Loading...
boa_01 26 2004LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2004 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 December 22, 2003 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present: Members Absent William Ruck, Chairman Scott Richburg, Vice Chairman Terry Burruss Andrew Francis Fred Gray City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA JANUARY 26, 2004 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Z-7537 B. Z -7087-A C. Z-7553 II. NEW ITEMS: 1. Z -4863-B 2. Z -7383-A 3. Z-7564 4. Z-7566 5. Z-7567 6. Z-7568 7. Z-7569 9213 Tedburn Circle 3 Statehouse Plaza 40 West Windsor Drive 10600 Otter Creek East Blvd. 2501 West 2nd Street 216 Normandy Road 2710 Woodsgate Drive 2 Mossy Rock Cove 3301 Lilac Terrace 7825 Fourche Road 0 O N • 3NId a31MIJ ^ 1 1lnVBIH1 ` V am o `V CIOd7py _jJ U gON� _ NVWa39 J N� Nlvw AVMOtl0a8 HOatl o v NOlryp (D 53HO 9NIN IN a34380 it � o NMO8000M o _ 3NId 13�dlS - 3NId zd NJdd e a 0 NO1lIWV 110OS s S,Ory/��S Na d aIV3 � n � AlISa3�IN0 SONIadS 63A39 ((� S3H00H o IddISS IN y se x — l001HO aIDAa353a MOaatla NHOf 3 Q ya 3NN13H —sloatls � Oa 3l Otl Oa033lNOtlHS S o� WVHaVd A3NOOa o i= 4—J NV 08 S11WIl ALIO 39018 Awl1 '�NpJ3pNlS o v Rpt O �2 0 w ./.epRy'Z1py Lo o — NVAIllnS laVM315 ySdb4 _ � Oy Slim A11o22-� ,�e� yP� �Jx O�PJc2e 70 jjpsNJ CIO 3lVONa3d 0 January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-7537 Owner: Jose Abel Rimirez Ribera Address: 9213 Tedburn Circle Description: Lot 204, Section "D", Merrivale Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a privacy fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residence Single Family Residence The R-2 zoned property at 9213 Tedburn Circle is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from Tedburn Circle which serves as access: The applicant recently constructed a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence along the entire north property line, extending from the northeast corner of the lot into the front yard and to the property's northwest corner. At the northwest corner of the lot the fence turns and runs three to four feet along the front property line. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between a building setback line and a street right-of-way. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: A variance to allow the six (6) foot high wood fence between the 25 foot front platted building line and the Tedburn Circle right-of-way. Staff does not support the requested variance. A six (6) foot high opaque fence extending into the front yard of this property is out of character with the neighborhood. Staff did not observe any other opaque fences extending into the front yards of the residences along Tedburn Circle. Staff feels that the six (6) foot high fence has an adverse visual impact on the adjacent property to the north, as it extends into the front yard area. Staff believes that the portion of the fence within the front 25 feet of the lot should be reduced to a height of four (4) feet, which would conform to ordinance standards. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested fence height variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 24, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant failed to complete the required notifications to surrounding property owners. Staff -recommended that the item be deferred to the December 22, 2003 agenda. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 22, 2003 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant failed to complete the required notifications to surrounding property owners. Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the January 26, 2004 Agenda. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 26, 2004 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: . (JANUARY 26, 2004) The applicant was not present. Staff noted that the applicant had not been present at the last two (2) meetings and had not completed the required notifications to surrounding property owners. Staff recommended that the application be withdrawn. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. K Southwestern Diocese of the Church of Christ (Holiness) U.S.A. October 10, 2003 City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Zoning 723 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR. 72201-1334 �- X537 Bishop Vernon E. Kennebrew Phone: 501- 376 -1664 13900 Edgemond Dr. Fax: 501-954-7277 Little Rock, AR. 72212 Email: Vkennebrew@aol.com RE: Request for Residential Zoning Variance in Not Reducing the Height of a Privacy Fence along the Property Line 9213 Tedburn Circle Little Rock, AR. 72209 To Whom It May Concern: I am requesting the privilege of extending a six foot privacy fence past the front of my house for the following reasons: 1) Noisy and non-cooperative residents in the house adjoining my property to the north 2) Disturbances due to coming and going of many vehicles and people during the day and throughout the night 3) There have been gunshots coming from this neighboring house that have entered into my tenant's daughter's bedroom. 4) Police have been called and have responded on a number of occasions and have made some arrests. 5) This fence will provide additional privacy and security for the residents of my house. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Vernon E Kennebrew January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT U Public Works Issues.- No ssues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z -7087-A BG Excelsior, LTD. 3 Statehouse* Plaza Part of Blocks 79 and 80, Original City of Little Rock UU A variance is requested from the development provisions of Section 36-342.1 to allow a ground -mounted sign. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Hotel Hotel The UU zoned property at 3 Statehouse Plaza is occupied by the Peabody Hotel facilities. The development includes a multi -story hotel building, with a large porte cochere in front of the hotel along West Markham Street. There is a landscaped area between the porte cochere and West Markham Street. The applicant proposes to install a ground -mounted sign within the existing landscaped area which will advertise a restaurant (Cappricio's) and bar (Mallard's Bar) located within the hotel building. The sign will have a height of approximately nine (9) feet and an area of approximately 20 square feet. The sign will have internal fluorescent illumination. January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) Section 36-342.1(c)(11). of the City's Zoning Ordinance, prohibits ground - mounted signs in the UU (Urban Use) zoning district. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the ground -mounted sign as described above. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the request is reasonable, based on the relatively small size of the proposed sign. Given the location and size of the porte cochere structure, other types of signs (projecting sign, wall sign, etc.) would probably have very little visibility. Therefore, staff feels that a small ground -mounted sign as proposed is the best option for signage at this location. The proposed sign should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Staff is unable to determine where the sign is located with relation to the front property line, based on the graphic information submitted by the applicant. The proposed sign must be located at least five (5) feet back from the front property line/right-of-way line, as measured to the closest edge of the sign. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to the following conditions: The sign will have a maximum height of 9'— 1" and a maximum area of 20.34 square feet. 2. The sign must be set back at least five (5) feet from the front property line. 3. A sign permit must be obtained for the proposed sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested the application be deferred to the January 26, 2004 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 26, 2003 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 l January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: B (Cont. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 26, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff noted that additional information had been received from the applicant indicating that the proposed sign would be located in the right-of-way. Staff stated that Public Works had reviewed the proposed sign location and had no problems with it. Staff revised its recommendation for approval with the following conditions: 1. The sign will have a maximum height of 9'— 1" and a maximum area of 20.34 square feet. 2. A franchise permit must be obtained for the proposed sign. 3. A sign permit must be obtained for the proposed sign. 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. 3 f Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow 7 �-� A PROFESSIONAL, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY -14 111 Center Street Suite 1900 Jeb H. Joyce Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 379-1700 jjoyce@ggtb.com Telecopier (501) 379-1701 November 21, 2003 Writer's Direct Dial (501) 379-1758 Little Rock Board of Adjustment via HAND DELIVERY Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Re: BG Excelsior, Ltd./ The Peabody Hotel Application for Zoning Variance (Signs)Conditional Use Permit To whom it may concern: The Peabody Hotel ("Peabody"), owned by BG Excelsior, Ltd., is a hotel located at 3 Statehouse Plaza, in Little Rock, Arkansas. The intent of this letter is to respectfully request a variance to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, Section 33-342.1 (UU urban use district). Only one sign is involved in this variance request. Section 36-342.1(c)(11) states "monument signs are not allowed." As you maybe aware, a large porte cochere is located in front of the hotel, providing hotel guests a covered entrance to the hotel. The hotel wishes to place a sign on the property to advertise the restaurant located in the hotel, Cappricio's, as well as the bar located in the hotel, Mallard's. However, the existing structure practically eliminates the possibility of erecting wall signs or projecting signs. Therefore, we respectfully request a variance to erect a freestanding sign on the property. In connection with our application, please find enclosed three (3) copies of a Site Plan for the Peabody Hotel location. The Site Plan shows the proposed location of the Capriccio's/Mallard's sign. Also enclosed is a document showing the graphics and dimensions of the proposed sign. Thank you for your consideration and please call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, QU BAUM, GROOMS, LL & URROW PLLC eb Enclosures January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: C File No.: Z-7553 Owner: M. E. Seckt LTD Co./ C. L. Clifton Address: 40 West Windsor Drive Description: Lot B, Brookwood Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area and building line provisions of Sections 36-254 and 31-12 to allow construction of a single family home with a reduced front yard setback and which crosses a platted building line. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT 0 Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Vacant Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 40 West Windsor Drive is currently an undeveloped single family lot. The site has been cleared, with some site work having taken place. The lot slopes severely downward from front to back (east to west). The lot backs up to the Hindman golf course. The applicant proposes to construct a one-story brick and frame single family residence on the property. A portion of the proposed residential structure will cross the front platted 25 foot building line. The front of the house will be located 16 feet back from the front property line. January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) Section 36-254(d)(1), of the City's Zoning Ordinance, requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet for residences'in R-2 zoning. Section 31- 12(c), of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards. Staff is supportive of the requested variances, given the extreme slope associated with this single family lot. If this were a new subdivision, the lots with extreme slopes which back up to the golf course could be developed in conjunction with the hillside standards found in the City's Subdivision Ordinance. These standards include a 15 foot front building line. The proposed house would conform to the hillside standards. Additionally, the curve of the street at this location will help to give the appearance that the proposed house aligns with the houses along this side of the street. However, the curvature of the street could also have an adverse visual impact on the property owner -immediately to the north. This is staff's only concern related to the proposal. Staff feels that the applicant should obtain a letter from the property owner immediately to the north agreeing to the proposed construction. Otherwise, staff feels that the proposed house will have no adverse impact on 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 front building line for the proposed new residence. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. A letter must be obtained from the property owner to the north agreeing to the proposed construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant failed to complete the required notifications to surrounding property owners. Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the January 26, 2004 Agenda. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 26, 2004 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. E January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: C (Cont. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 26, 2004) 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. 3 M. E. SECU LTD COMPANY 608 NAN CIRCLE LITTLE ROCK, AR 72211 Phone 501 765 2598 Fax 501-221-2598 Mr. Monte Moore Zoning and Enforcement Administrator S 5 3 Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Dear Mr. Moore; We are requesting permission to cross the platted building line at 940 West Windsor Drive because of a steep drop in the lot. Thank you very much. Sincerely, 6-41, C. L. Clifton Manager -T4" .- C- -- 7553 Ms. Tawanna F. Johnson 36 West Windsor Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 DeOember 9, 2003 Dept. of Planning & Development Zoning and Enforcement Administrator 723 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 2201-1334 Gentlemen: I have no objection to the proposed change of the building setback on the lot at 40 Windsor Drive, which is adjacent to my home. Sincerely, January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z -4863-B Owner: Daniels General Contractors, Inc. Address: 10600 Otter Creek East Blvd. Description: Lot 9, Area 102, Otter Creek Industrial Park Addition Zoned: 1-2 Variance Requested: A time extension is requested for a previously approved variance from the temporary building provisions of Section 36-202. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Temporary Office Proposed Use of Property: Temporary Office STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The 1-2 zoned property at 10600 Otter Creek East Blvd. is occupied by a one-story temporary office building, located within the south portion of the property. There is a small gravel parking area along the north side of the building. The remainder of this 1.6 acre tract is undeveloped. The property is currently "for sale". Section 36-202 of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows for the placement of temporary buildings as follows: "(a) The director of the city department having planning authority and responsibility may allow a temporary building, preregulation January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) mobile home or manufactured home for commerce, or industry in any district where such building is used (1) Incidental to construction on a site or development of a residential subdivision, or (2) As a temporary office, store, or other facility while the primary structure on the same site is being remodeled or constructed. (b) Such temporary building, mobile home, or manufactured home may be allowed for any period of time up to one (1) year, after which the board of zoning adjustment must rule on an extension of time." Staff became involved in this case in January of 2003, by way of a citizen complaint. The Enforcement Staff issued Bo Daniels, the property owner, a notice to remove the structure, but since the property was "for sale", staff administratively allowed him additional time to remove the structure from the property (6 months). On July 28, 2003, the Board of Adjustment approved a six (6) month time extension for the placement of the temporary office building. The temporary building was required to be removed by January 28, 2004. As of this writing, the property has not yet sold and Mr. Daniels has recently entered into a contract with a new real estate company. Therefore, Mr. Daniels is requesting an additional six (6) months to remove the structure. Please see his attached letter for further explanation. Staff recommends approval of the requested time extension. Staff feels that an extension of time to remove the temporary office building from this industrial subdivision is reasonable, however, six (6) additional months is the maximum time staff will support. The applicant noted that he purchased the property in September 2001 with the temporary office building in place. Staff feels that adequate time has elapsed for the property to sell or permanently develop and for the temporary building to be removed. However, given the industrial nature of this subdivision, staff feels that an additional six (6) months will not adversely affect the surrounding properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested six (6) month time extension for the placement of the temporary office building. The temporary building must be removed from the property no later than July 26, 2004. IN January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 26, 2004) 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. 3 .� �ANIELS � General Contractors dnv'n�icur�cd �n uuu%ua�u� ALEX "BO" DANIELS President December 19, 2003 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Planning and Development 723 West Markham 724 Little Rock, AR. 72201 Re: Time Extension for Temporary Building Dear Mr. Moore: 10600 Otter Creek East Blvd. Phone (501) 455-1500 • Fax (501) 455-1563 MABELVALE, ARKANSAS 72103 Z-496 3 I would like to ask your office and the Board of Adjustment to please consider a 6 month extension to allow me to sell this particular piece of property. I have had it listed with Penfield Realty for the past six months and they have not managed to move it for me. I am currently working with Irwin-Saivers Company to list it with them, when my contract expires with Penfield. I have a meeting with Drew Basham with Irwin-Saviers Monday morning at 10:30 A.M. the 22nd of December to iron out a market strategy that will hopefully move this property. They currently have potential clientele looking at this particular area. I intend on signing a listing agreement with them