Loading...
boa_07 30 2007LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JULY 30, 2007 2:00 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the June 25, 2007 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present Members Absent: Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman James Van Dover Robert Winchester David Wilbourn Andrew Francis, Chairman City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA JULY 30, 2007 2:00 P.M. I. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: 1. Z -7385-A 15 Ranch Valley Road 2. Z -8052-A 404 Hickory Creek Court — S.E. 3. Z-8238 5823 Kavanaugh Blvd. 4. Z-8239 #7 Longfellow Circle 5. Z-8240 #1 Ridgefield Court � 'lo JULY 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: File No.: Z -7385-A Owner/Applicant: James and Andrea Gary Address: 15 Ranch Valley Road Description: Part of Lot 29, Pine Manor Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a carport addition with reduced side and rear setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 15 Ranch Valley Road is occupied by a 1'/z story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Ranch Valley Road at the northeast corner of the lot which runs along the east property line to a side -loading garage on the east end of the house. There is also a circular driveway in the front yard area. The applicants propose to construct a 20 foot wide carport/covered walk addition on the east end of the house, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed addition will be constructed to match the existing residence and be unenclosed on its north, south and east sides, with the exception of a small enclosed storage area at the southeast corner of the carport. The proposed addition will have a side setback (east side) ranging from one (1) foot at its northeast corner to 22 inches at the southeast corner of the proposed carport structure. The addition will have a rear setback of 13.5 to 14.5 feet. There is a small Rubbermaid storage building near the southeast corner of the lot which will be removed with the proposed addition. The applicants note that the JULY 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) proposed carport/walk addition will be for a disabled child who will be both a driver and passenger of vehicles to be parked under the carport. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of eight (8) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 31-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed carport/covered walk addition with reduced side and rear setbacks. Staff does not support the variances as requested. Although staff has no problem with the proposed rear setback given the separation between this house and the properties/residences to the south, staff cannot support the proposed side setback. Staff believes the proposed one (1) foot side setback at the northeast corner of the carport structure is slightly too small to allow for the construction and maintenance of the carport. Staff could support an 18 inch minimum side setback for the carport structure, with a maximum overhang of five (5) inches (as proposed by the applicant), and guttering provided to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the east. If the applicants were to agree to revising the application accordingly, Staff could support side and rear setback variances. Staff feels the unenclosed carport structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The applicant's submitted a letter from the property owner immediately to the east supporting the proposed addition. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested setback variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 30, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant contacted staff on July 30, 2007 and amended the application to provide a minimum side setback of 18 inches for the proposed carport, with a maximum overhang of five (5) inches. Staff supported the amended application, subject to the following conditions: 1. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the east. 2. The carport structure must remain unenclosed on the north, south and east sides, with the exception of the small enclosed storage room at the southeast corner of the carport structure. 3. The carport must be constructed to match the existing single family residence. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. James M. Gary One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, 20th Floor Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Direct (501) 975-3140 Cell (501) 680-9096 Home (501) 664-1919 iim.gar-YAkutakrock.com June 21, 2007 Via Hand Delivery Department of Planning/Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham St. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Owner: James and Andrea Gary '374'e�'� --k+ I 2— 73,P '5 o (3P� ) Description: 15 Ranch Valley Road — Request for Variance (Part of Lot 26, Pine Manor) Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from Section 36-254 to allow a carport addition with reduced side and rear yard setbacks Dear Sir or Madame: We respectfully request a variance to construct a new carport and covered walkway structure as indicated by the enclosed survey plot. The proposed new construction has been drawn on the survey by our architect Ellen Yeary of Yeary Lindsay Architects. We recently purchased this home with these improvements in mind. As indicated on the enclosed survey, the proposed construction will be attached to the east side of the existing house. The existing house is a 1 '/z story