visual impact on the neighborhood. There was a motion to table the application until the end of the meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The Chairman reopened the public hearing on the application. Mr. Rush amended the application to have only a five (5) foot encroachment across the platted building line, at the northeast corner of the proposed garage addition. This issue was discussed. The issue of deferral was also discussed, in order to give the applicant more time to explore options for the addition. There was a motion to defer the application to the May 21, 2007 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. Staff noted that a revised sketch would be needed by May 7, 2007. Property Address: 73 Aberdeen Drive Lot 13, Block 18 Chenal Valley Addition Owner: The Fulenwider Living Trust Contractor: Rush and Company, Inc. Lic # 014260 The owner is requesting a variance to the 25' building line on the side of the lot. The house sits on a corner lot and the proposed addition would not be on the same street that the house faces. Currently, the house has a bonus room above the garage that can only be accessed through the garage. The owner would like to enclose the garage to make it part of the heated and cooled square footage. This would allow access to the bonus room without having to walk through an area that is not temperature controlled. In order to accomplish this the owner would like to add a new garage. It would be built in a fashion that would match the existing house using the same brick and roof material. A gable would also be added to the roofline to compliment the house. There is a greenbelt that is on the backside of the lot, so there would not be a residence affected directly next to the proposed addition. We believe this would be an improvement to the property from two perspectives. The interior would be easier to access all areas of the home. The exterior would benefit from added windows and a gable that would enhance the roofline. APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: D File No.: Z-8191 Owner: Lucas and Megan Hargraves Applicant: Lucas Hargraves Address: 1224 N. Polk Street Description: Part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Hollenberg Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 31- 254 to allow an addition with a reduced front setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 1224 N. Polk Street is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. The property is located at the southwest corner of N. Polk and "L" Streets. There is a two car wide drive from "L" Street which serves as access. The drive leads to a one -car wide detached carport structure within the rear yard of the lot. The residence is located 14.3 feet back from the front (east) property line. The applicant proposes to construct an eight (8) foot wide porch addition on the front (east) of the existing residence. The porch will be covered and unenclosed. The addition will be located 6.3 feet back from the front (east) property line. There will be approximately three (3) steps leading from the porch addition to a front walkway. The steps will be approximately four (4) feet from the front property line. The proposed porch will run the entire width (28.6 APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.) feet) of the residence and be located 8.7 feet back from the north street side property line. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front building 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the porch addition with a reduced front setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. There appears to be one (1) minor porch structure at 1206 N. Polk Street which extends closer to the street than the fronts of the homes in this half block. There is also the residence immediately east across N. Polk Street which has a side relationship to N. Polk Street and a side setback which is similar to the front setback proposed. Additionally, there is very little consistency in this general area with respect to front setbacks for residential structures. The front setback can vary greatly from block to block, with some being greater than 25 feet and some being much less, as with the houses immediately west and east along "L" Street. Staff believes the proposed porch addition adds to the character of the neighborhood and will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested front setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The porch addition must be constructed to match the existing residential structure. 2. The porch must remain unenclosed. 3. The steps must remain uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the April 30, 2007 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 30, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.) The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. February 23, 2007 In regards to: Hargraves Application for Zoning Variance �7 / Tony Bozynski Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Bozynski, We respectfully request that the Little Rock Board of Adjustments consider our application for a zoning variance so that we can build a small open porch, never to be enclosed, on the front of our Hillcrest home. City ordinance requires that all homes be set back at least 25 feet from the street. We hope to add a modest, eight foot deep porch, which requires a zoning variance. While we appreciate and support the purpose of the ordinance, our project is deserving of a variance for some important reasons. First, we do not have a neighbor to the North of us because we are located on a corner lot. The houses across L St., to the north, are in the Prospect Terrace Subdivision and face Southwood street. The homes have large backyards creating substantial distance between our house and those homes. Additionally, there is a lot between our house and the neighbors to the South because we each share '/z of that lot. Therefore, the difference between the setback on our house and our neighbors