next week so they can pick up marketing on January 12, 2004. Penfield's listing expires on January 11, 2004 at midnight. I am still in the same situation that I was previously, in that I cannot financially afford to purchase or lease another office space until this property sells. I am very confident that I am currently working with the right company to make this happen. I cannot express my appreciation enough to your office and the board for considering this last request. .President January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT 0 Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z -7383-A William Lamar and Jeryl Cochran 2501 West 2nd Street Lot 1, Block 5, Capitol View Addition R-3 Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow accessory buildings with a reduced front yard setback and separation. The applicants' justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-3 zoned property at 2501 West 2nd Street is occupied by a one- story frame single family residence. There is a two-story garage/apartment located in the rear yard near the west property line. A driveway from West 2nd Street serves as access to the property, with a paved alley along the west property line. The property slopes downward from west to east. On April 28, 2003, the Board of Adjustment approved a variance to allow a wood fence (7 to 8 feet in height) to enclose the rear and south side yards. As of this writing, the new fence has not been constructed. January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont. The applicants are now proposing to construct two (2) 10 foot by 12 foot accessory buildings (one story) along the south side of the existing single family structure. The structures will be used as a hobby shop/studio as explained in the attached cover letter. The structures will be located 32 feet and 61 feet, respectively, back from the front (east) property line. They will be located 3.5 feet from the south side of the existing house. The accessory structures will have small porch areas and will be connected to each other and the existing house by a wooden deck structure, as shown on the attached site plan. The accessory structures will be located 3 feet — 10 inches from the side (south) property line. Section 36-156(a)(2)b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory buildings be separated from principal structures by at least six (6) feet. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. requires a minimum front yard setback of 60 feet for accessory buildings. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance sections. The front setback variance only applies to the easternmost proposed accessory building. The proposed side yard setbacks conform to ordinance standards (3 foot minimum side yard setback required). Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the variance requests as very minor. If the proposed accessory buildings were attached to the house, the only variance would be a minor side yard setback (5 feet minimum required for principal structure), which staff would support. The proposed accessory buildings are relatively small and will be located within a fenced (7 foot wood privacy fence) side yard area. As such, the accessory buildings should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to a building permit being obtained for the proposed construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 26, 2004) 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. K 2- -73,�(--� -4- To: Little Rock Board of Adjustment Re: Variance for Accessory Structures My wife's hobby requires a work studio in which dust is created in the process. To prevent this dust from being circutated tit the house via the central heat and air system, we would like to build a separate structures) for this studio. For aesthetic reasons; we have divided the studio into two small buildings (one for work, one for storage) which have better propatiors than one long narrow building. They are separated by a deck beMeen them which also gives access to the main house. We have also added small porches at each end to enhance their arc:hrectural character in keeping with the vernacular architecture of the house and neighborhood. Because my wife meds the work studio in close proximity of her design studio and the amenities, i.e. kitchen, bathroom, in the main house, we would like to locate these structures on the south side of the house where indicated on the attached Sire Plan. They will not be physically connected to the house and will be separated but accessible from the house by a deck. I understand that away structures must be located a minimum of 60 feet from the front property fine. Therefore, we request a variance to locate these structures as indicated on the attached Site Plan. Thank you for your consideration of our need. Respectfully: William Lamar and J. S. `toe" Cochran January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Z-7564 Harriet and Clarence Pollock 216 Normandy Road All of Lot 88 and part of Lots 87 and 89, Normandy Addition Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow building additions with reduced side yard setbacks and which across a rear platted building line. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 216 Normandy Road is occupied by a two- story frame single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from Normandy Road. The property slopes upward from the street to the front of the house. There is a platted common area (park -like area) immediately north of the property, extending to the east. The lot has a 25 foot platted building line across the front and a 35 foot platted building line across the rear of the property. Staff believes the rear building line was platted to protect the park -like area to the north. January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) The applicants propose to construct two (2) additions to the existing house. The first is a new second story addition above an existing den at the northwest corner of the existing house. The second story addition will be located 7.3 feet from the side (west) property line, and will not extend outside the existing footprint of the house. The existing house at this point encroaches across the rear 35 foot platted building line by approximately six (6) feet. The applicants also propose to remove the existing single -car garage structure at the east end of the house, and construct a