brick and frame single family residence. Although, we are doing significant additional repairs and construction updating to the existing house, this will be the only totally new construction. The proposed carport will attach to the house on the west side of the carport and the three other sides (east, north and south) will remain open. All construction and improvements to the inside and out, including the proposed carport/walk, has been designed by our architect. Our contractor is Jack Hartsell. Both enjoy excellent reputations for high quality design and workmanship. Moreover, the proposed 4811-7341-5937.1 carport/walk will be constructed using the same design, color, trim, and other architectural material so as to match the existing structure as if it had been original construction. We request that the carport be 20.1 feet at the front W and extend back a depth of 34 feet as shown on the enclosed drawing. The roofing and guttering systems will be -- state of art -- designed and constructed to direct any water flow either down our drive to the street or into a covered "French" drain which will flow to the street. We request that you please consider the following factors in making a determination of our variance request: • One of the primary reasons we are seeking to construct the carport and walkway is to accommodate our disabled daughter. Our daughter was born with Spina Bifida and is permanently confined to a wheelchair. Because our daughter is both a driver and at times a passenger, we need sufficient room on both sides of a vehicle for her to be able to side load — from her wheelchair to vehicle or vehicle to wheelchair — either from or into the driver or passenger side. We also need sufficient room on both sides of a vehicle for our daughter to be able to safely wheel along the side of a vehicle. The drive has a significant upward slope and the carport and walkway will be constructed at the top of the drive which is a flat area needed for our daughter to safely gain access to vehicles and the house. The planned carport and walkway will afford her covered and safe access from an automobile into the house. Taking these factors into consideration, there is no where else to reasonably accommodate our daughter's disability and needs in this regard. Not being able to construct this improvement would work a significant hardship upon our daughter and us in this regard. • Our architect and builder -- both enjoy an excellent reputation for expertise and top quality workmanship. T aking into consideration the lot configuration, it is our intent for the proposed construction to of the highest quality possible and to insure that our neighbors and the general public are taken into consideration at all times. For example, care will be taken in the design and construction to insure the best possible access to the property, drainage flow, overhang, maintenance, etc. • We recently purchased this property with a mind toward constructing the carport and walkway. The property had previously been owned by Matthev,, and Susan Jeter, who like us, had plans to construct almost the same structure. The Jeter's variance request was granted by the City. See File No. Z-7385. In accordance with Department procedure, we enclose the following: • Six (6) copies of a recent survey, dated April 24, 2007, certified by a registered professional land surveyor, which shows all exisiting and proposed improvements properly dimensioned and labeled by our architect. • Our application fee in the amount of $80.00, and sign fee in the amount of $5.00. 4811-7341-5937.1 We thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. Should you need any additional information, including the full architect plans and drawings, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best personal regards. Sincerely, Jim and Anea Gary Enclosures 4811-7341-5937.1 3TC_ :4--! Z- 739,5- 4 July VO, 2007 Department of Planning/Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: 15 Ranch Valley Road Dear Sir or Madame: We understand the owners, Andrea and Jim Gary, of the house next door to ours located at 15 Ranch Valley Road have applied for a variance to construct a new carport and covered walkway. I am aware that these plans have been designed by Ellen Yeary of Yeary & Lindsay Architects, and that the general contractor will be Jack Hartsell. I have reviewed the variance request and the plans. Both meet with our approval and we have no objection to the Gary's variance request. Sincerely, Thomas A. d Nancy Monroe 11 Ranch Valley Road JULY 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -8052-A Owner: Ladley and Jesha Abraham Applicant: Jeff Horton Address: 404 Hickory Creek Court-S.E. Description: Lot 41, Hickory Creek 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 a porch addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses a front platted building line. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 404 Hickory Creek Court-S.E. is occupied by a two- story masonry single family residence. There is a driveway from Hickory Creek Court which runs along the north property line to a garage at the rear of the residence. There is a porch structure on front of the house which extends across a 25 foot front platted building line. The porch crosses the front building line by two (2) to four (4) feet, resulting in a front setback of 23 feet to 21 feet, or 33 feet to 31 feet from the curb of Hickory Creek court. On June 26, 2006, the Board of Adjustment approved front setback and building line variances for a porte-cochere with a front setback of at least 34 feet from the street curb at any point. The porte-cochere was changed to a covered porch area, and when it was constructed, a mistake was made in laying it out, resulting in a slightly decreased setback from the front property JULY 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) line and street curb. Therefore, the applicant is back before the Board of Adjustment requesting a new variance for the porch structure. Section 36- 254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned property. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as relatively minor. The lot is located within the bulb of a cul-de-sac street, so the porte-cochere will not have the appearance of being out of alignment with adjacent structures. The property is located within the gated Hickory Creek Subdivision, and the architectural review committee for the subdivision has approved the proposed construction. Staff believes the proposed single family residence, with porch, 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 structure. 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, associated with the new porch structure, 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 porch structure must remain unenclosed on the north, south and west sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 30, 2007) Jeff Horton was present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present in opposition. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Jeff Horton addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained the variance which was previously approved for the residential structure and how the porte-cochere was revised to a porch structure. He also explained that a mistake was made when the house and porch were laid out, and the porch was slightly closer to the front property line. JULY 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) Michelle Young Leding addressed the Board in opposition. She explained that she had previously agreed to a one (1) foot encroachment across the front platted building line, as approved by the Board, and not what was constructed on the site. Robert Winchester asked Ms. Leading what she wished the Board to do. She responded comply with the previous approval. Mr. Horton further explained what was previously approved. Staff noted that the existing porch is approximately one (1) foot to three (3) feet closer to the front property line than what was previously approved. There was additional discussion of this issue. Ms. Leding noted that the house construction began prior to the previous variance being approved. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked if there had been additional comment from the subdivision's Architectual review committee. Mr. Horton and staff responded that there had been on additional comments. There was additional discussion of this issue. Staff noted that the architectural review committee approved the original plans for the residence, which had a larger porte-cochere structure on front of the house. James Van Dover expressed concern with mistakes being made in the layout of structures for construction. There was a motion to approve the application, as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. The application was approved. 2 - June 13, 2007 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Dear Monte: On behalf of Ladley & Jesha Abraham, we are writing in response to a courtesy notice issued by the City of Little Rock. The property is located at Lot 41, Hickory Creek Subdivision, Phase I. A variance for this property was previously requested and granted on June 26, 2006, Case No. Z- 8052. Please refer to the current existing situation shown in the attached drawing. During construction and after this structure was staked out, we realized that due to the existing configuration of the site and the reduced size of the proposed porte-cochere that the space was too tight to allow for the proper turning radius of cars. Therefore, the original idea of a porte- cochere with a circular drive at the front of the property was abandoned. The structure is now an open porch and is to remain open on all sides. Proposed parking is located to the side of the porch and shares the same drive to the garage. As a result, the owner has increased the amount of landscaping at the'front of the property. Please refer to the attached photographs. As noted in the Bill of Assurance of Hickory Creek Subdivision, an open porch is not considered part of the building and therefore not an encroachment of the front lot line of 25 feet. Please refer to the attached section copied from the Bill of Assurance of Hickory Creek Subdivision. If there are any further questions, please contact me at 975-0052. Sincerel , Jef orton, AIA cc: Ladley Abraham file H E R R 0_N H^ R T 0 N 300 S. Spring St. Ste. 720 Little Rock, AR 7220[ hharch@e-architect.com tel.501-975-0052 Fax.5o[-978-0078 ARCHITECTS JULY 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-8238 Owner: David Hadidi Applicant: Jasen C. Chi Address: 5823 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Southeast corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. and N. Grant Street Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-502 to allow a restaurant use with reduced off-street parking. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Commercial Building Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 5823 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by a one story masonry commercial building. The property is located at the southeast corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. and N. Grant Street. The building is approximately 1,650 square feet in area and is part of a larger shopping center/commercial use area along the south side of Kavanaugh Blvd., extending from N. University Avenue to beyond N. Taylor Street to the west. The building previously housed retail -type commercial uses and has no off-street parking. There is on - street parking along both sides of Kavanaugh Blvd. from N. University Avenue westward. There is also on -street parking along N. Grant Street along the west side of the building as well as most of the other side streets in the area, including N. Pierce Street and "R" Street. The applicant proposes to convert the 1,650 square foot commercial space to a Japanese style restaurant. The restaurant will seat approximately 50 to 60 JULY 30, 2007 ( ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) persons with hours of operation from 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. and 4:30 P.M. to 9:30 P.M., seven (7) days per week. Section 36-502(b)(3)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of five (5) off-street parking spaces for a 1,650 square foot retail use. Section 36- 502(b)(3)c. requires a minimum of 16 off-street spaces for a similar size restaurant use. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide 11 off-street parking spaces for the conversion of the retail space to a restaurant use (the difference between the number of spaces required for the restaurant use and the non -conforming parking requirement for the past retail use). The applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard in order to have the restaurant use utilize the existing on -street parking in the area and provide no additional off-street spaces. The applicant conducted a parking study with respect to the 79 on -street parking spaces located along Kavanaugh Blvd., between N. University Avenue and N. Taylor Street and the four (4) spaces on N. Grant Street immediately west of the commercial building. The applicant's results are as follows: "Between University Avenue and Taylor Street, there are a total of 79 marked parking spaces on Kavanaugh Blvd. that exists immediately in front of this shopping center. In addition, there are 4 parking spaces on Grant Avenue. For the two week period starting June 4th and ending June 17th, I asked an individual to partake in a small study to count the number of those spaces occupied at specific times during each day. The results documented are as follows:" In an attempt to verify the applicant's count, staff made a count of the same 83 parking spaces at 12:30 P.M. on July 16 and 17, 2007. On July 16 staff found that 48 of the spaces were occupied, and on July 17 there were 61 occupied spaces. Staff believes the applicant's results are accurate. 11:30 12:30 1:30 5:30 7:30 June 4 23 48 33 12 8 June 5 27 41 37 10 10 June 6 31 49 45 8 6 June 7 24 54 51 14 11 June 8 22 44 39 16 18 June 9 23 16 11 9 10 June 10 6 6 4 1 4 June 11 24 37 24 11 9 June 12 21 41 31 12 11 June 13 25 34 36 16 13 June 14 27 47 46 14 11 June 15 22 39 29 14 7 June 16 19 10 6 9 8 June 17 4 11 2 2 7 In an attempt to verify the applicant's count, staff made a count of the same 83 parking spaces at 12:30 P.M. on July 16 and 17, 2007. On July 16 staff found that 48 of the spaces were occupied, and on July 17 there were 61 occupied spaces. Staff believes the applicant's results are accurate. JULY 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON T.) Staff is supportive of the requested parking variance. Staff believes there is adequate on -street parking to serve the proposed restaurant use in conjunction with the other commercial and restaurant uses in the area. The applicant's parking study included only a portion of the overall amount of on - street parking in this general area north of Cantrell Road and east of N. University Avenue. If the study included additional streets within 2 to 4 blocks of the proposed restaurant, staff believes there would be similar results with regard to available on -street parking. In addition, the majority of the commercial buildings along the south side of Kavanaugh Blvd., east of N. University Avenue, were developed with very little or no off-street parking and have thrived as such (including restaurant uses) for a number of years. Staff believes the proposed restaurant use at 5823 Kavanaugh Blvd. will have no adverse impact on the parking situation in this general commercial area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance, subject to the variance being only for a restaurant use owned by Jasen C. Chi at 5823 Kavanaugh Blvd. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 30, 2007) Jasen Chi was present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present in opposition. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Jasen Chi addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained the proposed restaurant use. He noted that the proposed restaurant would have no adverse impact on the parking situation in the area. He also noted that the restaurant needed to be open during the lunch hour to be a success. He stated that most of the neighbors supported the proposed restaurant use. Robert Winchester asked if most of the restaurant's business would be during the lunch or dinner hours. Mr. Chi explained that during the weekdays he expected the lunch business to be slightly more than the dinner business, possibly a 60/40 split. He noted during the weekend the night business would probably be greater. Nancy Wade addressed the Board in opposition. She noted that she owns three (3) buildings in the area. She explained that none of her buildings had off-street parking and explained her issue with the parking problems in the area. There was a brief discussion of the parking study conducted by Mr. Chi. James Van Dover commented on the issue of hardship with relation to the application. He noted that depriving the owner use of the property for which it is zoned created the hardship issue. He and Ms. Wade made additional comments related to the parking issue. JULY 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T. Mr. Winchester noted that increased traffic in the area related to the proposed restaurant would create additional business traffic for other businesses in the area. There was a motion to approve the application, as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent., The application was approved. June 18, 2007 / 23 Mr. Dana Carney 7- z�- Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72205 RE: Request for variance of zoning ordinance for 5823 Kavanaugh Blvd. Dear Mr. Carney: Thank you for taking time out to discuss things with me. I would like to make formal application for a parking zoning variance before the Board of Adjustment. Our desire is to remodel a site located on Kavanaugh Blvd. in the "Heights" living district of Little Rock. Currently, the specific site occupies approximately 1650 sq. ft. and is situated as an end cap to a shopping center containing approximately 20,000 sq. ft. The shopping center is currently zoned C-3 and other restaurants have existed within this center in the past. As the shopping center currently sits, the eastern most space is occupied by Browning Mexican Restaurant. This restaurant has been in existence for well over three decades now. Our proposed remodel site sits at the western most end of the shopping center. This vacant space also sits at the corner of Kavanaugh and Grant Streets. In the past, Spaule, a fine dining, white tablecloth establishment operated by Scott Swander occupied approximately .3,000 sq. ft. in this same shopping center. His restaurant is now closed. However, while it was operational, it served to the public both at lunch and at dinner time. The restaurant eventually closed for lack of business but my discussions with the ownership revealed that parking was not an issue in causing the restaurant's closing. Furthermore, while the restaurant was at it's peak, business did not contribute to any significant congestion on Kavanaugh at lunch as most of the restaurant's customers walked to the establishment. Within a 1 mile radius of the proposed remodel site are located 10 additional restaurants including Fantastic China, Satellite Coffee Cafe, Boulevard Bread Company, Starbuck's Coffee, Luchessi's, Cafe Prego, US Pizza, Nan -King Chinese Restaurant, Scallions and a few others. Our proposed plan is to remodel for conversion into a small restaurant serving Japanese cuisine. The restaurant will seat at maximum occupancy approximately 50-60 individuals. The proposed hours of operation will be daily lunch from 11 am thru 2 pm. The restaurant will be temporarily closed daily between 2:30 pm and 4:30 pm and reopen for dinner service at 4:30 and close daily at 9:30 pm. The restaurant will open 7 days a week. Between University Avenue and Taylor Street, there are a total of 79 marked parking spaces on Kavanaugh Blvd. that exist immediately in front of this shopping center. In addition, there are 4 parking spaces on Grant Avenue. For the two week period starting June 0 and ending June 17th, I asked an individual to partake in a small study to count the number of those spaces occupied at specific times during each day. The results documented are as follows: Several of the restaurants in the vicinity including Satellite Cafe, Scallions, and Boulevard Bread are closed for evening business and my observations thus far has been that evening parking will not be a problem. Furthermore, at night the majority of cars that park on Kavanaugh in the near vicinity seem to be driven by customers visiting Starbuck's coffee. I have also observed that the majority of lunch business comes from patrons froin nearby offices and businesses who walk to the existing restaurants. We plan to have a delivery service at lunch and dinner time to service homes and businesses within a 5-7 mile radius- this too should help decrease the possibility of congested parking on Kavanaugh. I respectfully ask for your assistance with regards to my variance application. It would be a privilege to be able to operate a restaurant in the Heights and I ask for your support and recommendation. Sincerely, 14 Jasen C. Chi Chi Restaurant Group 11:30 12:30 1:30 5:30 7:30 June 4 23 48 33 12 8 June 5 27 41 37 10 10 June 6 31 49 45 8 6 June 7 24 54 51 14 11 June 8 22 44 39 16 18 June 9 23 16 11 9 10 June 10 6 6 4 1 4 June 11 24 37 24 11 9 June 12 21 41 31 12 11 June 13 25 34 36 16 13 June 14 27 47 46 14 11 June 15 22 39 29 14 7 June 16 19 10 6 9 8 June 17 4 11 2 2 7 Several of the restaurants in the vicinity including Satellite Cafe, Scallions, and Boulevard Bread are closed for evening business and my observations thus far has been that evening parking will not be a problem. Furthermore, at night the majority of cars that park on Kavanaugh in the near vicinity seem to be driven by customers visiting Starbuck's coffee. I have also observed that the majority of lunch business comes from patrons froin nearby offices and businesses