will not be as noticeable. Furthermore, the house across the street from us faces north; it is oriented at a 90 degree angle to our front door. In light of the placement of our home and our neighbors we believe that a variance is fair because the disparity in set back will not be evident. Secondly, if we are able to add a front porch to our home, it will bring the house in keeping with its original design. Our home was built in 1920 in a traditional craftsman style. Originally the house included a half porch; however, prior owners closed it in. It is rare for a Craftsman style home to be without a front porch; they usually have a full or partial porch with square, tapered columns.' According to a study by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, "the craftsman influence is by far the most common building style found" in Hillcrest.2 We hope to add a porch in the traditional Craftsman style and respect Hillcrest's history and tradition. Thank you for your time in considering this request. We look forward to coming before the board to address any remaining questions. Sincerely, Exon';4/11 � Lucas Hargraves Enclosures (7) ho)' Megan Hargraves 1 www.arcEtecture.about.com and www.arcliitecturalhouseplans.com 2 Hillcrest: The Historic and Architectural Heritage of Little Rock 's Streetcar Suburb, by Cheryl Griffith Nichols and Sandra Taylor Smith, page 16. 1224 N. POLK ST. LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72205 APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z-8195 Owner: Jaybird Investments, Inc. Applicant: Stuart Yancey Address: 2104 W. 18th Street Description: Lot 31 R, Block 33, Centennial Addition Zoned: R-5 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: Vacant Residential Structure Proposed Use of Property: Duplex STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-5 zoned property at 2104 W. 18th Street is occupied by a two -unit apartment structure. The two-story building is located on the original rear (north) property line of this lot. Approximately one (1) year ago this lot was replatted with the two (2) single family lots immediately to the north. The end result was the rear property line shared by the lots was moved approximately 20 feet to the north, creating a 20 foot rear setback for the two -unit apartment building. There is a one -car wide driveway at the southwest corner of the property. The applicant is planning to renovate the two -unit apartment structure. As part of the renovation project, the applicant is proposing to construct a 9 foot -6 inch tall wood fence along the rear (north) property line, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed fence will have five (5) inch square posts APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) and a capped top, rather than the standard dog-eared style. The applicant notes that the taller fence is desired because of the proximity of the two-story structure to the one-story single family houses immediately to the north. Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between a building setback line and a street right-of-way in residential zones. Six (6) foot high fences are allowed elsewhere on the property. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the 9 foot -6 inch high wood fence along the rear property line. Staff is not supportive of the requested fence height variance. Staff does not view the request as being reasonable. It has been staff's past policy to support residential fences with a maximum height of eight (8) feet. Staff believes an eight (8) foot high fence would be adequate in this case. The property owner could plant landscape screening in addition to the fence. Certain varieties of shrubs and trees grow rather quickly and could provide the extra amount of screening in a short period of time. Staff believes the proposed 9 foot -6 inch tall fence is too tall for a residential interior dividing lot line and could have an adverse visual impact on the adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested fence height variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 30, 2007) Stuart Yancey was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Stuart Yancey addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained how the fence would be constructed. He noted that it would be an architectural -type fence. He noted that all of the surrounding property owners supported the proposed fence. In response to a question from the Board, staff noted that there had been no calls of opposition. Chairman Francis asked what the advantage was to an extra 1.5 feet of fence height. Mr. Yancey provided additional information of the proposed fence design and discussed. The issue of distance between the residential structures and use of landscape screening was discussed. The issue of the taller fence height was also discussed. Mr. Yancey amended his application to reduce the proposed fence height to eight (8) feet. There was a motion to approve the application as amended. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The amended application was approved. Jaybird Investments, Inc, P.O. Box 1468 Little Rock, AR 72203 March 16th, 2007 Monte Moore Dept. of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 re: 2104 W,18th St_ Dear Mr. Moore, The purpose of this letter is to request a zoning variance to allow a nine foot six inch fence along the rear property line of my property at 2104 W 98th St. in Little Rock. My property is a double lot with a two story, two unit garage apartment sitting right on the original rear property line and extending for about eighty five feet along the one hundred foot width of the property. Last year about this time the City approved my and my rear neighbors' request for a replat of this property to include an additional twenty feet of depth (which I acquired from my rear neighbor's) to my lot. The structure now sits twenty feet from the new rear property line. Given the height of the structure and it's proximity to the houses behind it we would like your