Loading...
boa_09 27 2004LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 2:00 P.M. 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 August 30, 2004 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Fred Gray, Chairman Andrew Francis, Vice Chairman Terry Burruss David Wilbourn Debra Harris Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Z-7637 1319 Kavanaugh Blvd. II. NEW ITEMS: 1. Z -3192-B 5409 "L" Street 2. Z -3326-D 12719 Cantrell Road 3. Z -6732-B 225 E. Markham Street 4. Z-7714 7 Ken Circle 5. Z-7715 5025 Stonewall Road 6. Z-7716 1615 Rebsamen Park Road 7. Z-7717 208 Weston Court 8. Z-7718 5216 Crestwood Road 9. Z-7719 206 Weston Court V CL /^l i Htlrd N AMOS � �•/ NrMoe SIM Aio % 18v#&s t slmn Au a ° �f�J ONN3f is � z Sllrvn uo � a ).to SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: A 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 SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) 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 ADJUSTMEN (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. 2 SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 26, 2004) David Hall was present, representing the application. Based on the fact that only three (3) Board members were present, the Board offered a deferral to the applicant. Mr. Hall requested to defer the application to the August 30, 2004 Agenda. A motion was made to defer the application to the August 30, 2004 Agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 30, 2004) David Hall was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. David Hall addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained why the deck needed to stay as is, with no alterations. He noted that the neighbors (condo owners) immediately to the east had signed an agreement to provide an easement for maintenance of the deck structure. He noted that the neighbors had no problem leaving the deck as constructed. He stated that he could file the easement deed within 30 days. Chairman Gray asked who the property owners to the east were. Mr. Hall explained that there were eight (8) condo owners. There was a brief discussion of the deck construction with respect to the side property line. Mr. Hall noted that he had professional help with the deck construction who advised him that the deck was ok and needed no building permit. There was further discussion of the deck's relation to the driveway on the property to the east. Vice -Chairman Francis expressed concern with approving a zero side setback. He noted that he could support a two (2) foot side setback. There was additional discussion of the setback issue. Mr. Hall noted that it would be difficult to reduce the size of the deck, and discussed. Chairman Gray noted that he could support a one (1) to two (2) foot side setback. Terry Burruss asked if a replat could be done to move the side property line. Staff noted that replats had been done in similar situations in the past. There 3 SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T was discussion regarding a possible replat of the property and the issue of deferring the item to allow Mr. Hall time to explore that possibility. Mr. Hall requested to defer the application. There was a motion to defer the application to the September 27, 2004 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2004) David Hall was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item, noting that the item was deferred from the August meeting to allow Mr. Hall time to explore the possibility of replatting the property to move the east side property line. David Hall addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that the property owners to the east were agreeable to the replat. He explained that the property owner to the east, being a condo association, had to re -write its bylaws in order to do the replat and sell a sliver of the property. He stated he hoped to close on the property within 30 days. The issue of the replat was briefly discussed. Staff noted that the side property line could be adjusted to go around the deck structure and not the entire depth of the property. Staff noted that the side property line should be adjusted to provide a minimum two (2) foot setback at any point. Staff recommended approval of the requested setback variances, subject to the following conditions. 1. A replat must be completed within 60 days to adjust the east side property line, resulting in a minimum 2 foot setback from the deck structure at any point. 2. The deck structure must remain uncovered and unenclosed. M The deck structure must be reduced in size to provide a minimum 2 foot setback (at any point) from the existing east side property line. A motion was made to approve the application as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was approved. 0 2-763-7 TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUBJECT: ZONING VARIANCE FOR DECK AT 1319 KAVANAUGH 1, 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. ve,�— A ^-7 3'7 TO: ZONING COMMISSION The owners of 1315 kavanaugh will agree to an easement to allow for the deck of 1319 to be allowed on the property and to access and maintenance of the deck. This easement will be for the lifetime of the deck. f2's��C•a'� PC t 31 S (Ccx ✓oc�� AL1 SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z -3192-B Owner: Patrick Paul Johnson Address: 5409 "L" Street Description: East Y2 of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Hollenberg Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with reduced 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 5409 "L" Street is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. The property is located at the southwest corner of "L" Street and Tyler Street. There is a one-story frame accessory building in the rear yard, with a one -car wide concrete drive from Tyler Street. The applicant proposes to remove the frame accessory building and construct a one-story addition to the rear (south side) of the residence. The addition will maintain the home's existing nine (9) foot setback along the west side property line. The addition will be located six (6) feet from the rear (south) property line and 4.5 to 5 feet from the east side property line. SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum side setbacks of seven (7) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed building addition. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Although the residence will occupy a large portion of the lot (after addition), staff feels that the structure will not be out of character with other structures in the neighborhood. There are numerous large homes in the area with similar massing, especially to the north in the area of Crestwood Road. Staff believes the proposed addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The single family residence immediately to the south is located 8 to 10 feet back from the dividing lot line. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered not 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 Patrick Paul Johnson 5409 L Street Little Rock, AR. 72205 RE: Request for Residential Zoning Variance Dear Planning Board Members, 8/24/04 2 3 f —8 I would like to request a residential zoning variance for my home at 5409 L Street, Hollenberg Addition, in Little Rock. Currently, my home sits on two %2 lots in the Hillcrest area of Little Rock. I want to add-on additional space for my growing family but want to keep the overall look and feel of the neighborhood. To do this, I propose to keep my home one level as opposed to creating a second floor. However, in order to make this proposed floor plan work, I am asking for a zoning variance in regards to side and back property line setbacks. My home sits on a corner lot and occupies mainly the center portion of both xh lots. It has several large ' oak trees adjacent to the structure, which I would like to preserve. Additionally, there is a detached heated and cooled back house that I use for an office/game room. I want to tear it down to make room for the new addition. I am requesting a setback variance for the southern and eastern property lines in order to preserve several landscape features as well as keeping with the overall look of the neighborhood. Please feel free to contact me with any thoughts or concerns. Respec yours, r� Paul Johnso 501-614-9180 HM 501-416-2212 Cell SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -3326-D Owner: Pulaski. Bank and Trust Company Address: 12719 Cantrell Road Description: Southeast corner of Cantrell Road and Sam Peck Road Zoned: O-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the site design standards of Section 36-346 to permit a ground -mounted sign which exceeds the maximum size 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 Note: Bank (under construction) Bank Staff determined that a Planned Zoning Development was the appropriate application for the proposed sign, based on the fact that the property is within the Highway 10 Overlay District. The applicant has filed the application for the October 7, 2004 Planning Commission Agenda. Therefore, staff recommends that this application be withdrawn. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2004) Staff recommended that the application be withdrawn, based on the fact that a Planned Zoning Development application had been filed with the Planning Commission to address the sign issue. SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T. The item was placed on the consent agenda and withdrawn by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. t SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z -6732-B Owner: J. Chandler Co., Inc. Address: 225 E. Markham Street Description: Southwest corner of E. Markham and Cumberland Streets Zoned: UU Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the use provisions of Section 36-342.1 to allow outdoor restaurant seating. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Office/Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Office/Commercial with outdoor restaurant seating. STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The UU (Urban Use District) zoned property at 225 E. Markham Street is occupied by a four (4) story office building. The property is located at the southwest corner of E. Markham Street and Cumberland Street. There is paved parking located along the west side of the building, with planter beds between the building and the parking. A new restaurant use is proposed to be located in the first floor of the existing building. As a component of the restaurant use, the applicant proposes to create two (2) areas of outdoor restaurant seating within the planter areas, as noted on the attached sketch. Each outdoor seating area will consist of 20 seats (5 tables). A three (3) foot high masonry wall will be constructed along the north, south and west sides of each outdoor seating area, to separate them from the landscaped and parking areas. SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) Section 36-342.1(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that all uses within the UU zoning district be inside or enclosed. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the areas of outdoor restaurant seating. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the areas as proposed are appropriate for outdoor restaurant seating. Staff feels that this type of outdoor use will add to the pedestrian friendly environment of the River Market District, which begins immediately to the east. There are several other restaurants which utilize outdoor restaurant seating and have proven to work well in the overall downtown area. Staff feels that the proposed outdoor restaurant seating will have no adverse impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow outdoor restaurant seating, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered not 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 SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-7714 Owner: Kelly and Michael McQueen Address: 7 Ken Circle Description: Lot 2 and part of Lot 1, Ranch Hill 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 building additions with reduced setbacks and which cross a platted building line. 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 7 Ken Circle is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide concrete driveway from Ken Circle which serves as access. The property slopes upward from the street, from front to back. The elevation of the property next door to the north is several feet above the elevation of this property. The applicant proposes to construct a garage addition on the front of the existing residence, at its southeast corner. The garage addition will be located 32 to 36 feet back from the front property line. The addition will cross a front platted building line by approximately 4 to 7.5 feet, as noted on the attached sketch. SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) Section 31-12( c) of The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow the encroachment. The garage addition will comply with all zoning ordinance required setbacks. A Building addition is also proposed at the back, northeast corner of the structure which will comply with all setback requirements and will need no variances. Staff supports the requested variance to allow the building line encroachment. Staff views the variance as very minor. The proposed front and side setbacks conform to zoning ordinance requirements. Because of the curvature of the street, the proposed garage addition will not have the appearance of being out of line with the residences to the north and south along Ken Circle. Staff feels that the proposed garage addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the proposed garage addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, 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: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered not 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 Kelly M. McQueen, Esq. 4813 Kavanaugh Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72207 (501) 580-3291 August 25, 2004 Little Rock Board of Adjustment c/o Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Variance for 7 Ken Circle, Little Rock, AR 72207 To Whom It May Concern: - -77 I, Kelly McQueen, on behalf of myself and my husband, who together are owners of the residential property located at 7 Ken Circle, Little Rock, AR 72207 ("property"), request a residential zoning variance so as to permit our planned remodeling construction at the property. Enclosed with this letter is a survey detailing the proposed construction, which includes three areas of addition to the existing structure (house) on the property as follows: (a) a garage to be added to the front of the house (south side), measuring approximately 30' x 27', which crosses the building line for the property, and the associated