who walk to the existing restaurants. We plan to have a delivery service at lunch and dinner time to service homes and businesses within a 5-7 mile radius- this too should help decrease the possibility of congested parking on Kavanaugh. I respectfully ask for your assistance with regards to my variance application. It would be a privilege to be able to operate a restaurant in the Heights and I ask for your support and recommendation. Sincerely, 14 Jasen C. Chi Chi Restaurant Group Bouleva BRFAD COMPANY 53 July 5th, 2007 Department of Planning and Development 723 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Attn: Board of adjustment Re: 5823 Kavanaugh j�4,- --A--3 With this letter I would like to express my deep concern over the parking variance that has been applied for at 5823 Kavanaugh. Many restaurants and shops in the area have expressed worry over the lunch time parking situation. The stretch of Kavanaugh between the new Starbucks and Satellite cafe already has the market perception of being extremely difficult to find parking. My employees can not find parking and my customers are continually frustrated, and often express that they would frequent Boulevard more often if they knew here would be adequate parking. Additionally, my small parking lot that is the only substantial non -street parking on that stretch, (adjacent to the proposed variance), and is already completely packed for lunch daily. I am pro business and I would love to see a Sushi bar in the Heights. I do encourage them to open as a night time only business, (after 4:00 pm). In fact, I would gladly donate my parking lot space to them at night for no fee. I am certian that if my lunch time parking becomes any worse that my customers will simply move. on to a business that does have adequate parking. I can not express enough how damaging the approval of this variance will be for the existing businesses in this neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration, Scotfi McG hee Chef/Proprietor Boulevard Bread Co. 1920 N Grant Little Rock, AR 72207 (501) 663-5951 RECET�r� JUL 9 2007 BY:-- JULY 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-8239 Owner: Elorac, LLC Applicant: Carole Meyer Address: #7 Longfellow Circle Description: Lot 7, Longfellow Circle Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a new residence with a reduced rear setback and which crosses a front platted building line. A variance is also requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a wall 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 #7 Longfellow circle is currently vacant. A single family residence which previously existed on the site has been removed. The property slopes downward from side to side (south to north). The single family lot backs up to the Country Club of Little Rock golf course and contains a 20 foot platted front building line. The applicant proposes to construct a new single family home on the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The residence will be two stories in height at its north end and one story at the south end. There will be a two -car wide driveway at the southwest corner of the property leading to a garage at the JULY 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) south end of the residence. The residence will be located behind the 20 foot front platted building line with the exception of the step/landing structure, which will extend to the front property line. The westernmost landing will be approximately two (2) feet above grade, with the landing nearest to the front porch being approximately four (4) feet above grade. Steps will connect the landings and front porch and lead from the lowest landing to the finish grade of the front yard. The proposed residence will be located 10'-10" to 52 feet from the rear (east) property line. There will also be a retaining wall located on the rear property line, also noted on the attached site plan. The wall will extend from the rear of the house, with the north end of the wall being approximately nine (9) feet above grade and the south end dropping to grade. There will also be a hand rail on top of the proposed wall. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum setback of 25 feet from the rear property line. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. allows a maximum fence/wall height of six (6) feet. Section 31-12 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances form these ordinance standards to allow a reduced rear setback for the proposed residence, the rear retaining wall with an increased height (as viewed from the east), and the residence's step/landing structure to cross the front platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff's support is based primarily on the fact that the lot has an unusual shape with a fairly shallow depth at its north end (85 feet), combined with the lot's topography. The southwest corner of the lot is approximately 22 feet higher than the northeast corner. The applicant has chosen to work with the grade of the land instead of constructing a rather high retaining wall(s) within the north portion of the lot. Because of this, the step/landing structure on front of the house is needed for access to the residence, as the front porch will be approximately eight (8) feet above grade. Additionally, the retaining wall along the rear property line is required in order to have a small level rear yard area. Staff believes the proposed residence with reduced setbacks will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the neighborhood. The applicant should review the Bill of assurance for the neighborhood to assure that the proposed residence complies with the height and area standards. 