and the board of adjustment's approval to build the higher fence to reduce the visual impact of my building looming over the two homes to the rear. While a taller fence can sometimes have a detrimental visual impact on it's surroundings the neighbors and I are in strong agreement that it will have the opposite effect in this case. I will submit letters to that effect to your office with or prior to the notice forms I am required to circulate. Given the way the affected structures are built the fence will only rarely even be seen by anyone else, In addition I am committed to and do commit to building a very nice privacy style fence using five inch by five inch posts with some sort of cap on the top rather than a simple dog eared style. I have also agreed with the neighbors to jointly install tall and climbing I landscaping along the fence to further enhance the appearance. I would also like to note that the building on my property is a condemned structure that I will be spending a large amount of funds to renovate and bring fully into compliance with current . codes and we hope to have the structure individually listed on the national Register of Historic Places. Your and the Board's support for our efforts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Sincerely, Stuart Yancey, for Jaybird Investments, Inc. APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z-8201 Owner: Nuage Residential Contractors Applicant: James McDaniel Address: 16 Fawn's Point Description: Lot 51, Block 3, Deer Meadow Subdivision 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 construction of a new residence with 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: Undeveloped Lot Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 16 Fawn's Point Cove is currently an undeveloped single family lot which has been cleared in preparation of new home construction. The property slopes downward slightly from front to back (south to north). There is a rather wide drainage ditch which runs along the rear property line. The ditch is approximately 15 feet wide as measured from top of slope to top of slope. The single family lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line. The applicant proposes to construct a one-story single family residence on the lot, as noted on the attached site plan. The majority of the front wall of the structure will cross the front platted building line, ranging from a few inches to five (5) feet. The nearest portion of the structure will be 20 feet back from the APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) front property line. The applicant has noted that the proposed residence has been moved toward the front property line because of the slope of the property in conjunction with the drainage ditch along the rear property line. The applicant is attempting to maximize an area for the rear yard. All other building setbacks conform to ordinance standards. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. 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 new residence with a reduced front setback and to cross the front platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Given the issues of topography and drainage associated with this lot, staff feels the requested variances are reasonable. The lot is located within the bulb of a cul-de-sac street. Because of this, the reduced front setback will not have the appearance of being out of alignment with other adjacent structures along the street. Staff believes the proposed residence with reduced front setback 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 new residence. 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 variances, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 30, 2007) The applicant was not present. Staff recommended the application be deferred to the May 21, 2007 agenda. A motion was made to defer the application to the May 21, 2007 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. ,T�,,,_,4. z —2 - � 2 c, � n }1 eBidential ContrBctorB NuAge Residential Contractors PO Box 25® Sweet Home, AR 72164 To Whom It May Concern: We are making this proposal for the easement to be 20 feet instead of 25 feet. We are doing this to move the home forward five feet. There is currently a trench in the back yard, which hinders the use of the backyard, while also making it unfeasible for a home to fit on the Lot. This is a corner Lot and has a pie shape by nature, and on the backside of the Lot is where the trench makes 25 feet of inadequate land for building and residential use. By moving the home forward, we will be able to make a more uniform look consistent with the sub -division's standards, while keeping the subdivision integrity in tact. This proposal should in no way impede on any other home owners land, but should have a positive effect on their home's value. Thanks /Parry Jackson, Finance Office APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-8202 Owner: Gregory Tatera Applicant: Gregory Tatera Address: 15 Glade Court Description: Lot 59, Heatherbrae 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 15 Glade Court is occupied by a two-story single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Glade Court which serves as access. The property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac street. There is an existing six (6) foot high wood fence which encloses the rear yard area. The applicant recently constructed a swimming pool in the rear yard. Because of the soil, the pool is not totally below ground, extending approximately three (3) feet above grade. Because of the raised elevation of the pool, the applicant is requesting to remove two (2) portions of the existing six (6) foot tall fence and replace it with eight (8) foot high wood fencing. The fence to be reconstructed is along the side and rear property lines, at the northeast corner of the property. The total amount of fence to be replaced amounts to only approximately 80 feet. APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between a building setback line and a street right-of-way in residential zones. Six (6) foot high fences are allowed elsewhere on the property. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the eight (8) foot high wood fence along a portion of the side and rear property lines at the northeast corner of the property. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The proposed eight (8) foot high wood fence will only run for approximately 80 linear feet. The proposed fence height will not be out of character with the neighborhood. There is an eight (8) foot high fence located along the dividing rear property lines between the houses to the east/southeast. The corner of the proposed eight (8) foot fence will tie into the existing eight (8) foot high fence to the east. Staff believes the proposed fence height 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 new fence. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 30, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the May 21, 2007 agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to complete the required notification to the surrounding property owners. The item was placed on the consent agenda and deferred by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. March 23, 2007 Monte Moore Zoning Enforcement Administrator City of Little Rock Ref: Property at 15 Glade Ct Mr. Moore, I am requesting a waiver of the six foot fencing limit on a piece of fence located in the back yard of our property, located at 15 Glade Ct in the Heatherbrae Subdivision off of Taylor Loop Road. We are planning to replace the existing fence (highlighted in green) and would like to replace it with an eight foot wooden fence. We recently installed a swimming pool in our back yard and due to the soil type, it was necessary to raise the pool deck elevation higher then the existing back yard. As a result of raising the pool deck, it has greatly diminished the privacy our privacy fence once afforded. In fact, the level of the fence above our pool deck is just at 3 feet high. The existing fence is a 6 foot tall wooden fence, in sections of approximately 55 feet long and 20 feet long, that separates our back yard from the houses to the side. The updated 55 foot section of fence would adjoin fencing that already exists behind our neighbor's back yard, directly next door (highlighted in pink). The existing fence that divides all the properties to the East of our house is already eight feet and only transitions to a six foot fence when it reaches our property line. The existing eight foot fence extends east dividing the majority of backyards that continue down our street. The 20 foot section would replace an existing 6 foot fence that further divides our property to the East. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. Sincerely A. Tatera APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-8203 Owner: Paul and Brenda Isbell Applicant: Paul Isbell Address: 3316 Dorset Drive Description: Lot 156, Kensington Place, Phase I 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 A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 3316 Dorset Drive is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the northwest corner of Dorset Drive and Suffolk Drive. There is a two -car wide driveway from Dorset Drive which serves as access. The residential lot slopes downward from front to back (east to west). The front door of the house is approximately seven (7) feet above grade. The single family lot has a 25 foot platted building line along each street frontage. The applicant recently removed an uncovered porch structure off the front of the house and replaced it with an uncovered wood porch and step structure, as noted on the attached site plan. The new porch structure extends across the front platted building line by approximately 15 feet, resulting in a 10 foot APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) front setback. The new porch structure is located approximately two (2) feet closer to the front (east) property line than the previous porch, according to the applicant. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. 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 porch addition with a reduced front setback and to cross the front platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff believes the new porch addition is not out of character with the neighborhood. The Kensington Place Subdivision is a very hilly subdivision, with varying degrees of slope throughout. On a short loop through the south part of this subdivision, staff observed several similar front encroachments: • 3300 Dorset Drive • 9915 Suffolk Drive • 10014 Suffolk Drive • 65 Dartmouth Drive • 10100 W. 36th Street Given the slope of the property, with the front door of the residence being seven (7) feet above grade, staff feels the proposed variances are reasonable. Staff believes the new porch structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the neighborhood. 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 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 front porch structure must remain uncovered and unenclosed. APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 30, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. March 22, 2007 To: Monte Moore Zoning and Enforcement Administrator 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Board of Adjustment City of Little Rock Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Fm: Paul and Brenda Isbell 3316 Dorset Drive Little Rock, AR 72204 (501) 219-9978 " 9-;-c-3 (z 15'� Re: Repairs to property at 3316 Dorset Drive, Lot number 156 Kensington Place Phase I This is a letter of justification to request a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the property located at 3316 Dorset Drive Little Rock, Lot 156 Kensington Place Phase I. We the owners desired to replace the existing front porch and landing on our residence. In the past, we had received complaints as it pertained to the condition of a deck