new unenclosed two -car carport. The proposed carport will be 20.7 feet by 19.7 feet, and be located 0.7 foot from the side (east) property line. Additionally, the proposed carport structure will extend approximately two (2) feet across the rear 35 foot platted building line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum side yard setbacks of 8 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 31-12(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these standards for the proposed additions. Although the side setback and building line encroachment at the northwest corner of the house is existing, the addition of a second story represents an increase in intensity and requires variances. Staff supports the requested variances for the proposed encroachments, with the exception of the side yard setback variance for the proposed carport structure. Staff feels that there is room within the rear yard to push the proposed carport addition to the north and provide an increased side yard setback. Given the fact that the proposed carport has a corner relation to the side property line and is unenclosed, staff could support a side yard setback of 1.5 feet. This would require that the carport be pushed back 2 to 3 feet, which would be no more of an encroachment across the rear platted building line than the existing northwest corner of the structure. Guttering must also be provided on the carport structure to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the east. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the rear building line for the proposed additions. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. 2 January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the rear platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The carport structure must have a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 feet from the east property line. 3. Guttering must be provided on the carport structure to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the east. Staff recommends denial of the proposed 0.7 foot side yard setback for the carport structure. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 26, 2004) Carolyn Lindsey was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval for all requested variances, except the proposed side yard setback (0.7 foot) for the carport structure. Carolyn Lindsey addressed the Board in support of the application. She noted that the carport structure could be built and maintained without encroaching onto the adjacent property to the east. She noted that the existing slope of the property makes the proposed location of the carport desirable. She also noted that the carport structure would have a hip -type roof and would be guttered. Andrew Francis asked if the required sign was posted on the property. Ms. Lindsey stated that it was. There was a brief discussion about the proposed carport structure. Ms. Lindsey noted that the requested 0.7 foot setback was from the side property line to the gutter. Chairman Ruck asked if there would be a problem moving the carport structure back. Ms. Lindsey explained that moving the carport structure further back would make the cars too visible from the rear yard. There was additional discussion pertaining to the proposed side yard setback. 3 January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) Vice -Chairman Richburg asked if the property owners were willing to move the structure back one (1) foot, which would result in a 14 to 16 inch setback to the support column. He indicated that he could support that setback. Andrew Francis concurred with Mr. Richburg. Ms. Lindsey revised the application to move the carport structure back one (1) foot further into the rear yard. There was a motion to approve the revised application, as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The revised application was approved. rd Keary Lindsey Architects .2- 756 . December 15, 2003 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Neighborhoods and Planning 723 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Zoning Variance Application for Harriet and Terry Pollock Residence 21.6 .Normandy Rd., Little Rock, AR 72207 Dear Monte, We are requesting a zoning variance at 216 Normandy Rd. to allow an encroachment into the -existing east and west -side -yard -setbacks -of -8 -feet and -into the -rear -Wising-ime of 36 feet. Our proposed plan includes a second story addition on top of an existing den that currently encroaches .7 feet into the 8 foot west setback, reducing it to 7.3 feet and 6 feet into the rear .building-line.reducing,it.ta.29.feet. This, addition.is.directly-above-an.existing _one-story den that has the above encroachments. Also incruded is a new two -car carport that encroaches into the east setback and into the rear building line. The carport has a hipped roof and will be guttered. Due to the angle of the house-Imot or#ki-Telation,to-tbe,eastproperty;.ane,-the_carport.encroaches.7.3,feetinto_the side yard setback at the southernmost edge and 0 feet at it's northernmost edge. The face of the gutter on the carport encroaches 2 feet into the rear building line. We have pushed the carport as far back to the north as the site will easily allow due to the existing sloping grade. We feel that the shape of the lot and the position of the house on the lot require us to request a variance to accommodate off street parking for two vehicles. We would like you to note that we are not requesting -a variance for a greater encroachment into the rear buidng line than currently exists. Also, factoring into this design is the extreme slope of the site making off street parking in the driveway dangerous. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Carolyn Lind' y, AIA 319 President Clinton Ave., Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-5940 FX: 501-707-0118 January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-7566 Owner: Teri Lipsmeyer Address: 2710 Woodsgate Drive Description: Lot 9, Block 2, The Woodlands Edge 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 front steps with a reduced front yard setback and which cross a front platted building line. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residence under construction Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 2710 Woodsgate Drive is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence which is currently under construction. There will be a two -car driveway from Woodsgate Drive near the northwest corner of the property. The property slopes upward from the street to the front building line, and back downward toward the rear of the lot. January 26, 2004 TEM NO.: There is a small covered porch on the front of the house which was built to the 25 foot front platted building line. There are brick steps extending from the porch toward the front property line, and crossing the front platted building line by approximately five (5) feet. Therefore, the steps are located approximately 20 feet back from the front property line. The front door of the house is located approximately four (4) to five (5) feet above grade. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 25 foot front yard setback for R-2 zoned property. 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 from these ordinance standards for the existing brick steps. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The encroachment of the front steps over the front platted building line is very minor in nature. As noted above the steps are located approximately 20 feet back from the front property line. Additionally, the steps are uncovered and unenclosed. Staff feels that this minor encroachment 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 front building line for the proposed front steps. 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 Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 26, 2004) 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. 2 ,-7��� ck L- January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-7567 Owner: Thomas and Leigh Ann Brannon Address: #2 Mossy Rock Cove Description: Lot 27, Block 2, Woodland's Edge Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254, the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the easement provisions of Section 36-11 to allow a front porch and steps with a reduced front setback and which cross a front platted building line and extend into an easement. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at #2 Mossy Rock Cove is occupied by a two- story brick and frame single family residence which was recently constructed. There is a two -car drive from Woodsgate Drive which serves as access. The property slopes downward from west to east. The front porch of the newly constructed house extends approximately one (1) foot across the front 25 platted building line. The covered front porch ranges from approximately seven (7) feet to approximately 12 feet January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) above the finished grade of the property. There is a temporary wooden step structure extending off the west end of the porch structure, behind the 25 foot front platted building line. The applicants are proposing to construct a wooden step and landing structure, extending from the center of the front porch toward the front property line. The step and landing structure will be located entirely within the required 25 foot front setback. The structure will be set back approximately four (4) feet from the front property line and 14 feet from the curb of Mossy Rock Cove. The step structure will also extend into an easement which runs along the front property line. 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 encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Additionally, Section 36-11(f) also requires that encroachments into easements be reviewed and approved by the Board. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the encroachments associated with the existing front porch and the proposed step and landing structures. Staff supports the variances associated with the existing front porch, but not the proposed wooden step and landing structure. Staff feels that the proposed step structure is located too close to the front property line, and is out of character with the other houses along Mossy Rock Cove to the east, which conform to the front setback requirements. Additionally, staff feels that there are likely to be utility lines located within the 10 foot wide easement which runs along the front property line. Staff feels that a viable option would be to construct a permanent step structure at the west end of the front porch where the temporary step structure is located, with a sidewalk leading to the existing driveway. This could be done with the entire step structure located behind the front platted building line. Staff feels that the proposed step and landing structure will have an adverse visual impact on the properties along Mossy Rock Cove and the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicants will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the front building line for the porch and/or step and landing structures. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. Additionally, if the Board approves the easement encroachment, the applicants must submit letters from each of the five (5) public utility companies approving of the encroachment. 2 January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with the existing porch structure, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. Staff recommends denial of the requested variances associated with the proposed step and landing structure. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 26, 2004) Thomas Brannon and Gary Washum were present; representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application, with a recommendation of approval of the variances associated with the porch structure and denial of the variances for the step and landing structure. Gary Washum addressed the Board in support of the application. He described the proposed step and landing structure. He stated that the step and landing structure would extend 14 to 15 feet out from the porch and would not be located within the 10 foot easement along the front property line. He submitted a letter from Ron Tyne, the subdivision developer, approving the requested variances. Vice -Chairman Richburg asked if the step and landing structure would be constructed of wood or brick. Mr. Washum stated that it would be a painted wood structure which would match the siding on the house. There was a brief discussion related to the step and landing structure. Vice - Chairman Richburg asked if a landing with steps extending to the side(s) was considered. Mr. Washum stated that a landing could extend 10 to 11 feet across the platted building line with steps to the side. There was additional discussion of this issue. Thomas Brannon addressed the Board and provided photos of other houses with step and landing structures as examples of possible alternatives. Staff noted that a step and landing structure with steps extending to one or both sides, and extending no more than 10 feet (entire structure) over the 25 foot platted building line would be supported. Terry Burruss indicated support of this staff recommendation. There was additional discussion related to possible options for the step and landing structure. Chairman Ruck, Vice -Chairman Richburg and Andrew Francis all indicated support for the option as supported by staff. 