Loading...
boa_06 28 2004LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JUNE 28, 2004 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being five (5) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Minutes of the May 26, 2004 meting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Fred Gray, Chairman Andrew Francis, Vice Chairman Terry Burruss Debra Harris David Wilbourn Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA JUNE 28, 2004 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Z-2241 -A B. Z-7637 II. NEW ITEMS: 1. Z -6868-A 2. Z-7438 3. Z-7651 4. Z-7652 5. Z-7653 6. Z-7654 7. Z-7655 8. Z-7656 9. Z-7657 10. Z-7658 11. Z-7659 12. Z-7660 13. Z-7661 14. Z-7662 925 S. University Avenue 1319 Kavanaugh Blvd. 1212 West 11th Street 2809 West 12th Street 202 Weston Court 114 N. Woodrow Street 4305 Holmes Drive 9 Russwood Cove 5 Wellington Colony Drive 7 Wellington Colony Drive 2208 Marshall Street 315 — 501 Parliament Court Kenwood Subdivision 2018 N. Tyler Street 8 Rosier Court 204 Weston Court 0) W VJ z _V CL Alp 14 A3Na08 4�, Sllwn Ala �Id 832M 00 f � a iii a � � a Mama � s � 3NId IRY ll0as � s s 18,M om a- I DRO — 3 s 3NN13H r g � � Slalltl5 i sllwn uu VIA IC �Id 832M 00 f � a iii a � � a Mama � s � 3NId IRY ll0as � s s 18,M om a- I DRO — 3 s 3NN13H r g � � Slalltl5 i sllwn uu VIA JUNE 2�, )04 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-2241 -A Owner: HLR, LLC Address: 925 S. University Avenue Description: Southeast corner of S. University Ave. and Interstate 630 Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-555 to allow a ground -mounted sign which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: Hotel (being remodeled) Hotel The C-3 zoned property at 925 S. University Avenue is occupied by a two-story hotel building (Hilton Little Rock West) which is currently being remodeled. The site is accessed by way of driveways from University Avenue and W. 10th Street. Interstate 630 right-of-way is located along the property's north boundary. There is an existing 48 foot tall ground -mounted sign at the northwest corner of the property. The applicant proposes to remove the existing sign and replace it with a 70 foot tall sign at the same location. The proposed sign will have an area of 160 square feet. According to the applicant, the engineer for Hilton notes that the elevation of the 1-630 overpass is 29 feet above the base of the proposed sign. Therefore, JUNE 2d )04 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. the proposed sign would extend approximately 41 feet above the elevation of the Interstate. Section 36-555(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum sign height of 36 feet in Commercial Zoning. Section 36-557 (b) reads as follows: (b) Sign heights for all ground -mounted on -premises signs located on properties immediately adjacent to and contiguous to an expressway or freeway may be measured from the elevation of the centerline of the traffic lanes (excluding frontage roads) adjacent to subject property to the top of the sign structure. It shall be the responsibility of the sign owner to submit all necessary information when this approach is used. The maximum allowable height in any zone and under any condition shall be thirty-six (36) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed 70 foot sign height. Staff does not support the requested variance. Staff feels that a 70 foot tall sign is in excess of what is a reasonable sign height for the property. According to the applicant's engineer calculations, the existing 48 foot tall sign extends approximately 19 feet above the elevation of the 1-630 overpass. The sign is visable to interstate traffic traveling east and west. The hotel has functioned for a number of years with a 48 foot high sign. Therefore, staff feels that a 48 foot height would be reasonable for the new sign, and would support a variance for such. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign height variance, as filed. OARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested that the application be withdrawn, as staff had administratively approved the sign variance. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 Jeb H. Joyce jjoyce@ggtb.com Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow A PROFESSIONAL LIMriED LIABILITY COMPANY 111 Center Street Suite 1900 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 April 21, 2004 (501) 379-1700 Telecopier (501) 379-1701 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: HLR, LLC/ Hilton Little Rock West Application for Zoning Variance (Signs) Conditional Use Permit To whom it may concern: The Hilton Little Rock West ("Hilton"), owned by HLR, LLC, is a hotel located at 925 South University Avenue, in Little Rock, Arkansas. The intent of this letter is to respectfully request a variance to the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, Section 36-555 (signs permitted in commercial zones). Only one sign is involved in this variance request. The Hilton is zoned C-3, general commercial. Section 36-555(a)(2) allows "one (1) freestanding sign per premises, not to exceed two (2) square feet in sign area for each linear foot of main street frontage up to a maximum of one hundred sixty (160) square feet. Such sign shall not exceed a height of thirty-six (36) feet." The sign currently located on the Hilton property is forty eight (48) feet in height, and is almost even in height with Interstate 630, which passes along the north side of the Hilton property. Because the sign is nearly the same height as the interstate, travelers are unable to clearly see the Hilton sign, and consequently are unable to determine where the Hilton is located. Hilton simply wishes to replace the current sign with a seventy (70) foot sign, to eliminate the lack of visibility caused by Interstate 630. Therefore, we respectfully request a variance to erect a freestanding seventy (70) foot sign on the property, in the same location as the current forty eight (48) foot sign. In connection with our application, please find enclosed three (3) copies of a Site Plan for the Hilton location. The Site Plan shows the proposed location of the 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, QUAD' -'1i LEBAUM, GROOMS, ,-5MLL & BURROW PLLC H. Enclosures Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Attn: Mr. Monte Moore Re: HLR, LLC/ Hilton Little Rock West Application for Zoning Variance (Signs) Conditional Use Permit Mr. Moore: In our recent conversation regarding the above referenced variance application, you had requested the difference in elevation between the base of the proposed sign, and the highest elevation of the Interstate 630 overpass directly adjacent to the Hilton Little Rock West ("Hilton") property. The engineer for Hilton informs me the highest elevation of the overpass is twenty nine (29) feet higher than the base of the proposed sign. Therefore, the difference between the highest elevation of the overpass and the highest elevation of the proposed sign would be forty one (41) feet. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Q LEBAUM, GROOMS, /O LLBURROW PLLC J Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 111 Center Street Suite 19W Jeb H. Joyce Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 379-1700 jjoyce@ggtb.com Telecopier (501) 379-1701 May 7, 2004 Writer's Direct Dial (501) 379-1758 Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Attn: Mr. Monte Moore Re: HLR, LLC/ Hilton Little Rock West Application for Zoning Variance (Signs) Conditional Use Permit Mr. Moore: In our recent conversation regarding the above referenced variance application, you had requested the difference in elevation between the base of the proposed sign, and the highest elevation of the Interstate 630 overpass directly adjacent to the Hilton Little Rock West ("Hilton") property. The engineer for Hilton informs me the highest elevation of the overpass is twenty nine (29) feet higher than the base of the proposed sign. Therefore, the difference between the highest elevation of the overpass and the highest elevation of the proposed sign would be forty one (41) feet. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Q LEBAUM, GROOMS, /O LLBURROW PLLC J JUNE 29 J04 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z-7637 Owner: David Hall Address: 1319 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lot 13, Block 9, Midland Hills Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-255 to allow a deck addition with reduced front and side yard setbacks. 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: The R-3 zoned property at 1319 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by two (2), two-story brick and frame duplex/condominium structures. One (1) of the duplex/condo structures faces Kavanaugh Blvd., with the other fronting on Louise Street. A one -car wide driveway from Louise Street serves as access to the property. There is a one-story frame garage structure located in the rear yard, at the southeast corner of the property. The applicant recently constructed a 12 foot by 18 foot wood deck structure at the east end of the northernmost duplex/condo structure (facing Kavanaugh Blvd.). The northeast corner of the deck structure is located on the side (east) property line. The southeast corner of the deck extends across the side (east) property line by approximately two (2) feet. There is another multi -unit condominium type structure located JUNE 2S J04 ITEM NO.: B (Cont. on the lot immediately to the east. The floor of the new deck structure is approximately 10 feet above grade, as the property slopes downward from Kavanaugh Blvd. The deck is located between 12 feet and 15 feet back from the front (north) property line. Section 36-255(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for principal structures in R-3 zoning. Section 36-255(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the existing deck with reduced front and side yard setbacks. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff does not feel that the requested variances are reasonable. Staff typically does not support zero (0) side setbacks for residential structures. Additionally, staff does not have the authority to recommend approval of nor does the Board of Adjustment have the authority to approve a structure which crosses a property line and extends into another property ownership. Given the fact that a driveway exists on the adjacent property to the east, between the deck and the adjacent condominium building, staff could support a minimum two (2) foot side yard setback for the deck structure. If the deck were moved back two (2) feet from the side property line, staff would also support the reduced front setback. As noted earlier, the deck is approximately 10 feet above grade. This should allow for proper maintenance of the yard area under and beside the deck structure. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested setback variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the July 26, 2004 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 26, 2004 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. K Y-4 13 -en- TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2 ^ 7 &3-7 SUBJECT: ZONING VARIANCE FOR DECK AT 1319 KAVANAUGH I, David Hall, the owner of 1319 Kavanaugh request a zoning variance to the setback rule for construction on property lines. This variance is necessary in order for this property to have a deck, which is accessible to the owners via the back door, and is of area to sufficient enough provide room for a gazebo and deck furniture. This deck is also I believe of cosmetic value not only for this property but also for the neighboring properties. There are several reasons/justifications for a variance in this case. Photographs, the petitioning of surrounding neighbors, will support the justifications and other exhibits to be produced at the zoning meeting. Most importantly the allowance of a variance should have the greatest possible benefit to the most people. In my opinion there would be no loser in a positive decision for a variance. The justifications are as follows: • The internal structural configuration for this duplex places the back entryway on the east side of the property making this the prime place to put a deck. There is not another doorway for both duplexes except on the north side of the property facing a busy Kavanaugh blvd. with no available building space. • The Lot configuration is also unusual in that the building is very close proportionately to the east side of the property. The building is not parallel to the property line and is therefore at a slight angle, which further reduces building space. • The deck provides a positive environment and play space for the children of this residence to be outside and have a safe protected play area. • The deck does not interfere or restrict any activity, freedom, or daily function that my neighbors would undertake. • The deck provides a pleasant cosmetic covering for the side of my building, two storage rooms and our garbage receptacles. This is especially beneficial to one of my neighbors who has a dining room directly facing this area. JUNE 28, _J04 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z -6868-A Owner: Rebecca Stewart Address: 1212 W. 11th Street Description: Part of Lots 7-9, Block 309, Original City of Little Rock 0=2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a wood privacy fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-4 zoned property at 1212 W. 11 th Street is occupied by a one- story frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from W. 11 th Street which serves as access. A bedroom addition at the northwest corner of the house was approved by the Board of Adjustment several years ago. The rear and side yards are enclosed by a chain-link fence, ranging in height from four (4) feet to six (6) feet. The applicant proposes to remove a portion of the chain-link fence and replace it with a 7.5 foot high wood privacy fence. The proposed fence would enclose the rear yard, as noted on the attached sketch. The applicant notes that the proposed fence is for security purposes. JUNE 2� )04 ITEM NO.: 1 !Cont. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum residential fence height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the 7.5 foot high fence. Staff is supportive of the requested fence variance. Staff feels that the request is reasonable, given the fact that the two (2) residential structures immediately east have been removed, creating weed lots and increased visibility from Cross Street. The property owner has made quality improvements to the property over the past few years, and staff feels that continued improvements could aid in the redevelopment of other property in the area. Staff feels that the proposed fence will have no adverse impact on the general area or adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to a building permit being obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. May 27, 2004 City of Little Rock Planning & Development 723 West Markham St. Little Rock Arkansas Attention: Monte Moore Zoning and Enforcement Administrator APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING VARIANCE Subject Property: R-4 Zoned Lot; 1212 W. 11a` St.; Little Rock AR A variance to area regulations is requested to permit construction of a 7'6" privacy fence in the rear yard of the subject property. Currently, the rear yard of the subject property abuts two vacant lots that front onto Cross street, thus, allowing broad view of any rear yard activity by passing pedestrians or motorists . Over the last four years, as coresidents at 1212 W. 11'h Street, my elderly mother and I have made numerous property improvements and accommodations for senior occupancy. This variance request is consistent with that objective. While we do gardening and yard maintenance, neither of us spend any personal time in that area. A 7'6" fence would enable us to enjoy the backyard area with a reasonable amount of security and privacy. Your favorable consideration of this request will be highly appreciated. Sincere becca A. StewartOwner JUNE 2$, _J04 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z-7438 Owner: Mattie Irby Rhodes Address: 2809 W. 12th Street Description: Lots 4 and 5, Block 3 Worthen and Brown Addition Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A time extension is requested on a previously approved variance to allow a temporary gravel parking lot. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. This takes into account the reductions allowed within the designated mature area. A protective border, such as cross -ties, should separate gravel from areas to be landscaped. At such time that the vehicular use area is paved, required landscaping must also be installed. An approved protective border, such as the cross -ties or curb and gutter, will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. A water source within seventy-five (75) feet of landscape areas will also be required when the site is paved and landscaped. JUNE 28, _004 ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 2809 West 12th Street is occupied by two (2) commercial buildings, one within the northwest portion of the property and one along the rear property line. Two (2) other buildings which previously existed within the east one-half of the property were recently removed. There is a new gravel parking lot within the east one-half of the property, with existing curb cuts (with concrete aprons) from West 12th Street and the alley which runs along the south property line. A portion of the southernmost building is occupied by a beauty shop. The beauty shop has existing on the site for 20 years, utilizing an existing gravel parking lot on the property immediately to the west which is owned by the owners of the convenience store at the southeast corner of West 12th and Wood Streets. The beauty shop has had an agreement with the convenience store owners to use the gravel parking area during the past 20 years. The building at the northwest corner of the property was recently converted to a sports bar and grill from a general commercial use. The conversion of the building from a retail use to a restaurant -type use requires an additional seven (7) on-site parking spaces. Therefore, the property owner purchased the lot immediately to the east and removed the two (2) buildings in order to construct a new 12 -space paved parking lot. On July 28, 2003, the Board of Adjustment granted a 12 -month deferral of the paving requirement, as found in Section 36-508 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, (to July 28, 2004) for the parking lot, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the landscape and buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of this report. 2. The applicant must submit plans for a building permit at least 60 days prior to and have the construction completed by the 12 - month expiration date. The applicant originally requested an 18 -month deferral, but revised the application to a 12 -month deferral as recommended by staff. The applicant is currently requesting a second deferral for 12 additional months to July 28, 2005. The applicant has noted that she is not financially able to construct the parking lot at this time. 2 JUNE 2� J04 ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont. As noted previously, the area where the paved parking lot will be constructed is currently gravel. A recent inspection of the property revealed that the existing gravel parking lot has been well maintained. It appears that no gravel has been pulled onto the concrete drive aprons or West12th Street. Staff does support an additional deferral of the paving requirement for the new parking lot, but staff will only support an additional deferral of 6 months. Staff feels that this will be adequate time for the applicant to work out details associated with the parking lot construction. Additionally, this will give the applicant the full 18 -month deferral as originally requested in July of 2003. The applicant should submit plans for a building permit at least 60 days prior to and have the construction completed by the 6 -month expiration date. The Public Works Department reviewed the proposed new parking lot in July, 2003. Public Works approves of the location of the driveway aprons as shown on the plan submitted, and noted that the alley right- of-way along the south property line should be capable of carrying the traffic generated by the proposed parking lot. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the 12 -month paving deferral, as requested. Staff does support a 6 -month deferral of the paving requirement (to January 28, 2005) subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the landscape and buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report. 2. The applicant must submit plans for a building permit at least 60 days prior to and have the construction completed by the 6 -month expiration date. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the July 26, 2004 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 26, 2004 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 41Ai W ©k z' Ks a&W �f � CU. LL51 24 7W . 5-16-04 To: The Board Of Zoning For my zoning variance, I am asking for an extension on my temporary gravel parking lot form for July 28,2004 until July 28,2005. JUNE 28, /_004 ITEM NO.: File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-7651 Keith and Nicki Barnes 202 Weston Court Lot 17, Block 16, The Villages of Wellington MR Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a wood privacy fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential ��Ir_1a0ION : Il•]:41 A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 202 Weston Court is occupied by a two-story brick and rock single family residence which was recently constructed. There is a two -car driveway from Weston Court which serves as access. An in -ground pool is located in the rear yard. The property backs up to Wellington Village Road. The applicants propose to construct a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence to enclose the rear yard, as noted on the attached sketch. The proposed fence would tie into an existing six foot wood fence located along the north (side) property line which was constructed by the adjacent property owner. The Board of Adjustment recently granted a variance for the fence located on the adjacent property to the north. JUNE 2�, J04 ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum residential fence height of four (4) feet between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way. A maximum fence height of six (6) feet is allowed elsewhere on the property. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot high wood privacy fence within the rear 25 feet of the property as the lot has a 25 foot platted rear building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. As noted earlier, the property immediately north was recently granted a variance for a 6 foot high fence. Staff feels that the request is reasonable, as the proposed fence would be allowed by right if there was not a street right-of-way along the rear property line. Staff feels that the proposed fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The finished side of the fence must face outward. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 May 17, 2004 �-A-�.— 2-7651 Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR Dear Department of Planning & Development: Subject: 4 -Foot Fence Variance Requested We are submitting this letter to detail our proposal with justification and reasons for requesting a variance from the 4400t fence requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. 