that was attached to the rear of our home. This deck, located on the second story, was deteriorating and detaching from the home. The porch and landing on the front of our residence was also becoming unsafe for entry and exit. The steps and landing to the front porch was made of solid concrete. Because this home sits on approximately a 16 degree slope, the steps were sliding into the brick wall in front of the house. It was while we were replacing the front porch and landing, we learned that those steps did not have adequate support or reinforcement. We contacted a contractor to replace the existing porch and landing on the front of the home as well as replace the deck on the rear of the home that had deteriorated and become unsafe for use. We chose to replace this with a wooden, uncovered porch and landing. The new entrance to our home, although wider than the original structure, is approximately 2 feet closer to the street than the original porch and landing. The new landing is approximately less than 12 inches above the ground. This redesign of the front entrance was necessary to allow ease of entrance to our home for some of our physically challenged family and friends. We were unaware of a requirement to request a variance to replace an existing structure. Had we known of this requirement, we would have complied with the statues and followed the procedures as required. Our desire was to create a safe environment for our family and friends as well as provide a structure that would enhance our property aesthetics. We were also unaware of a 25 foot setback. We were made aware of this after we had our home resurveyed and spoke with employees in the Planning and Development office. According to the survey, the 25 foot line ends approximately 2 feet from the front door of my home which is approximately 8 feet from the ground. We are asking that our request for variance be granted. If our request is granted, we will use this as a learning experience and ensure that we have all the necessary forms and permits submitted to your office in a timely manner. Resect Ily, i {/ F Paul and Brenda Isbell Homeowners APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-8204 Owner: John Eichler Applicant: John Eichler Address: 41 Shannon Drive Description: Lot 22, Paschal Heights 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 41 Shannon Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property backs up to Hughes Street right-of-way. There is a one -car wide driveway from Hughes Street, which leads to a carport on the rear of the residence. There is an existing six (6) foot high wood fence along the rear (west) property line. There is a four (4) foot high metal gate across the driveway. The applicant is proposing to widen the driveway to accommodate two (2) vehicles and construct a new carport addition on the rear of the residence. As part of this project, the applicant proposes to construct a new six (6) foot high wood fence along the rear (west) and side property lines. A six (6) foot high gate would be constructed across the enlarged driveway with the new fence construction. APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between a building setback line and a street right-of-way in residential zones. Six (6) foot high fences are allowed elsewhere on the property. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot high wood fence with gates along the rear and side property lines, between the rear building setback and the Hughes Street right- of-way. Staff is supportive of the requested fence variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The proposed fence is not out of character with the neighborhood. There are other six (6) foot high fences located along this portion of Hughes Street. Hughes Street at this location essentially serves as an alley -type right-of-way. The rear of a commercial building and a storage yard for Kraftco Hardware store are located across Hughes Street to the west. The proposed six (6) foot high fence will help screen this single family residence from the commercial uses. Staff believes the increased fence height 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: (APRIL 30, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. John B. Eichler 41 Shannon Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 666-2222 March 22, 2007 To the Little Rock Board of Adjustment: Since 1980, we have lived at 41 Shannon Drive (Lot 22, Paschal Heights Addition) in Little Rock. We own this residential property which consists of a single story home being the third house south of Cantrell on the west side of Shannon Drive. Please refer to our property survey and the attached satellite view of ours and surrounding property. Our house is somewhat unique in that the front of the house is on Shannon Drive whereas the rear opens onto Hughes Street. In this location, Hughes extends one block south of Cantrell Road terminating in the parking lot of an apartment complex. On the west side of this stretch of Hughes there are no homes and on the east side there are only rear sides of homes having their front entrances opening onto Shannon Drive. Referring to the attached overhead view, I have outlined our property with a solid white line and labeled all the relevant streets. As may be noted, Besides from the apartment complex, the only other entities on the west side of Hughes are the Fun Wash Laundromat and the rear lumberyard of Kraftco hardware store (shown with a dotted white line). Our driveway which opens onto Hughes is almost directly across from the rear entrance to Kraftco's lumberyard. When we moved into our home the back contained a lot of foliage providing a degree of privacy from both Kraftco's lumberyard and also from people walking from the apartments to Cantrell Road. A number of years ago (something between ten and fifteen to the best of my knowledge), the apartment complex was purchased by one or more Little Rock attorneys. I have no idea if he/they still own the property. At that time they