9 January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont. Mr. Brannon revised the application to have the step and landing extend no more than 10 feet over the platted building line, resulting in a 15 foot front yard setback. There was a motion to approve the application as revised by the applicant, with the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The step and landing structure must be located at least 15 feet back from the front property line. 3. The step and landing structure must remain unenclosed and uncovered. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The revised application was approved. 12 December 19, 2003 ATTN: Monty Moore Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham, Little Rock, AR RE: Zoning Variance Dear Mr. Moore, 75 4 7 Attached is a request for Residential Zoning Variance of lot 27, block 2 Woodlands Edge. Also included; a proposed survey for a wooden "step and landing structure", and landscaping of proposed step and landing structure. As listed in item (b) of Instructions For Making Application For Residential Zoning Variance, "Justification for seeking a variance might include excessive slopes"... Due to the excessive slope/grade of property listed above, the proposed wooden stair structure will not fall in compliance with current zoning requirements without the request of rezoning. The NW side of the lot (North of the driveway) is the "high point" with natural flow sloping SE toward Mossy Rock Cove, thus, on even grade, an elevated front porch is the result. Because of the excessive slope of the lot, and aesthetic qualities of a front -loading step structure, I'm requesting a rezoning variance to allow for a wooden "step and landing structure." This structure would stay within property line approximately 14' from the street of Mossy Rock Cove. I have been assured the developers of Woodlands Edge (Rocket Properties) will submit a letter of approval for this "step and landing structure" Thank you for cooperation and consideration of this request for rezoning. :incerel , Thomas B. Brannon January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-7568 Owner: Billy S. Vann and Joe H. Riley Address: 3301 Lilac Terrace Description: Lot 71, Riverside Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-255 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow building additions with reduced setbacks and which cross platted building lines. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicants' justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family. Residential The R-3 zoned property at 3301 Lilac Terrace is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from Lilac Terrace which serves as access. The lot is bounded by three (3) streets; Lilac Terrace to the north, Iris Avenue to the west and Rebsamen Park Road to the east. There is a 30 foot platted building line along the north and west property boundaries and a 25 foot -platted building line along the east boundary. The existing house crosses the west 30 foot platted building line by approximately two (2) feet. January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) The applicants propose to make building additions (one-story) along the north, south and east sides of the existing residence. The additions will be for additional living space and include a two -car garage. A new 16 foot concrete driveway from Lilac Terrace is also proposed. The additions will cross the north (front) 30 foot platted building line, and result in setbacks ranging from 23 feet to 26 feet. The additions will also cross the east (side) platted building line, and have setbacks ranging from 16 feet to 19.5 feet from the east side property line. The addition will have a rear setback of 4.2 feet at the southeast corner of the structure and 9.5 feet at the southwest corner. The existing house is located 27.9 to 31.7 feet from the west property line. Section 36-255(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet from the north property line. Section 36- 255(d)(3) allows a minimum rear setback of 8 feet in the case of a corner lot with building setback lines as exist on this lot. Section 31-12(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these ordinance standards. The proposed additions exceed the typical minimum required side yard setbacks. Staff supports the requested variances. Staff feels that the lot is burdened with platted building lines on three sides, leaving a buildable area which is much less than the average single family lot. Staff also feels that the applicant has done a good job in designing building additions which will be functional and minimize the encroachments over the platted building lines. The addition has a corner relation to the rear (south) property line, which should have a minimal impact on the property immediately to the south (also owned by the applicants). The proposed additions to the single family residence should have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties or the general area. The proposed building additions will align with the house across the street to the north, which also fronts on Lilac Terrace. If the Board approves the building line variances, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the front and side building lines for the proposed building additions. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. 011 January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the front and side platted building lines as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 26, 2004) 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. 