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 step/landing structure. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. JULY 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback, building line and fence/wall variances, associated with the new residential structure, 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 step/landing structure must remain uncovered and unenclosed on the north, south and west sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. �'Z3`� I am seeking a set back variance for our home site at #7 Longfellow Lane. The property is on a side hill lot, and the proposed home will be mainly one level. At the North end of the property (the low side) the front set back line is 20 feet and the back set back is 25 feet. Since the length of the site is only 85 feet deep there, it means that over 50% of that end is in setbacks and becomes difficult to use and yet not overbuild at that area. All of the set back line on the CCLR property line in question is woods and has no visual opening to the golf course. Because of the side hill lot, my architect and I propose using the land behind the home, which is towards the country club property line, to surpass that setback space for an attached study space. We do not want to make the home appear any bigger and longer from the street even though there is more useable property there on the North side. We are also taking into account the potential for saving several large trees by positioning the home the way it is shown on the survey. Carole Meyer JULY 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-8240 Owner/Applicant: David and Freda Taylor Address: #1 Ridgefield Court Description: Lot 29, Charleston 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 #1 Ridgefield Court is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of Ridgefield Court and Forest Dale Drive. There is a two -car driveway from Forest Dale Drive which serves as access. The property slopes downward from back to front (south to north) and side to side (west to east). The applicants propose to enclose the rear yard portion of the lot with a six (6) foot high wood fence, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed fence will extend form the west wall of the house to a point four (4) feet inside the west property line (15 feet back from the curb line of Forest Dale Drive), and run along the west street side property line to the rear (south) property line. There is a 15 foot side platted building line along the west property line. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between building setback lines and street rights-of-way. JULY 30, 2007 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON T.) Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow the increased fence height between the side platted building line and Forest Dale Drive. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the variance as reasonable. As noted previously, the property slopes upward from north to south, with the property immediately to the south being several feet above the grade of this property. There is a retaining wall which runs along the north property line of the adjacent property which is approximately 4.5 feet high near where the southwest corner of the proposed fence will be. Given the elevation of the property to the south, the proposed fence should have no adverse visual impact on that property or other surrounding properties. 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: (JULY 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. June 20, 2007 City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 W Markham St Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Dear Sir: We have purchased a home at #1 Ridgefield Court which is on the corner of Ridgefield Court and Forest Dale Drive in the Charleston Heights Subdivision of Little Rock. The lot is extremely sloping and we have no privacy on the west side and backyard. There is a short retaining wall on the west side and toward the back (please see attached survey). We ask that you allow us to install a privacy fence 15 feet from the curb of Forest Dale to the house. W realize this is outside the building line, but after taking measurements by the fence company, we feel views would not be obstructed by motorists coming down the hill north on Forest Dale or by motorists coming west to the stop sign from Ridgefield Court. The house sits 72 feet from the curb at Ridgefield (and with the fence sitting further back than that), we feel safety would not be an issue for the traffic. Also, since the lot is a bit more level from the west curb on Forest Dale (closer to the street) the fence would be easier to install. And too, if we install the fence according to city specifications, we would not have room between the retaining wall and fence to cut our grass. Any consideration you can give us to install the fence 15 feet from the curb of Forest Dale will be appreciated. We do not wish to do anything that would infringe upon the safety of motorists in our neighborhood. Sin�e� D��y r' Freda Taylor D O U W 0: W H O > z W Q LL O Z-1 3 �- �6 m m z w w Cl) W�ncn- LU Z >�w fW- m <z Q Q W� D Q Z LL m a a� c L 0 Q c 0 0 z Q m Q z w cn m LU z D 0 LLJ � o �LLJ>m D 0 W W w LU _ZU O O F Q Wz ❑ CO U Q z �_ Z_ ppm§i July 30, 2007 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. Date: Os lLvo � Chairman Secretary