tried to make Hughes more presentable and removed a lot of the foliage along the east side of Hughes. We complained to them that this action removed most of the privacy we had enjoy to that date and they had a six-foot wooden fence put up which once again provided us with a good degree of privacy also covering, in most part, the view of the lumberyard. As is evidenced by the photo, our rear property line is directly across from Kraftco's property. We are now exploring the possibility of doubling the width of our rear driveway and making it so to allow for a double carport. We also would like to put up a movable six- foot high gate on the driveway to provide for additional privacy and security. Both the house to the north of ours and the house across Shannon from us have been broken into in the last six months and our house was broken into a few years back so security is a prime concern of ours. I was informed that if we wished to put in such a gate, and widen our driveway so we could make more use of it, we could not replace any portion of our currently existing fence with a similar fence of six-foot height. To do so we needed to apply for a residential zoning variance which is the purpose of this request. In summary we would like to obtain such a variance to allow us to have a six-foot fence and gate extending westward from our building line on the south side of our property then extending northward to the northern boundary of our property then eastward back to the building line. The building line I'm referring to is twenty-five foot from our west property line. Please consider our request and if there is any additional clarification you should desire we would be happy to provide it. Sincerely, John B. Eichler 2 APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-8205 Owner: John Schlereth Applicant: Greg Criner, Lamar Outdoor Advertising Address: 922 Barber Street Description: West side of Barber Street, between East 9th and East 10th Streets Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the billboard provisions of Section 36-556 to allow increased height for an existing billboard. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Billboard Site Proposed Use of Property: Billboard Site STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 922 Barber Street is occupied by billboard owned by Lamar Outdoor Advertising. The billboard is a two-sided monopole type sign. It is located near the center of the lot. The billboard has an area of 14 feet by 48 feet, and a height of 34 feet -6 inches. The applicant proposes to increase the height of the billboard by 20 feet. The overall height of the billboard is proposed to be 54 feet -6 inches. The increased sign height is proposed due to the fact that the Highway Department recently installed a public information sign to the south along the east side of the interstate. The applicant claims that the new highway sign obstructs the visibility of the billboard. APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) Section 36-556(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum billboard height of 35 feet in C-3 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the billboard height to be increased to 54 feet -6 inches. No other changes to the existing billboard are proposed. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Staff does not view the request as reasonable. Staff estimates the new informational sign placed by the Highway Department to be approximately 250 yards to the south of the existing billboard. Although the billboard may have some reduced visibility as viewed by vehicles approaching the sign, staff believes there is adequate area to view the billboard after passing the highway sign. Staff believes the increased billboard height could have an adverse impact on the adjacent properties and the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested billboard height variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 30, 2007) Greg Criner and Tom Gibbons were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Greg Criner addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that the Highway Department has no maximum height for billboards as the City does. He explained the visibility issues associated with the billboard. He noted that there had been no negative comments from adjacent property owners. He explained that the increased billboard height would improve the visibility of the commercial building immediately to the north. James Van Dover asked whose view is obstructed. Mr. Criner explained that it would be drivers on 1-30. The issue of visibility was discussed. Chairman Francis noted that the visibility of the billboard was obstructed only a minimal amount. The issues of visibility and raising the north side of the billboard were discussed further. Tom Gibbons addressed the Board in support of the application. He briefly discussed the issue of visibility for both sides of the billboard. Robert Winchester asked if the Highway Department sign would cause a loss of revenue. Mr. Criner indicated that it would. Chris Wilbourn Asked if the Highway Department had been approached about moving their informational sign. Vice -Chair Burruss noted that the Highway Department's willingness to work with the applicant was an important issue. This issue was discussed further. APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) The issue of deferring the application to allow the applicant time to work with the Highway Department was discussed. Mr. Criner noted that a deferral would be acceptable. There was a motion to defer the application to the June 25, 2007 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. March 13, 2007 -" -�J-- 6 S" City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Care of Monte Moore 723 West Markham Street, 1st Floor Little Rock, Arkansas, 72201 Re : Cover Letter for Application of Variance Mr. Moore, Lamar Outdoor Advertising, office presently located at 12001 Interstate 30 in Little Rock, is respectfully submitting