Loading...
boa_02 28 2005LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2005 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being three (3) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Minutes of the January 31, 2005 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present Members Absent City Attorney Present Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman Fletcher Hanson David Wilbourn Andrew Francis, Chairman Debra Harris Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA FEBRUARY 28, 2005 2:00 P.M. OLD BUSINESS: A. Z -6120-L Kanis Road at Cooper Orbit Road B. Z -6957-C Colonel Glenn Road at 1-430 C. Z-7779 115 Courts Lane NEW BUSINESS: 1. Z -4064-A 3 Longfellow Lane 2. Z -4469-C 8800 Stagecoach Road 3. Z-5591 -C 10609 Interstate 30 4. Z-7637 1319 Kavanaugh Blvd. 5. Z-7792 5125 Lee Avenue 6. Z-7793 2624 Crouchwood Road 7. Z-7794 5205 Hawthorne Street 8. Z-7795 2725 S. Arch Street 9. Z-7796 2319 N. Taylor Street 10. Z-7797 9 Sunset Circle 11. Z-7798 11516 Happy Valley Drive 41, A3NOON umn ao le NW simn Allo 6%, N31zvw OKI r LO 0 Q N N CQ i Q) LL FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z -6120-L Owner: Capitol Hill Limited Partnership Address: Kanis Road at Cooper Orbit Road Description: Northwest corner of Kanis Road and Cooper Orbit Road and South side of Capitol Hill Blvd. At Old Cooper Orbit Road alignment. Zoned: C-1 and R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested to allow off -premise directional signs. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Off -Premise Signs STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues.- 1. ssues: 1. Signs should be located outside the public right-of-way. B. Staff Analysis: The property at 15501 Capitol Hill Blvd. Is zoned PDR and occupied by an apartment complex (Capitol Hill Luxury Apartments) which is under development, with Phase I nearing completion. As part of the apartment development, the applicant is requesting approval of the placement of two (2) off -premise directional signs. One sign is located at the northwest corner of Cooper Orbit and Kanis Roads with the second sign located on the southwest corner of Capitol Hill Blvd. and the old alignment of Cooper Orbit Road. Each sign is 6 to 7 feet in height, with an area of approximately 16 square feet. The City's Zoning Ordinance contains no provisions for allowing the type of off - premise directional type signage as proposed. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow this type of signage. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Although there are some nonconforming off -premise directional signs within the city's jurisdiction (The FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) Oasis Renewal Center, for example), staff feels that it would be detrimental to allow additional signs of this type, and would very likely set a bad precedent for future requests. Staff believes that one intent of the sign section of the Zoning Ordinance is to prohibit visual clutter where commercial signage is concerned. Staff believes that the type of off -premise sign as proposed creates visual clutter along street frontages, especially at intersections. Staff feels that the off -premise signs proposed will have an adverse visual impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow off -premise signs. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the February 28, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 28, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the March 28, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 28, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 2 ANDREW V. FRANCIS E-MAIL:AV FPA@SBCGLOBAL.NET December 17, 2004 Mr. Monte Moore ANDREW V. FRANCIS, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 2311 BISCAYNE DRIVE, SUITE 205 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72227 TELEPHONE (501) 954-7390 FACSIMILE (501) 954-7385 Zoning Administrator City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Hand Delivery RE: Capitol Hill Apartments — Application for Zoning Variance (Signs) Dear Dear Monte: Enclosed please find the following regarding the above -referenced matter: 1. Application for Zoning Variance (Signs) with attached Exhibit (Legal Description); 2. Affidavit of John W. DeHaven, Manager of Limine Trust, LLC, the General Partner of Capitol Hill Limited Partnership authorizing G. Robert Hardin of Hardin & Grace, P.A. to represent the property owner in this application; and 3. My firm's check in the amount of $50 as the filing fee for this application. c, Per our discussion, I will provide you with the three (3) copies of a survey of the locations for the off -premises signs and graphic information showing the size, height and area of the signs as soon as I receive the same from our engineer. Also, prior to the hearing in this matter I will provide you with either a letter or a lease from the property owners where the two signs are located authorizing the location of the signs on their property. In the meantime, I have enclosed for your reference two drawings showing the approximate location of the signs. Both of the signs in question are off -premises directional signs installed to help direct traffic to Capitol Hill Apartments. The first sign is approximately 32 square feet in area and is located on the southwest corner of the intersections of Kanis Road and Cooper Orbit Road. The second sign is approximately 40 square feet and is located in the northeast portion of Tract D of Capitol Lakes Estates, approximately 20 feet south of the southern curb of Capitol Hill Boulevard. Due to the topography of the area and the on-going construction activities in Capitol Lakes Estates, the owner feels it is would be a hardship to disallow the maintenance of these two off - premises signs. Phase 1-B of Capitol Lakes Estates, directly across Capitol Hill Boulevard from Capitol Hill Apartments, is currently seeing a great deal of construction activity. Furthermore, it is expected that Governor's Manor PRD, also on Capitol Hill Boulevard and further to the east of Capitol Hill Apartments will begin construction soon after approval of its pending plat. The Page 2 Mr. Monte Moore December 17, 2004 construction activity, along with the subdivision landscaping and topography of the terrain make it difficult to locate the apartments. These two directional signs will assist in the location of Capitol Hill Apartments and will help direct traffic to the apartments. Thank you very much and please call me with any questions. Cordially, AND V. FRANCIS, P.A. Andrew V. Francis /avf Enclosures cc: Capitol Hill Limited Partnership Mr. Dan Tharp Maintenance Supervisor, Capitol Hill Apartments G. Robert Hardin FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z -6957-C Owner: Leonard Boen Applicant: McGetrick and MCGetrick Engineering Address: Colonel Glenn Road at Interstate 430 and Talley Road Description: Colonel Glenn Centre Subdivision Zoned: C-4, C-3, 0-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 555 and 36-553 to allow signs which exceed the maximum height and area and off - premises signs. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Mixed Use STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments — no signs are shown in the right-of-way B. Staff Analysis: The C-4, C-3 and 0-3 zoned property bounded by Colonel Glenn Road, 1-430 and Talley Road (east and south) is occupied by the Colonel Glenn Centre Subdivision. The new Remington College development is located on Lot 14 of the Subdivision, at the end of Remington Drive (the Subdivision's only new street). A car dealership is being developed on Lot 1, at the southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and 1-430 (northwest corner of the Subdivision). The remaining lots are currently undeveloped. The applicant proposes to place one (1) development sign and two (2) off - premise directional -type signs within this subdivision. The development sign is proposed to be placed at the northwest corner of Lot 1, and will advertise the various future businesses within this subdivision. FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T. The sign is proposed to have a height of 58 feet and an area of 525 square feet. The two (2) off -premise directional signs are proposed to be located at the northeast corner of Lot 4 (corner of Colonel Glenn and Talley Roads) and the southeast corner of Lot 8 (corner of Talley Road and Remington Drive). The directional sign on Lot 4 will advertise a Holiday Inn which will be located on Lot 19. This sign will have a height of 35 feet and an area of approximately 260 square feet. The directional sign on Lot 8 will advertise Value Place which will be located on Lot 12. This sign will have a height of 10 feet and an area of 20 square feet. The development sign will be located on C-4 zoned property, the Holiday Inn sign will be located on C-3 zoned property, and the Value Place sign will be on 0-3 zoned property. The City's Zoning Ordinance contains no provisions for allowing the type of off - premise directional -type signage as proposed. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow this type of signage. Section 36-553(a)(2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows freestanding signs in office zoning to have maximum heights of six (6) feet and maximum areas of 64 square feet. Section 36-555(a)(2) allows freestanding signs in commercial zones to have maximum heights of 36 feet and maximum areas of 160 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances for increased height and area for the development sign, increased area for the Holiday Inn sign, and increased height for the Value Place sign. Staff is not supportive of the requested sign variances. Given the design of the subdivision, staff does not feel that the request is reasonable. The subdivision is made up primarily of smaller lots which will likely contain individual businesses. Staff believes that each business will likely want their own ground -mounted signage, on their individual lots. This could result in up to four (4) signs along Colonel Glenn Road, with several additional signs along Talley Road and 1-430. Staff recently met with representatives of the car dealership which will be located on Lot 1. It is staff's understanding that the dealership desires to have ground -mounted signage on both the Colonel Glenn and 1-430 Street frontages. One of the purposes of the sign section of the zoning ordinance is to "control and coordinate the type, placement and physical dimensions of signs within the various zoning classifications." Staff believes that a main intent of this purpose is to prohibit visual clutter where commercial signage is concerned. Staff believes that the signage as proposed will add to the possibility of visual clutter along the street frontage of this subdivision, when added to the ground -mounted signs that are allowed by right for each individual lot. Additionally, the two (2) off -premise directional signs proposed are very much beyond the size typically allowed for off -premise directional signs. The ordinance allows directional signs with a maximum area of two (2) square feet and a maximum height of six (6) feet. Pa FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) The signs proposed as off -premise directional signs for Holiday Inn and Value Place have heights, dimensions and designs of primary site signage. Staff feels that the signs proposed will have an adverse visual impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the January 31, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 31, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the February 28, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 28, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the March 28, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 28, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 191 12-08-20( 16PM FROM MCGETRICK 15012239293 P.2 Mo6EMICK W&El?:IGK ENG1NMR5 - PLANNEW SlfRMORb �w- ;-6g5-7-c- November 22, 2004 Monte Moore Zoning Administrator Dept. of Planning & Development 723 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Colonel Glenn Centre Sign Easements Dear Mr. Moore, We are herewith asking for a variance on the size and location of three (3) signs for the Colonel Glenn Project. Sign # 1 will be the sign for the entire commercial property. It will be located as shown and serve several different lots owned by different owners. We feel that the size and location of the sign are necessary for visibility to the overall project. Sign #2 located at the intersection of Talley Rd. and Colonel Glenn w�.A be a directional sign to serve lot 9. It will. be located off-site in the sign easement as shown. Sign #3 located as the entrance to Remington Rd. will be a directional sign to serve lot 12_ It will be located off-site in the sign easement as shown. If you have any question or problems please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, McGetrick & McGetrick, Inc. Patrick M, McGetrick, P.E. PMM:rm 10 00wr Crwk Court, Sults A Litho Rock. Arkansew 72210 5501-465--9 fox 501-455-6&96 FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: C File No.: Z-7779 Owner: Mike Kuhn Address: 115 Courts Lane Description: Lot 32, Block 123, Chenal Valley 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 new house 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 115 Courts Lane is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence which was recently constructed. There is a two -car wide driveway from courts Lane which serves as access. The property has a slight slope from side to side (downward from east to west). There is a small step structure (3 steps) extending from the front porch toward the front property line. After construction of the single family residence, the applicant had an as -built survey done which revealed a small sliver of the house and the step structure extending across the front 25 foot platted building line. As noted on the attached site plan sketch, a small sliver of the front of the house, at its northeast corner, extends across the platted building line by 1.7 feet (23.3 foot front setback). Additionally, the entire step structure extends across the FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) platted building line, resulting in a front setback of approximately 20 feet. The steps are uncovered and unenclosed. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12(c ) of the subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed step structure and small sliver of the front of the home with a reduced front setback and which cross a platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances associated with the proposed new residential structure. Staff views the request as reasonable. Although adequate space (depth) exists to locate the house on the lot with no variances, a mistake was obviously made when the house was laid out resulting in the existing encroachment. Staff feels that the mistake is relatively minor, and that the proposed encroachment should 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 proposed residential 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 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 portion of the step structure extending past the front platted building line must remain uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred to the February 28, 2005 Agenda, based on the fact that the applicant failed to complete the notification to surrounding property owners as required. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 28, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005) 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 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. W 92:17 AM MIKE. 221 3183 ( P.@1 /1"9pdiC Je a,� Board of Adjustments 2-7�� rom: Mike and Jatnie Kuhn object; 115 Courts Lane Je are asking the committee to approve a variance for our residence located atl5 ourts Lane (lot 32 of Chenal), The original site pian showed our home corre't.y on the ont building line, Wher= laying the house out it was slightly over the front building line rid was not known until the final survey. Because of this we are asking for a variance. 'hank You, Mike Kuhn ramie Kuhn �: FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z -4064-A Owner/Applicant: James Goodwin Address: 3 Longfellow Lane Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Forbesplace Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a garage 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 3 Longfellow Lane is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Beverly Place which serves as access. The property is located at the southeast corner of Longfellow Lane and Beverly Place. The applicant proposes to construct a 23 foot by 22 foot garage addition' on the west end of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The addition will have a heated/cooled connection to the residence. The proposed addition will be located 18 feet from the front (west) property line and five (5) feet from the south (side) property line. Access to the proposed garage structure will be gained by utilizing the existing driveway from Beverly Place. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the garage addition with a reduced front setback. Although the house faces north, the lot is platted west to east (front to back). FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) Staff is supportive of the requested front setback variance. Although the proposed addition will be located slightly closer to the Beverly Place right-of- way than the houses to the south, staff feels that the encroachment is relatively minor. Additionally, the lot is located near the end of Beverly Place, with the house to the north (across Longfellow Lane) being approximately 8 feet closer to the Beverly Place right-of-way than the existing house at 3 Longfellow Lane. The applicant has noted that the entire width of the proposed garage cannot be attached to the residence because it would eliminate several large windows. Staff feels that the proposed front setback 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, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005) 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 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. James F. Goodwin Three Longfellow Lane Little Rock Arkansas 72207 January 28, 2005 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock AR 72201 To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this letter as an official request for a residential zoning variance at Three Longfellow Lane, Little Rock AR 72207. The request is for a double garage addition to the residence and changing the entrance for parking from Beverly Place to Longfellow Lane. The existing structure does not have a protected place to park vehicles. The garage will load from Longfellow Lane which will help alleviate three driveways that open onto Beverly Place together. (#14 Beverly Place, #15 Beverly Place and my house at #3 Longfellow Lane). The addition will be constructed of brick veneer to match the rest of the house with a gabled roof tying into the existing structure. I feel this will be a valuable addition to the neighborhood increasing the value of the property in question. Thank you for our consideration of this request. Sincerely, ames F. Goodwin FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -4469-C Owner: John Stacks Applicant: Andrew McCauley Address: 8800 Stagecoach Road Description: Lot 2, Cracker Box Subdivision Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the buffer provisions of Section 36-522 to allow construction of a branch bank with reduced land use and street buffers. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Branch Bank STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No comment regarding reduced buffers. Access drive design and locations must be approved by Traffic engineering with building permit review. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The Zoning Ordinance requires a land use buffer with a minimum width of 9 - feet along the northern perimeter of this site. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow for utility easements to count as land use buffer area. There is a 15 — foot wide utility easement along the northern perimeter of the site. The Zoning Ordinance requires a street buffer with an average width of 18 feet and in no area less than 9 feet. The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum width of 6 feet 9 inches. A 6 -foot high opaque screen is required along the northern and western perimeters of the site. FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 8800 Stagecoach Road is currently undeveloped. Site work is taking place in preparation for a new branch bank development. The site is located just north of the northwest corner of Stagecoach and Baseline Roads. As part of the proposed development, the applicant proposes to utilize the 15 foot wide utility easement along the north property line as the land use buffer between this property and the R-2 zoned property to the north. The applicant has noted that this area will be landscaped. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a street buffer (along east property line) with a minimum width of five (5) feet. Section 36-522(b)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum land use buffer of nine (9) feet along the north property line. Section 36-521(f) states that utility easements cannot be used toward fulfilling a buffer requirement (depth or area). Section 36-522(b)(3) also requires a minimum street buffer width of nine (9) feet, with an overall buffer width averaging 18 feet. The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum street landscape strip width of 6 feet -9 inches. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from the Zoning Ordinance requirements for land use and street buffer widths along the north and east property lines. The City Beautiful Commission must grant variances from the Landscape Ordinance requirements. Staff does not support the buffer variances as requested. Staff has no problem with the reduction in the north land use buffer as proposed, as the undeveloped R-2 zoned property to the north is designated as suburban office on the City's Future Land Use Plan. It is very unlikely that this property will ever be developed as single family. Staff does not support the requested reduction in the street buffer. Stagecoach Road was recently designated by the City Board of Directors as a scenic corridor. Staff feels that allowing a reduced street buffer for a new development along this new scenic corridor would defeat the purpose and intent for the new designation. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the buffer variances, as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005) John Stacks and Andrew McCauley were present, representing the application. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had amended the application to provide 2 FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) the required street buffer (18 foot width), and reduce the north land use buffer to 6 feet -9 inches wide at its narrowest point. Staff noted that parallel parking would be provided along the south side of the land use buffer. Staff informed the Board that the variance for reduced street buffer was no longer needed. Andrew McCauley officially amended the application as presented by staff. Staff recommended approval of the reduced land use buffer along the north property line, as amended. Staff noted that the proposed buffer conformed with landscape ordinance requirements and would not require City Beautiful Commission approval. A motion was made to approve the application, as amended. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The revised application was approved. 3 I AM ARcmTECTURE, INC. 401 Main Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 28 January 2005 City of Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: 8800 Stagecoach Road Dear Sir or Madam: 4 Z - I have been contracted by Mr. John Stacks to provide architectural services for his property at 8800 Stagecoach Road. To date, we have completed Construction Document and have submitted for a building permit. The land to the north is currently zoned R-2, and this requires the site to have a nine foot landscape buffer. There is currently a fifteen foot wide utility easement along the north property line; this in conjunction with the landscape buffer narrows the area for the building and access to the rear of the site. I would like to request a removal of the nine foot wide landscape buffer along the north property line. I would also like to request a reduction in the minimum width of the landscape buffer at the east property line. The east end of the building is the main entry for the bank and additional parking at the area would make it easier for the visitors to the facility. I would like to request a reduction of nine foot minimum to five foot minimum at the east property line. In addition to the landscape inside the property line there is currently an average of twenty feet from the property line to the curb along Stagecoach that will also be landscaped. We would request that the matter be added to the 28 February 2005 agenda. Sincerely, Andrew F. McCauley, AIA Ph: 501.374.5500 Fx: 501.374.5501 www.amarchitecture.com FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-5591 -C Owner: Emmett Jones Applicant: Wendie White Address: 10609 Interstate 30 Description: South side of Interstate 30, West of Baseline Road Zoned: 1-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 554 to allow a ground sign which exceeds the maximum area allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Commercial/Light Industrial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial/Light Industrial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The 1-2 zoned property at 10609 Interstate 30 is occupied by two (2) one-story commercial buildings located within the east half of the property. The west portion of the property is undeveloped and gravel covered. A single drive from the 1-30 frontage road serves as access. There is an existing ground -mounted sign at the northeast corner of the property. The applicant proposes to place a second ground -mounted sign on the property, at the northwest corner of the tract. The sign will advertise a new motorcycle dealership. The proposed sign will have a height of 28 feet and an area of 117 square feet (18 feet by 6.5 feet). The sign will be located at least five (5) feet back from property lines. The applicant is proposing to move this sign from the business' previous location. FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) Section 36-554(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum sign height of 30 feet and maximum area of 72 square feet for ground -mounted signs in industrial zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the increased sign area. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the additional sign area is reasonable and will not be out of character with the general area. There are numerous commercial properties along 1-30 to the east with signs of this size and larger. The portion of 1-30 east of 1-430 is more commercial in nature. Staff feels that the requested variance to allow the additional sign area will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The sign must not exceed a height of 28 feet. 2. The sign must be located at least five (5) feet back from any property line. 3. A sign permit must be obtained for the new sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005) 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 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 2 FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-7637 Owner/Applicant: David Hall Address: 1319 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lot 13, Block 9, Midland Hills Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A time extension is requested for a previously approved variance. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Condominiums Proposed Use of Property: Condominiums STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: On September 27, 2004 the Board of Adjustment approved front and side setback variances associated with a deck structure at 1319 Kavanaugh Blvd. The 12 foot by 18 foot deck structure was constructed on the east end of the northernmost condo building on the property. The deck's northeast corner is located on the side (east) property line, with the southeast corner extending across the side property line by approximately two (2) feet. The deck is located 12 to 15 feet back from the front (north) property line. The Board of Adjustment approved the variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. A replat must be completed within 60 days to adjust the east side property line, resulting in a minimum 2 foot setback from the deck structure at any point. 2. The deck structure must remain uncovered and unenclosed. FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) ma The deck structure must be reduced in size to provide a minimum 2 foot setback (at any point) from the existing east side property line. Since the approval date, the applicant has been working with the property owners to the east on replatting the properties (adjusting the dividing side property line). The property to the east is a condo development with several property owners. The applicant has experienced difficulty in reaching all of the property owners as of this date. Staff, through the enforcement process, was able to grant the applicant some additional time to complete the replat process. However, the applicant is in need of additional time, and is requesting 60 more days to complete the replat. Staff recommends approval of the 60 day time extension. Staff feels that this will allow adequate time for the applicant to complete the replat of the properties. Staff knows of no objectors regarding this issue. None were present at the public hearing last September. Therefore, the extension should create no hardship for any parties involved. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the time extension to April 28, 2005. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005) 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 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 6 ATTN: Montee Moore and Zoning Commission I need to request an extension of time to resolve my zoning situation with my neighbors. The reason I need an extension is the unavailability of the president of the neighboring property association. This individual is Jeff Gillespie, a state senator, who has been out of town extensively and I do not know how to contact him. Jeff has told his association that he wants to explore the zoning commission's recommendations, specifically an easement as a solution. While I understand that this will not work, my word is not enough, for this individual, (who is an attorney) and his association. So, I am presently working to resolve this and get the parties involved to reach a consensual agreement. I have already attended one of the neighboring association's meetings, spoken with members in person, and have corresponded by e-mail. The deck, which is at the center of this conflict is generally considered by my neighbors as an improvement, the dispute is currently centered on the sale of land, price, and whether or not they can grant an easement vs. a sale. This issue is not a nuisance to my neighbors or a danger to the public's safety. I don't think an extension would cause anyone harm and should therefore be granted. I do think this issue may take at least another 60 days or so to be resolved. I am working hard to resolve this issue and my motivation is to sell my property before this spring. David Hall FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-7792 Owner/Applicant: Wes Sutton Address: 5125 Lee Avenue Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Pfeifer's Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Sections 36-255 and 36-156 to allow additions with reduced setbacks and separation. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: Single Family Residential The R-3 zoned property at 5125 Lee Avenue is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of Lee Avenue and Harrison Street. A two -car wide drive from Harrison Street serves as access. There is an alley along the south property line. There are two (2) accessory buildings located in the rear yard, along the south property line. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story addition on the south side of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The addition will have approximately the same overall height as the existing house. The addition will be located approximately 15 feet from the rear (south) property line, and will abut the accessory structure (carport) at the southwest corner of the property. The addition will be located approximately one (1) foot from the accessory building at the southeast corner of the property. The addition will maintain the same 9 foot side yard (east side) as the existing home. The addition will be located 7 to 13 feet from the west side property line. FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) Section 36-255(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 25 foot rear yard setback for principal structures in R-3 zoning. Section 36- 156(a)(2)b. requires a minimum six (6) foot separation between principal and accessory structures. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow a reduced rear yard setback for the proposed addition, and a reduced separation between it and the existing accessory buildings. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff feels that the addition, along with the existing accessory buildings, represents an overbuilding of the property. The combined structures would occupy slightly over 75 percent of the required rear yard (rear 25 feet of the lot). Staff feels that this amount of coverage is unreasonable and will be out of character with the immediate neighborhood. Staff could possibly support the rear setback variance for the building addition if some of the accessory building area were removed from the property. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested rear setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005) Wes Sutton was present, representing the application. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had agreed to amend the application. Mr. Sutton noted that he wished to amend the application by removing the smaller accessory building at the southeast corner of the property. Staff recommended approval of the revised application, subject to the following conditions: 1. The accessory building at the southeast corner of the property must be removed. 2. No additional building additions or accessory buildings will be allowed on the property in the future. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as revised and recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 2 January 13, 2005 Dear Board of Adjustment, I have lived at 5125 Lee Avenue for 18 years. Hillcrest is a wonderful neighborhood composed of older homes with character and history. The mid -town location is very attractive and I plan on staying in my home for many more years. I purchased the home from a family that had lived there for 45 years. It needed much work to bring it up to date, which I have done over time. I have especially worked hard on yard and landscaping which have added a desirable curb appeal. Being an older home, the rooms are all fairly small. I have always to this point used the dining room as a den and the kitchen is not large enough for a kitchen table. Over 18years and much thought, I have planned an addition on paper and now am ready to move ahead with the project. My home is located on the corner of Lee Avenue and Harrison Street. There is an alley that serves as the back boundary. My proposed two story addition is for a den/family room (down) and a master bedroom with half bath (up). The plans are to go straight out from the back of the house, not venturing any wider than the current house. The plans call for going back approximately 35 feet toward the back property line. Upon attempting to permit this project, I was told there is a zoning limitation from building anything within 25 feet of the back property line. This proposed addition would encroach upon this zoning limitation by approximately 10 feet. It should be noted, however, that when I purchased the property in 1986, the workshop and carport were already in existence and were directly on the property line along the back (south) boundary. As I am sure you are aware, these types of tool sheds, workshops, or storage sheds are commonplace in the alleyways of Hillcrest. Most have been there for years and years. My proposed addition would all be within the confines of the existing structures. No changes are being made to the structures that currently border my property. I have twisted the layout of the addition every way possible and this is simply the best layout. It keeps with the consistency of the houses in my neighborhood by being deeper, but not wider. I am trying to keep the flow of the roofline by simply extending the house in depth and not width. Currently, I have about a 40 foot walk from my carport to my back door. This walk is all uncovered. One major design factor is to incorporate that walk inside the addition. My carport is one of the few in my neighborhood that is freestanding. Almost all carports around me are attached to the house. I feel the look of my home after the addition, if granted the variance, will be one of consistency. Upon completion, this addition will be a complement to the renovation that is currently occurring in mid -town Little Rock. The roofline, exterior siding and the tie in to the carport, will be a smooth transition in keeping with the current look of the original structure while adding some much needed space. I am requesting the Board to grant a variance so that I may proceed with my Project. I look forward to discussing any questions the Board may have at the February 2005 meeting. FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-7793 Owner: James and La Rae Bearden Applicant: James Bearden Address: 2624 Crouchwood Road Description: Lot 32, Kingwood Place Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A time extension is requested to remove an accessory building from a front yard. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 2624 Crouchwood Road is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a single -car driveway from Crouchwood Road which serves as access. The property slopes downward from front to back. The applicant recently placed a "Rubbermaid" storage building within the front yard of the property. The building is approximately 15 feet from the front (south) property line. The applicant has noted that the accessory building was placed on the property in order for him to park his motorcycle in. The applicant also notes that without the enclosed parking for his motorcycle, his insurance policy would be canceled. The City's enforcement staff recently issued the applicant a notice to remove the building from the front yard. FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 60 feet for accessory buildings in R-2 zoning. The applicant agrees to remove the accessory building from the front yard, but is requesting six (6) months to do so. The applicant has noted that the building could be moved into the rear yard, but because of the slope downward from front to back, a concrete walkway/driveway would need to be constructed from the front yard to the building. The six (6) month extension is requested to give the applicant time to have the walkway/driveway constructed. Staff has met with the applicant at the site and determined the accessory building could be placed in the rear yard and meet all required minimum setbacks. Staff is supportive of the requested extension of time to remove the accessory building from the front yard. Staff feels that six (6) months from the time the applicant made the request (January 26, 2005) is a reasonable amount of time to have the walkway/driveway constructed and the accessory building moved. Therefore, staff will support a time extension to July 26, 2005. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a time extension (temporary variance) to July 26, 2005. By that date the accessory building must be removed from the front yard, and comply with all minimum setbacks as required by ordinance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested this item be withdrawn. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. -7773 --------------- •_�,,�w�e�x.4.4. �_aro mo r (ea�-s�e�1���c�aa FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-7794 Owner: Dwight and Margaret Blissard Applicant: Dwight Blissard Address: 5205 Hawthorne Street Description: Lot 2, Block 11, Newton's Addition Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a building addition with a reduced rear setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 5205 Hawthorne Road is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Hawthorne Road which serves as access. The applicant proposes to remove the rear 12 feet from the residence, and construct a new addition as noted on the attached site plan. The new addition would enlarge the existing master bedroom, and allow the kitchen, baths and laundry room to be remodeled. The addition would also include a new two -car garage. The existing driveway would be extended further into the rear yard to provide access to the new garage addition. The building addition will be one- story in height, and located five (5) feet from the rear (south) property line. The addition will be located approximately 13 feet from the east side property line, and maintain the same 5.8 foot side setback (west side) as the existing house. FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the building addition with a five (5) foot rear setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the proposed building addition will not be out of character with the neighborhood. There are several structures in the general area with similar rear setbacks. Although staff is supportive of the requested variance, staff feels that the proposed addition represents the maximum amount of building area that should be allowed on the property. Staff feels that no additional building additions or accessory buildings should be allowed in the future. Staff believes the proposed addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to no additional building additions or accessory buildings being allowed in the future. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005) 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 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. E FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7795 Owner: Eric Wood Applicant: John Hannibal Address: 2725 S. Arch Street Description: East side of South Arch Street, South of Roosevelt Road Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-502 to allow a building addition with a reduced number of off-street parking spaces. STAFF NOTE: The applicant has worked with staff to resolve the parking issue associated with the property. Therefore, no variance is necessary. The applicant is requesting the application be withdrawn. Staff supports the withdrawal request, and has submitted the required paperwork to refund the applicant's filing fee. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested this item be withdrawn. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7796 Owner/Applicant: Herb Jones Address: 2319 N. Taylor Street Description: Lot 8, Block 7, Newton's Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence/wall provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a masonry 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 2319 N. Taylor Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide concrete driveway from N. Taylor Street which serves as access. The applicant proposes to construct a five (5) foot high masonry wall between the residence and the front (west) property line to create a courtyard area, as noted on the attached site plan. The masonry wall will be located approximately 18 feet back from the front (west) property line. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence/wall height of four (4) feet between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way. The required minimum front setback in R-2 zoning is 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the five (5) foot wall height within the front 25 feet of the property. FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.) Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. Staff feels that the request is very minor in nature. The proposed wall will create no sight -distance problem in relation to Taylor Street. There is a taller decorative iron fence to the north along Taylor Street which encloses the St. John's PRD development to the north. Therefore, the proposed wall height will not be out of character with the neighborhood, nor should it create an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence/wall height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff informed the Board that the applicant's notice to property owners within 200 feet was done five (5) days late. With a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent, the Board voted to waive their by laws and accept the applicant's notice to surrounding property owners being five (5) days late. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 2 To ; 7-,6L� G i rr� l�c�� 7���v o�i4� • .s : u�.v. ,L '`'� /a -f Q F�i2if DG✓/�6�. S/OG�rNCD 7 7 f /�S -14%60916- AW ClJr� pJ dAel C c7l.+ 9' ,�l� - � - !�✓/Tib /� 'lV t) SGC �2 f �•c.1S >E6 A)C E �.4.cJ1°Gf /N O.e ��SEQ✓E leg 71y 3,e5;0.oO—' o 6; -,,Ver AwweAcsV Ta WWz- NE�� i H� w A i- L- w i L- L- G CoPA 59 ovL,D I067 C2C—►4 t E G FROM M S FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Z-7797 Owner: W.R. Stephens, Jr. Applicant: J.L. Davis, Beard Breeding Painting Address: 9 Sunset Circle Description: Lots C & D, Kingwood Place Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a building addition with a reduced side setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential is1 _ W.0 1000T 1 A. Public Works Issues: � T •1 B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 9 Sunset Circle is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Sunset Circle which serves as access. The applicant is in the process of constructing additions to the east and west ends of the residence. The applicant removed an existing garage at the west end of the residence and proposes to construct a new two-story garage addition in its place. The new addition will utilize the existing foundation and maintain the same 3 foot side setback as the old garage structure. The new garage addition will be somewhat larger (in depth) than the old structure. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the new garage addition to maintain the same three (3) foot side yard setback as the old garage structure. The addition at the east end of the residence conforms to all ordinance standards. FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 10 (CON'T.) Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as relatively minor. The old garage structure had a three (3) foot side setback, as is currently proposed. Staff feels that the new garage addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The residence located immediately to the west is located at least 20 feet back from the dividing side property line. Additionally, this next door property is several feet higher in grade than the property at 9 Sunset Circle, which will help lessen any impact the garage structure may create. The next door property owners have submitted a letter in support of the garage addition. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance, subject to guttering being provided, if needed, to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005) 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 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. P Jan 28 2005 12:( 'M BEARD BREEDING PRINTING C 5014551?. January 28, 2005 W. R. STEPHENS, JR LUTLE ROCK Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201 REF: Residential zoning variance for No. 9 Sunset Circle, Little Rock, Arkansas Gentlemen: p.2 In upgrading my garage I understand that there must be a variance obtained in order to get the building permit. If no variance is obtained the new addition will have to offset away from the property line an additional five (5) feet. Since the existing wall has been in place4or sixteen (16) years, I would like to keep from changing the footprint with an offset in the wall_ The new work is drawn on the plot plan for your review. Sincerely, 7W VI W.R. Stephens, Jr. 4 n1 /90 /9nnC 'CDT ii . Co rTv/Dv TTn RFnt i r7hAn1) February 4, 2005 Dept. of Neighborhoods & Planning Building Codes Division 723 W. Markham - Second Floor Little Rock, AR. 72201 To Whom It May Concern: We live next door to Mr. & Mrs. Witt Stephens, Jr., and we give our permission to remodel and enlarge the garage that is existing next to our property. gnature Date Signature Date FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 11 File No.: Z-7798 Owner: Bill and April Rush Applicant: Bill Rush Address: 11516 Happy Valley Drive Description: Lot 18, Block 24, Pleasant Valley Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow building additions which cross platted building lines. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT 0 Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 11516 Happy Valley Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide concrete driveway from Happy Valley Drive which serves as access. The property is located at the northeast corner of Happy Valley Drive and Rodney Parham Road. There is a 25 foot platted side building line along the south property line (Happy Valley Drive) and a 40 foot platted front building line along the west property line (Rodney Parham Road). The applicant proposes to make two (2) one-story building additions to the west end of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The addition at the northwest corner of the structure will include a new garage which will utilize the existing driveway. This addition will be located 35 feet from the front/west property line, extending five (5) feet across the 40 foot platted front building line. Additionally the applicant proposes to construct a new masonry step structure on the front (south side) of the residence, which will extend approximately six (6) FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ITEM NO.: 11 (CON'T.) feet across the 25 foot platted side building line. The step structure will be uncovered and unenclosed. Section 31-12(c ) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from this ordinance standard to allow the proposed step structure and small sliver of the front building addition to cross the platted building lines. Staff is supportive of the requested building line encroachments. Staff views the request as reasonable. Although the proposed building addition will be located slightly closer to Rodney Parham Road than the houses to the north, given the large amount of separation between the single family homes, the proposed addition should have no adverse visual impact on these properties. Staff feels that the proposed additions will not be out of character with the neighborhood and should create no adverse impact on the surrounding properties or he general area. If the Board approves the building line variances, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front and side building lines for the proposed additions to the residential 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 building line variances, associated with the proposed additions, subject to the following conditions. 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front and side platted building lines as approved by the Board. 2. The portion of the step structure extending past the side platted building line must remain uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 28, 2005) 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 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 0 BILL & APRIL RUSH 11516 HAPPY VALLEY DRIVE LITTLE ROCK, AR 72212 501-225-6345 501-681-2177 January 28, 2005 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR RE: Request for Variance Dear Mr. Moore, Z-4.0_-4 1 This letter is a request for a 5 foot variance from the 40 foot set back requirement. With this letter, please find enclosed the required 6 copies of the proposed structure. As stated, the side set back is 40 feet and there is currently significantly more distance than that from the current street. Line of sight from my neighbor, First Baptist Church to the east, and my neighbors to the west will still put the proposed new structure well within limits of common sense. To the front, there is a 25 foot set back, and we would request being allowed to build steps to the front porch that would extend 5-6 beyond the building line. These changes will protect the archectectual integrity of the surrounding property and allow the construction of a two car garage These changes have been approved by the property owners association (see copy attached to this document). Thank you for your consideration. ReJsspectfully, / ,��" Bill F. Rush F �� ..s 7 �i' "` "i. "r SSS S �:;e r?i.a. .Gt'• RZ.Tc�.ASANT VALLL`Y IPROIPER'I"V OWNERS ASSOCIATION 2300 Arkansas Valley Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 October 4, 2004 Bill and April Rush 11516 Happy `Dalley Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rush; (501) 225-0481 Fax (501) 225-8800 Thank you for submitting your request to the Architectural Committee. The Board has approved your plans for a new garage, porch and sunroom, including a new entry and extension of the current porch on the front of your home. However, as this construction project would require an extension of the existing building line (by approximately six feet), the boards approval is contingent on your receiving approval from the city for a variance. Please notify us if there will be any changes to the original plans that you submitted. Please be sure that you obtain all permits as required by the City of Little Rock and once you have received a variance, please make sure that you submit a copy to the PVPOA for your file. Please call me if I can be of assistance in any way. I hope you enjoy your new additions. I am sure it will be a fun and exciting process. From the plans, it looks like it will be a wonderful addition to your home! Yours very truly, Shannon Quinn Executive Director a T W Q z v W Q O w W Y _ I S �I W W m n Q U) W C �I U) z I arr�aQ_j wz�U) t� v t I 0 \! y I I J t � AM v 4 � y B t W } LU L W U Q > z � CO W Z � mU: U) U) z O U) � W z W c) E O E G LL DD m << = _ a T W Q z v W Q O w W W _ Q z W W m n Q U) W C U) z arr�aQ_j wz�U) 0 i=LLm==§ a T W Q z v W Q February 28, 2005 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:16 p.m. 2 �� Date: A-9 Chairman