3 Joe H Riley 3301 Lilac Terrace Little Rock, AR 72202 December 18, 2003 Dear Commissioners, The following documents detail a home addition, survey/plot plan, and the existing property. We feel this addition is justified because of our love for the neighborhood in which we live. We have been very satisfied living in our community near the river. It has provided a convenient location to live and grow. And growing we have done.- In the past five years, we have filled our home with neoclassic style furniture from the early 20'J' century. We feel the need to expand because our living. space is cramped. Most homes in our neighborhood have more room and we feel we should be entitled to the same amount of space. In addition, we would like to have shelter for our automobiles. They sustain a lot of damage left outside to the elements. This would save us money on upkeep. We also feel the need for another bathroom to use for obvious reasons. It's difficult to live in a household with only one bathroom. We plan to be in our neighborhood for a long time. We purchased the home behind us as a method of cleaning up the neighborhood, as it had been rented to bad tenants and the current landlord feared retribution if she evicted them. Things have been much better since we purchased it, as has the physical condition of that property. We feel this variance is justified and we have support from our community to build our addition. Please approve our request so we may continue to live in the community we love so much. Sincerely, Joe H. Riley LIVING AREA 8?& sq ft Floor- Pfa-.o STUDY ll'o a PORCH 8'6 x 14' BREAKFAST ROOM �5'Sx S9 e' oxss y KITCHEN t 9'6 x 10'8 c � I BATH II I 5'Sx4Y — II ,I 11 II 11 II II I, FAMILY 23'x14' DINING 13'5 x 12' II II II II LIVING AREA 1617 sq ft BEDROOM 12'x 12' CLO SET I I CLOSET i�.zx zn ea II MASTER BDRM ORCH 13'5 x 165 4'x9'2( �,2( �t, pf",P"j ud ► i pr-od awe - kxis' �,aA),, January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Owner- Address- Description: wner:Address:Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: No issues. C. Staff Analysis: Z-7569 IBR Real Estate, Inc. 7825 Fourche Road Lot 1-R, Stenger Subdivision 1-2 Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-320 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a building addition with a reduced side yard setback and which crosses a platted side building line. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Industrial Industrial The 1-2 zoned property at 7825 Fourche Road contains a one (1) story metal industrial office/warehouse building occupied by New York Air Brake Corp. There are two (2) access drives from Fourche Road, with paved parking along the west and north sides of the building. There is large truck access to the northeast corner of the building. The lot has a 40 foot January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) platted building line across the front and 30 foot platted building lines along the side and rear property lines. The applicant proposes to construct an unenclosed canopy structure (with chain link fencing) at the southeast corner of the existing building. The proposed canopy structure will cover approximately 4,200 square feet and be used for outside storage of materials. The proposed addition will extend over a 30 foot side platted building line and be located 11 feet from the side (south) property line. Section 36-320(e)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of 15 feet in 1-2 zoning. Section 31-12(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroaches across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the requested side yard setback variance is very minor. The rather large platted side and rear yard setbacks were established in 1967, prior to any city zoning regulations in this general area. Current ordinance standards do not require side and rear platted setback lines. Section 36-320(b)(1) requires that outdoor storage of materials in the 1-2 zoning district be screened by a 6 -foot opaque barrier. Although the property to the south is undeveloped, staff will require that a six (6) foot screening fence along the south property line, extending at least 10 feet (east and west) beyond the area of outside storage. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the side building line for the proposed building addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. D. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the side platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. A six (6) foot screening fence must be constructed along the south property line, extending at least 10 feet (east and west) beyond the area of outside storage. 2 January 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 26, 2004) 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. 3 9300 Professor Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72227 P/F: 501-225-8181 Mobile: 501-681-1492 Pager: 501-399-1720 December 19, 2003 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR Re: Building Setback Variance New York Air Brake Plant Fourche Road Lot 1-R Stenger Subdivision Little Rock, Arkansas New York Air Brake Plant is proposing to expand an exterior canopy storage area on the east and south sides of the interior production area to accommodate increased activity. As a consequence of the 30 ft Building. Line platted in 1967, a variance is requested to establish a new 10 ft Building Line along the south property line. Factors supporting this variance are given below: • The area along the south side of the building area is cleared and trees can be preserved. • Only minor grading would be required significantly eliminating sediment/runoff concerns. • Existing surface drainage patterns would not be changed. • The portion of the site east of the existing east side canopy is wooded and steep and would require significant disturbance of timber and soil cover to develop. • The industrial tract contiguous to the south property line is undeveloped and wooded. • The south side canopy configuration is favorable for structural configuration and operation efficiency. 0 N�N 0 U W w LU F- 0 H w E a 0 Q 0 m 2E a- (3) (3) c L Q Q� C� G z Q m m z LU C/) m Q W Q 3 O LU w w ❑ z F- p 0 Q <_ Cd LU >- U U)LL :DQ Z TM U D F- LL m C7 X 0 N5 R V\ -.r W h- ry o ry 6E Q o U) LU UCO J W U == LL z C� >- _ Y U LL m C� 2E a- (3) (3) c L Q Q� C� G z Q m m z LU C/) m Q W Q 3 O LU w w ❑ z F- p 0 Q <_ Cd LU >- U U)LL :DQ Z TM U D F- LL m C7 X 0 January 26, 2004 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. Date: 4Z' 1�2 G v Chairman Secretary