an application to raise the overall height of the existing billboard, off-site sign, located at 922 Barber Street. This sign is permitted by the City of Little Rock, city permit number 17271, as well as the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, state permit number A 062050. Both permits which consider the site legal and conforming are current and valid since the date of build to the present. The current location, pole placement of the existing sign would remain the same. Lamar is requesting a variance solely to raise the overall height of the sign. This variance is requested due to a lack of visibility or obstruction of view. The placement of public information signage along the right of way of Interstate 30 has created this hardship. A picture depicting this obstruction is attached for reference. This obstruction has impaired our ability to effectively market the sign to our clients and reduced our ability to provide this valuable service to the public. The sign structure currently meets all setbacks and zoning criteria and is currently built to the maximum allowable height under City Sign Code - Section 36-556 ( a ) ( 2 ). We would request to raise the sign an additional 20 feet to restore the visibility of the sign back to its original condition. We have enclosed the three ( 3 ) copies of surveys which shows the property and location of sign as it currently resides on the property as well as the affidavit where the owner of record has given us his permission to make this request. We have also enclosed pictures depicting the obstruction currently and illustrations which show the specific nature of our proposal. We would indeed appreciate consideration in this matter and believe we are taking the proper steps to present the hardship and correct it at our expense. 120011-30 ® Little Rock, AR 72209 9 (501) 562-2476 ® Fax (501) 568-0085 If you have any questions or request additional information please feel free to contact us at 562-2476. fiinrerPly Tom (Abbens Vice President and GM for Lamar Advertising of Little Rock 120011-30 e Little Rock, AR 72209 ® (501) 562=2476 9 Fax (501) 568-0085 APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-8206 Owner: Kevin and Deborah Wells Applicant: Kevin Wells Address: 18 Tallyho Lane Description: Lot 172, Foxcroft Fourth 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 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 A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 18 Tallyho Lane is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence with basement. There is a two -car wide driveway from Tallyho Lane which serves as access. The property is located on the north side of Tallyho Lane, east of Foxcroft Road. The residential lot contains a 15 foot front platted building line. The existing residence has a 4 foot by 8 foot uncovered porch on the front of the structure. The porch crosses the 15 foot front platted building line by approximately two (2) feet, resulting in a 13 foot front setback. The property owner proposes to remove the existing porch structure and construct a new covered front porch. The proposed porch will be slightly larger APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.) than the old porch at 5'-6" by 12 feet in size. A small gable roof structure will cover the new porch. The new porch addition will be unenclosed on its south, east and west sides. The new addition will be located 1'-6" closer to the front property line, for a front setback of approximately 11.5 feet. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. 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 porch addition with a reduced front setback and to cross the front platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. The proposed encroachment across the front building line will not be out of character with similar encroachments throughout this neighborhood. The terrain within this neighborhood varies greatly, with many of the lots sloping severely downward from front to back. In these cases the houses have to be pulled closer to the front property line or have structures (porches, decks, etc.) within the front building setbacks to help gain access to the residences. The lot in question is no different. While there was ample lot depth to construct the house with a 25 foot front setback, the slope caused the structure to be located closer to the front property line. Staff feels 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 south, east and west sides of the porch addition must remain unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 30, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. APRIL 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.) The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. 2 - �- 2.0 � Dear Board, I am requesting a variance to the building line provisions of section 31-12 and Area provisions of section 36-254 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit an addition to the existing front porch of my residence located at 18 Tallyho Ln in Little Rock that will increase the size of the porch by 4' in width and 1'6" in depth(South toward the street of Tallyho Ln) to a total dimensions of 12' x 5'6". In addition to the porch I want to cover the porch with a Gabled roof that will be the same dimensions as the porch(12' x 5'6"). I am requesting the variance to add on the porch and cover the porch so as to provide shelter to people entering and leaving the property as well as add value and street appeal to the property. This addition will fit into the overall characteristics of the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration, Kevin Wells E2 Lu 0 J Z W c LL ® ® o co LIJ > m ZLLJ p W Z F - Q' Cn U > C W F- mZC o C) Q W< Q J Z ❑ LL m > i • c 0 Q Q) CD .. I 1.4 I— Z W co m Q W Q Z E O LU }LiJ O > m F- 0L Q � Q Uj U) > CO Z U O _ W Z Q C� Z CO I U Z U- CO � S i • c 0 Q Q) CD .. I 1.4 I— Z W co m Q W Q Z E April 30, 2007 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:22 p.m. Date: Chairman