1. A pool has been installed at the above residence. Although a pool is a very beautiful and enjoyable item, it can be an "attractive nuisance" to children. Because of this, we are requesting a variance from the four -foot fence to place a six-foot fence around the property. This will aid in securing the property to keep uninvited guests from possible injury. 2. Our neighbor at 200 Weston Court has been approved for the six-foot variance, we believe that to vary from this would not be as attractive for the neighborhood. We sincerely submit our request to the board for approval E6 Keith & Nicki S. Bames JUNE 28,,-004 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-7652 Owner: Stephen and Jill Fussell Address: 114 N. Woodrow Street Description: Lot 11 and part of Lot 10, Block 5, Midland Hills Addition. Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-255 to allow a garage addition with reduced side and rear setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 114 N. Woodrow Street is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence. There is a 20 foot wide platted alley along the south and west property lines. The alley is paved and serves as access to a two -car drive at the southwest corner of the house. There is a one -car metal carport structure on the southwest corner of the house. The existing carport structure extends 2.5 to 3 feet across the side (south) property line and into the platted alley right-of- way. The applicants propose to remove the metal carport structure and construct a 22 foot by 24 foot garage addition at the southwest corner of the residence. The garage addition would be one-story and match the architectural design of the house. The garage addition will be located JUNE 2� J04 between 0 feet and 1 foot from the side (south) property line and 20 feet to 33 feet from the rear (west) property line. Section 36-255 (d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet for this R-3 zoned lot. Section 36- 255(d)(3) requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow construction of the proposed garage addition. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the request is reasonable given the fact that a non -conforming carport structure which extends across the side property line and into the platted alley will be eliminated. Additionally, the fact that the 20 foot platted alley does exist will allow for ample maneuvering area in and out of the garage structure, and creates no side separation issues between the proposed garage structure and structures to the south. Staff will require that no portion of the structure, including footings and overhang, extend across the side (south) property line. Staff feels that the proposed garage addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances, subject to no portion of the garage structure, including footings and overhang, extending across the side (south) property line. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 ---444 VARIANCE APPLICATION COVER LETTER We are requesting a variance in order to have an enclosed garage attached to the back of our house. The garage would enclose the area that is currently used for parking our two vehicles and replace a metal canopy that covers half of that area. It would not extend farther than the structure that is there now. In fact, it would not extend out as far as the canopy does now. We really need this garage both to keep our cars safe and out of the elements, and for greater convenience in loading children, etc especially in bad weather. Our proposed addition was drafted by an architect and matches the aesthetic of our house and the neighborhood. It would not hinder the alley running behind our property and would not be as close as many of the garages and other structures that exist on that alley now. Thank you for your consideration. JUNE 28� X004 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-7653 Owner: Norman and Rita Hampel Address: 4305 Holmes Drive Description: Lot 39, Deer Park Addition Variance Requested: Variances are requested from Section 36-156 to allow an accessory building with reduced front and side 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: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 4305 Holmes Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. A two -car drive from Holmes Drive serves as access. The rear and side yards are fenced with a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence. The applicants recently placed an 8 foot by 16 foot wood and metal accessory storage building within the side yard, along the north side of the house. The accessory building is situated behind the wood screening fence and is approximately 2 feet from the house. The accessory building is located approximately 50 feet from the front property line and 1.5 to 3.5 feet from the side (north) 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 JUNE 2i , J04 NO.: 5 (Cont. (6) feet. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. requires that accessory buildings have a minimum front setback of 60 feet, and Section 36-156(a)(2)f. requires a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the accessory storage building with reduced setbacks and separation. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The accessory building is located behind a wood privacy fence, with very little of the structure visible from the street or adjacent property. Additionally, all three (3) adjacent property owners (north, south and east) have indicated support for leaving the structure in its current location (see attached letter). Staff does feel that the variances should be conditioned on the Hampel's ownership of the property and that the placement of the structure should be approved by the City's Fire Marshall. With compliance to these conditions, staff feels that the accessory structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances are approved for the property owners, Norman and Rita Hampel, only. If the property is sold, the accessory building must be removed from the property or moved to meet all required setbacks. 2. Approval from the City's Fire Marshall must be obtained and submitted to staff within 30 days. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 Z- - 7 6 �3 oin5 an� Fo JUNE 28, z004 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-7654 Owner: Alan and Glennda Porbeck Address: 9 Russwood Cove Description: Lot 17, Rainwood Second Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a porch 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 9 Russwood Cove is occupied by a one- story rock and frame single family residence. There is a two -car drive from Russwood Cove which serves as access. The applicants propose to construct an 8 foot by 18 foot porch on front of the existing residence, as noted on the attached sketch. The proposed porch will be covered, but not enclosed. The porch will be located 19 feet back from the front property line at its nearest point. There is no platted building line. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for principal structures in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow the front porch addition with a reduced front setback. JUNE 2�, J04 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the variance as minor in nature. The property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, and the curvature of the street will not give the structure the appearance of being out -of -line with adjacent structures to the south and west along Russwood Cove. Additionally, the fact that the porch structure will remain unenclosed will lessen any visual impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested front setback variance, subject to the porch structure remaining unenclosed on all sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas RE: Variance Proposal Committee: My objective is to secure a building permit to make a small addition to my home. The addition is an open structure front porch. We have a gable above the front door area of our home that runs approximately 18 feet. We would like to extend the gable straight out approximately 8 feet to create a space; we believe, will enhance the front of our home and provide cover from the elements of the weather for ourselves and guest. Six 2 x 12 posts will be used to stabilize the gable's extension (One post at each corner, with the remaining two post used in the center of the front and back for additional support). Vertical siding will be used on the top front of the extended gable to match the existing siding on the house. %2 C.D. plywood and roof shingles to match the existing shingles on the house. I am seeking a variance because we live in a cul-de-sac and our unusual lot configuration states our home should be certain footage from the easement of our property. By adding this open structure porch to our existing home we will be extending into the Zoning Regulations area. We believe, as do many of our neighbors that this small addition will enhance our home; I sincerely hope we are given the opportunity to move forward on our project. Sincerely, Glennda Porbeck 9 Russwood Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Lot 17, Rainwood 2nd Addition City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas JUNE 28, 2004 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-7655 Owner: AWI, LLC. Address: 5 Wellington Colony Drive Description: Lot 3, Block 13, The Villages of Wellington Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a new 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 5 Wellington Colony Drive is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence which was recently constructed. There is a two -car driveway from Wellington Colony Drive which serves as access. The property owner recently obtained an as -built survey of the property and realized that the garage portion of the new house had been constructed approximately nine (9) feet across the front 25 foot platted building line, resulting in a 16 foot front setback. The City's building inspectors did not recognize the problem on several inspections, beginning with the footings. It appears that setback measurements were taken from the curb, not the front property line. Section 31-12( c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed JUNE 28(, X004 NO.: 7 and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Additionally, Section 36- 254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for principal structures in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the single family residence which crosses the front platted building line and which has a reduced front setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff's support is based primarily on the fact that the property is located between two (2) curves within Wellington Colony Drive. Because of the street curvature, the residence does not have the appearance of being out of line with the existing structures to the east and west. Staff feels that the single family residence is compatible with the neighborhood. In staff's opinion, the residence as constructed has no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The newly constructed residence immediately to the west was also misplaced on the site and is requesting similar variances (Item #8 on this agenda). 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 single family residence. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested building line and setback variances, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 Josie Company, LLC Dba Stephens -Baker Custom Homes 16471 Thomas Loop Rd. Benton, AR 72015 501-315-9144 office 501-315-9179 fax May 27, 2004 Dear Sirs: 14, 7 ,7—^ -7C575 We are requesting a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance at Lot 3, Block 13 Villages of Wellington, aka, #5 Wellington Colony Drive. The reason for the request is that our concrete man placed our house on the property at 25' behind the curb instead of 25' behind the easement. This error was only recently discovered last week. This house is almost 100% complete lacking the carpet and a few final plumbing fixtures only. Only a small part of the garage is in front of the building line. The living area of the dwelling is behind the building line. A ansa W i cl e, ec.} lon s We apologize for the mistake and have learned a valuable lesson in double-checking his measurements. We have used him for over two years and have never had any trouble before. We appreciate your consideration. Sincerely Yours, Darren Baker Stephens -Baker Custom Homes JUNE 28, 2004 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7656 Owner: Josie Company, LLC Address: 7 Wellington Colony Drive Description: Lot 4, Block 13, The Villages of Wellington Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a new 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 7 Wellington Colony Drive is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence which was recently constructed. There is a two -car driveway from Wellington Colony Drive which serves as access. As with the previous application (Item #7 on this agenda), the property owner recently obtained an as -built survey of the property and realized that the garage portion and step structure of the new house had been constructed approximately 9 to 9.5 feet across the front 25 foot platted building line, resulting in a 15.5 to 16 foot front setback. The city's building inspectors did not recognize the problem on several inspections, beginning with the footings. It appears that setback measurements were taken from the curb, not the front property line. C JUNE 28, 4004 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) 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. Additionally, Section 36- 254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for principal structures in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the single family residence which crosses the front platted building line and has a reduced front setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff's support is based primarily on the fact that the property is located between two (2) curves within Wellington Colony Drive. Because of the street curvature, the residence does not have the appearance of being out of line with the existing structures to the east and west. Staff feels that the single family residence is compatible with the neighborhood. In staff's opinion, the residence as constructed has 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 single family residence. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested building line and setback variances, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 Josie Company, LLC Dba Stephens -Baker Custom Homes - -% 16471 Thomas Loop Rd. Benton, AR 72015 501-315-9144 office 501-315-9179 fax May 27, 2004 Dear Sirs: We are requesting a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance at Lot 4, Block 13 Villages of Wellington, aka, #7 Wellington Colony Drive. The reason for the request is that our concrete man placed our house on the property at 25' behind the curb instead of 25' behind the easement. This error was only recently discovered last week. This house is almost 100% complete lacking the carpet and a few final plumbing fixtures only. Only a small part of the garage is in front of the building line. The living area of the dwelling is behind the building line. A 22 `3 if 5�ec, H,,-) n ►S 13'/z J't: � a+r�-_e V-h� brae, We apologize for the mistake and have learned a valuable lesson in double-checking his measurements. We have used him for over two years and have never had any trouble before. We appreciate your consideration. Sincerely Yours, Darren Baker Stephens -Baker Custom Homes JUNE 28, _J04 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7657 Owner: Glen and Demetra Brown Address: 2208 Marshall Street Description: Part of Lots 1-3, Block 15, Fleming and Bradford's Addition. Zoned: R-4 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-256 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: Duplex Proposed Use of Property: Duplex STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-4 zoned property at 2208 Marshall Street is occupied by a two- story brick and frame duplex structure. The structure is currently in the process of being remodeled. There is a one -car gravel drive (concrete apron) from Marshall Street which is located within an alley right-of-way along the south property line. The driveway only serves this property, as the alley is not developed and serves no properties further west within the block. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story (8 foot by 24 foot) laundry/bath addition and a one-story (24 foot by 30 foot) garage addition on the rear of the existing duplex structure. The garage addition would allow parking of three (3) vehicles and be accessed by way of the existing gravel driveway within the alley right-of-way. The proposed addition will be located 7.5 to 9.5 feet from the side property lines and approximately 19 feet from the rear (west) property line. JUNE 2g )04 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont. Section 36-256(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet for principal structures in R-4 zoning. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the garage addition with a reduced rear yard setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. Staff feels that the improvements being made to the property are quality ones which will have a positive influence on future development and redevelopment in this general area. Staff feels that the proposed addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 May 27, 2004 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Re: Residential Zone Variance To the Board of Adjustment, -�� 57 I recently purchased a duplex residence located at 2208/2210 Marshall Dr., Little Rock, AR. It's legal address is 2208 Marshall Dr., Little Rock, AR, AKA Lot 1 Blk 15 Flemingbradford Subdivision in the city of Little Rock, Pulaski County, AR. I request consideration for a Rear Yard Setback Variance. This would allow construction of a bathroom/laundry addition and a 4 -car garage able to accommodate 2 households. The total dimensions are 24' x48'. This proposed addition is to connect to the residence and extend 48' feet to the rear of the property. As noted on the survey, the said property boundaries vertically spans the length of 3 original lots. Allowance of this construction would provide better security and less congestion on streets in front of this duplex as well as neighboring duplexes. Thank you for your consideration, Glen Brown P.O. Box 2312 Little Rock, AR 72203-2312 JUNE 2i , _J04 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Z-7658 Owner: Winrock Development Company Address: 315-501 Parliament Court (south side) Description: Lots 21-30, Block 4, The Villages of Wellington Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a wood privacy fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned properties at 315-501 Parliament Court are currently undeveloped and partially wooded. Parliament Court has been constructed and serves as access to the 10 single family lots along its south side (lots 21-30). The lots generally slope downward from front to back (north to south). The lots back up to The Fountains at Chenal multi -family development (zoned MF -18). The applicant proposes to construct an 8 foot high wood privacy fence along the rear (south) property line of Lots 21-30 to aide in screening the multi -family property to the south. The applicant notes that the six (6) foot high fence which was constructed between the two (2) properties is in a state of disrepair. JUNE 2� )04 ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) Section 36-516(e)(a)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum residential fence height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the eight (8) foot high wood privacy fence. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the request is reasonable given the existing grade change between this R-2 zoned property and the multi -family property to the south. The City could require that the multi -family property owner replace the six (6) foot high fence, but the applicant has indicated that an eight (8) foot high screening fence would be more desirable. Staff feels that the proposed eight (8) foot high fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to a building permit being obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 INROCKil development May 18, 2004 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Board of Adjustment Members: 2222 cottondale lane little rock, ar 72202 Winrock Development is currently developing The Villages of Wellington, a single family subdivision, in West Little Rock that borders a multi -family project called The Fountains at Chenal. The developer of this project was required to build a six foot wooden privacy fence between our property and theirs. Since that time the fence has fallen down and Winrock has developed new lots that back up to The Fountains at Chenal. The Villages of Wellington has experienced an increase in non-resident foot traffic, as well as an increase in crime in the area closest to The Fountains at Chenal. Winrock Development would like to install a new eight foot privacy fence along the border of The Villages of Wellington and The Fountains at Chenal. This new eight foot fence would create better screening and hopefully detour some of the foot traffic that currently walks through the existing dilapidated fence. Winrock Development would like to request approval of an eight foot wooden privacy fence to be installed along the southern border of The Villages of Wellington and The Fountains at Chenal. The length is approximately nine hundred and eighty (980) feet. Your consideration on this issue is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Dougl s J M eil Executiv ce President DJMcN:jyw 501 663 5340 phone 501 663 4456 fax tivinrockdeveloprnent.com JUNE 2$, _004 ITEM NO.: 11 File No.: Z-7659 Owner: Davis Fitzhugh and various owners Address: Along David O. Dodd Road, South of J.A. Fair High School Description: Kenwood Subdivision (Lots 2-12, 52-61 and 85-95). Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow privacy fences which exceed 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: Kenwood Subdivision is a 215 lot single family subdivision located along the east and north sides of David O. Dodd road, south of Colonel Glenn Road and west of Interstate 430. The preliminary plat for the subdivision was approved by the Planning commission on November 11, 1999. The first two (2) phases of the subdivision have been final platted, with several homes having been constructed and in the process of being constructed. When the plat was approved, the Planning Commission required a 10 foot wide "no vehicular access easement and undisturbed buffer" along the entire perimeter of the subdivision where adjacent to David O. Dodd Road. In other words, the rear 10 feet of Lots 1-12, 53-60 and 86-95 were set aside as an undisturbed buffer with no vehicular access. Rear portions of Lots 61 and 85 are also included in the undisturbed buffer/no JUNE 28, -004 ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) vehicular access issue. A larger portion of Lot 52 is included in a drainage easement with no fencing allowed. It recently came to staff's attention that the 10 foot wide buffer had been cleared on several of the lots, with some of the lots having constructed fences on the rear property lines. Inspection of the property revealed that Lots 1 and 85-95 are developed. Lots 85-88 and 93-95 have 6 foot high wood fences located on their rear property lines within the 10 foot buffer area. Lots 89-92 have 6 foot wood fences that appear to be 10 feet back from the rear property line. The 10 foot buffer at the rear of Lots 85-95 appears to have been cleared with each individual lot development. Lots 53-61 are undeveloped, but have been cleared. It appears that the 10 foot buffer at the rear of these lots has also been cleared. No fences have been constructed on these lots. Lots 2-12 are also undeveloped. The 10 foot buffer at the rear of these lots is undisturbed. Lot 1 recently was approved by the Board of Adjustment for a six (6) foot high fence, 10 feet back from the rear property line. The 10 foot buffer at the rear of Lot 1 which was disturbed was replanted as a condition of the Board of Adjustment approval. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum residential fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way. A maximum fence height of six (6) feet is allowed elsewhere on a residential lot. The subdivision developer, Davis Fitzhugh, has filed a variance request to allow six (6) foot high wood privacy fences to be constructed within the rear 25 feet of Lots 2-12, 53-61 and 85-95. The fences will be located 10 feet back from the rear property lines to recognize the required 10 foot buffer. Mr. Fitzhugh has filed the variance request on behalf of the lots he still owns and the other individual lot owners (Lots 85-95). Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the request is reasonable. However, staff will require that the 10 foot buffer area along David O. Dodd Road be replanted where it has been disturbed. Given the fact that the 10 foot undisturbed buffer was a requirement of the Planning Commission's approval of the plat and not a Zoning Ordinance buffer requirement, the Board of Adjustment cannot approve a fence to be located within the buffer area nor can the Board approve a variance from the buffer requirement. If any of the lot owners JUNE 2i )04 ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) wish to locate their fences within the buffer area and/or not replant the buffer where disturbed, a revised preliminary plat must be filed with the Planning Commission. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The six (6) foot high fences must be located 10 feet back from the rear property lines and not within the required buffer area. 2. Any fences currently within the 10 foot buffer area must be removed from the buffer within 30 days. 3. The buffer area which has been disturbed (Lots 53-61 and 85-95) must be replanted within 60 days. Contact Bob Brown, Plans Development Administrator, (371-4864) for details concerning the replanting. 4. Any fencing must be located 7.5 feet back from the side property line between Lots 55 and 56 to recognize a platted auxiliary access easement. 5. No fencing will be allowed within the drainage easement at the rear of Lot 52. Staff supports a 6 foot high fence within the rear 25 feet of this lot, outside the drainage easement area. 6. Construction fencing must be placed at the rear of Lots 2-12 (10 feet in from rear property line) prior to any clearing, in order to protect the undisturbed buffer. 7. Construction fencing must also be placed at the rear of Lots 53-61 (10 feet in from rear property line) prior to individual lot development, in order to protect the buffer area which will be replanted. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the July 26, 2004 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 26, 2004 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 3 ® WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 24 Rahling Circle 4 - t_ 13Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 1 2-74S� May 28, 2003 Mr. Monte Moore, Zoning Administrator City of Little Rock Planning Department 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Kenwood Subdivision Fence Variance Mr. Moore, The developer along with the various lot owners would like to request a fence height variance for the above referenced project. The variance would allow the construction of a 6 ft. tall fence within the setback along David O'Dodd. Also, the property owner would work directly with Bob Brown to restore any portion of the 10 ft. buffer that has been disturbed. Mr. Fitzhugh owns lots 2 through 12 and 52 through 61 which have not been recorded. Lots 85 through 95 are owned by various individuals that have purchased homes within this development. Please place this item on the next available Board of Adjustment hearing. Do not hesitate to call should you have any questions or require additional information. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. Best regards, Joe D. Whit , . Cc: Mr. Davis Fitzhugh — Kenwood Subdivision CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING JUNE 28, _J04 ITEM NO.: 12 File No.: Z-7660 Owner: Richard and Dana Lawrence Address: 2018 N. Tyler Street Description: Part of Lots 12-14, Block 23, Newton's Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an accessory building with a reduced side setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 2018 N. Tyler Street is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from Tyler Street which serves as access. A one-story frame accessory garage structure is located at the southwest corner of the residence. The existing garage structure is approximately 12 feet by 26 feet in size. It is located approximately 8 feet from the principal residential structure and 1.5 to 2.5 feet from the south (side) property line. The applicants note that the existing garage structure is in need of extensive repairs. Therefore, the applicants propose to remove the garage and construct a new garage structure on the existing foundation. The new garage would have the same size, height and design as the existing structure. JUNE 2� )04 ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont. As noted above, the garage has a side yard setback along the south property line ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 feet. Section 36-156(a)(2)f. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet for accessory buildings in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow construction of the new garage structure with the same side setback as the existing structure. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the variance request as very minor in nature. The rebuilding of the existing accessory garage should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The accessory garage appears to have adequate separation from existing structures on the adjacent property to the south. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 1851 May 28, 2004 Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Zoning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72204 To Whom It May Concern: �2-`-7�(-, 0 Enclosed please find an Application for Zoning Variance for 2018 North Tyler Street in Little Rock, Arkansas. The property currently has a one -car garage that is in need of extensive repairs. We believe that it would be more beneficial to tear down and rebuild the garage instead of renovating it. We hope to rebuild a new one -car garage of the same size, same height, and same design on the existing foundation at the end of the driveway. We have absolutely no plans to enlarge the current structure or make it any taller. The new building would closely match the design of the house and the entire neighborhood. If we are unable to build a new garage, we would have to renovate the existing garage in pieces, which we believe would lead to something less attractive and not as structurally sound. It is our understanding that a new building would have to be at least three feet away from the property line, which would mean that it would then have to be offset several feet from the current driveway. If we have to move the building, we would also have to pour additional areas of concrete to make a wider driveway. If at all possible, we would prefer to conserve as much grass as possible. We truly believe that it would be in everyone's best interest, including the neighborhood and the City of Little Rock, to tear down the garage and build a new one in its place. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Richard L. Lawrence Dana Durst Lawrence JUNE 28, J04 ITEM NO.: 13 File No.: Z-7661 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Kent and Amy Bryant 8 Rosier Court Lot 825, St. Charles Addition R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with reduced side and rear setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 8 Rosier Court is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence. A two -car driveway from Rosier Court serves as access. The property slopes downward from west to east. There is an existing deck on the rear of the house. The applicants propose to construct a one-story addition (23 feet by 30 feet) at the rear, northwest corner, of the structure. The proposed addition will be located 8 to 9 feet from the rear (north) property line and 6 to 6.5 feet from the side (west) property line. The applicants also propose to construct an addition to the existing deck structure, as noted on the attached sketch. A portion of the deck structure will be covered, as noted. The new deck structure will be located approximately 9.5 feet from the rear property line. JUNE 2d, .104 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from the standards to allow the proposed additions with reduced rear and side setbacks. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff views the proposed additions as an over -building of the site. The residences on the surrounding properties appear to conform to the ordinance required setbacks, and therefore staff feels that the proposal is out of character with the neighborhood. The residence immediately north appears to be located very near the required 25 foot rear setback. Therefore, the proposed addition would only leave approximately 33 feet of rear yard between the two (2) structures. Staff feels that the proposed construction would have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 2004) Jennifer Herron was present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present with concerns. Staff presented the item and explained that the application had been revised. Staff noted that the size of the proposed addition had been reduced, resulting in a rear yard setback of 14 to 15 feet (15 feet for the deck addition). Staff recommended approval of the revised application, subject to the portion of the deck structure within the rear 25 feet of the lot remaining unenclosed. Jennifer Herron addressed the Board in support of the application. In response to questions from Chairman Gray, Ms. Herron noted that the addition would include one (1) new room (home office) and enlargement of a sitting area adjacent to the existing kitchen. Ms. Herron noted that the addition would not be large enough for an additional bedroom. Karl Liss addressed the Board. He stated that he would like a privacy fence along the rear property line to help hide part of the proposed addition. The fence issue was briefly discussed. Staff noted that the Board could impose a condition and require the fence if it were determined that it would lessen the impact of the addition. 'rJ JUNE 28, J04 ITEM NO.: 13 Terry Burruss asked how far above grade the addition would be. Ms. Herron noted that it would be one to three feet above grade. Mr. Burruss noted that a six-foot fence would not hide much of the addition. Mr. Liss requested that the fence be required and that it be constructed prior to construction of the proposed addition. There was further discussions of the slope of the property. Ms. Herron informed the Board that the owners would agree to construct a six- foot high wood fence. There was a motion to approve the revised application as recommended by staff, subject to the following additional condition: 1. Construction of a six-foot high wood screening fence (good neighbor fence) along the rear property line, prior to construction beginning on the additions. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The revised application was approved. 3 May 27, 2004 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Monte: 2- -764 ( On behalf of our clients, Amy and Kent Bryant, I am filing for a variance for #8 Rosier Court. We propose a 23'-0" x 30'x4" family room addition to the north of the existing house as well as a new deck as shown on the survey. The dimension from the rear property line to the northwest corner of the addition is approximately 9'-0". The dimension from the rear property line to the northeast comer of the addition is approximately 8'-0". The dimension from the side year property line to the northwest corner of the addition is 6-0". Therefore, we are requesting a variance from the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Please contact me if there are any questions. Sincerely, Jennifer Herron, AIA cc: Amy and Kent Bryant file H E R R O N H 0 R T O N 3oo S. Spring St. Ste. 720 Little Rock, AR 72201 www.hh-architects.com tel. 501-975-0052 fax. 501-978-0078 ARCHITECTS JUNE 28,z004 ITEM NO.: 14 File No.: Z-7662 Owner: Bhu and Jyoti Makan Address: 204 Weston Court Description: Lot 16, Block 16, The Villages of Wellington Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a wood fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 204 Weston Court is occupied by a two-story brick single family structure which was recently constructed. There is a two -car driveway from Weston Court which serves as access. The property backs up to Wellington Village Road. The applicant propose to construct a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence to enclose the rear yard, as noted on the attached sketch. The proposed fence would tie into a six (6) foot high wood fence which is proposed by the property owner immediately to the north (Item #3 on this agenda). The Board of Adjustment recently approved a variance for the fence located on the property two (2) lots to the north on the corner of Weston Drive and Weston Court. JUNE 2� J04 ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum residential fence height of four (4) feet between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way. A maximum fence height of six (6) feet is allowed elsewhere on the property. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot high wood privacy fence within the rear 25 feet of the property, as the lot has a rear 25 foot platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff is also supporting a variance to allow a six (6) foot high wood fence on the adjacent property to the north. Staff feels that the request is reasonable. If there was not a street right-of-way along the rear property line, the proposed fence would be permitted by right. Staff feels that the proposed fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The finished side of the fence must face outward. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 28, 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 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 COVER LETTER 2 _ 76 �-- L Bhu Makan 204 Weston Ct. Little Rock, AR 72211 May 28, 2004 City of Little Rock Variance Board Little Rock, AR To Whom it May Concern: We are asking for a variance to build a 6ff privacy fence in our backyard. It will be a nice treated pine fence with box posts and cap and trim. We need this fence so our two young boys one is 5yrs old and the other is 18 months can play in the backyard and are safe away from cars and keep them from trying to walk to the park or the pool which is in clear site from our backyard. So if you could please grant us this variance it would very appreciated. Sincerely, '=�&4 Bhu Makan • O U w w W H O I— z w D LL O Q m m E 0 6 ii Q F- CO m Q c w Q z IN June 28, 2004 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:22 p.m. Date: `/ 61 Oq Chairman