driveway extension; (b) a master bedroom to be added to the right side of the rear of the house (north / east side), measuring approximately 15' x 26' and apparently requiring no variance; and (c) a living area to be added to the left side of the rear of the house (north / west side), measuring approximately 15' x 12', which abuts the western property line and may require a variance. All three of these additions are necessary to expand the square footage of the home and bring it in line with our living requirements. The location of the additions has been determined by internal structural parameters, external appearance factors, cost and ease of construction, and 1 elevation and configuration of the lot. Given the lot dimensions and the house orientation to the street, the addition of a modern size garage will cross the building line, which is 50' at the western property line and narrows to approximately 35' on the eastern property line. This depth of building line is far in excess of that for the neighboring properties and the traditional 25' building line. The improvements will not adversely affect the appearance of the property, particularly as it relates to an appropriate set back from the street, which will still be in excess of thirty feet. The addition to the left side of the rear of the house would abut the eastern property line as it currently lies. However, we are negotiating with the adjacent property owners to either acquire a small parcel of property on that property line so that the addition would not abut the line or to execute some form of an easement for the necessary property. We request all necessary variances to permit the proposed improvements to the property. Respectfully submitted, Kelly M. McQueen Enclosed Herewith: (1) Six copies of 7/26/04 survey with proposed improvements, properly dimensioned and labeled; (2) Application form for zoning variance; and (3) Personal check for filing fee. 2 SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-7715 Owner: Charles H. Hamilton, IV Address: 5025 Stonewall Road Description: Lot 7, Block 27, Newton's Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with reduced 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: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential 1. Remove the private fence from the public right-of-way or obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (John Barr, 371-4646) for those improvements located in the right-of-way. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5025 Stonewall Road is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. A two -car wide drive from Van Buren Street is located near the southwest corner of the property. Some site work has taken place in the rear yard for a proposed building addition. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story addition on the rear (south side) of the existing residence, as noted on the attached sketch. The addition will increase the size of the existing kitchen and master bedroom. It will also include a den, laundry room, half -bath and garage downstairs, and two bedrooms, game room, home office and 1 Y2 baths upstairs. The addition will be located 3.5 feet from the west side 1 SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) property line, 11.6 feet from the east side property line and 16.5 feet from the rear (south) property line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum side yard setbacks of five (5) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36- 254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the reduced side (west side) and rear yard setbacks. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the variances are reasonable, and will not be out of character with other new single family homes and additions which have been constructed in the Heights neighborhood over the past several years. The reduced side yard (west) should have no negative impact on the area, as Van Buren Street has an excessively wide right-of-way at this location. The west property line is located 25 feet back from the street curb, so there will be adequate back out space for the proposed garage. Staff feels that the proposed building addition will have no negative impact on the surrounding properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances, subject to compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A. of this report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered not 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. E Hamilton Construction 823 West Markham Street, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 501.374.7173 August 26, 2004 Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 To Whom It May Concern: 2--7715 I am proposing to build an addition to south side of my home. I want to increase the existing kitchen and master suite size. I also pian to add a den, laundry room, half -bath, and two -car garage downstairs, and two bedrooms, a game room, an office, and one -and -a half baths upstairs. I am requesting a variance for the south property line in order to complete this construction. I am attempting to retain as much of the original house as possible while adding the rooms and the space that my family needs. I have tried several different floor plan configurations, and this one meets my spatial needs the best, while maintaining the character and charm of the home by minimizing changes to the existing home. I also am requesting a variance for the west property line. I would like to preserve a large Oak tree on the east side of the home behind the garage, and I also want to incorporate a window at the turn in the stairwell in this area in order to incorporate the architectural details of the existing home into the new addition. To prevent removal of the oak tree while allowing space for the window and for storage in the rear of the garage, the front of the garage would be 3' 6" from the west property line. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Chuck Hamilton SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-7716 Owner: Edward and Laurie David Address: 1615 Rebsamen Park Road Description: East side of Rebsamen Park Road, North of Old Cantrell Road Zoned: 1-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-502 to allow a reduced number of parking spaces associated with a restaurant use. 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: Vacant Commercial Building Restaurant 1. The three parking spaces fronting on Rebsamen Park Road are partially within the public right-of-way. In addition, these spaces back out into the traffic lanes creating a hazard. These spaces should be eliminated by constructing curb, gutter and sidewalk across the property frontage to match improvements to the north. B. Staff Analysis: The 1-2 zoned property at 1615 Rebsamen Park Road is occupied by a split level masonry commercial building which is currently vacant and being remodeled. The building once housed a restaurant. There is a driveway from Rebsamen Park Road at the northwest corner of the property, which serves as access to a paved parking lot behind (east side) the commercial building. There are three (3) head -in parking spaces in front of the building along Rebsamen Park Road. There is a total of 17 parking spaces on the site. SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) The applicants are in the process of remodeling the commercial building for use as a restaurant or banquet facility. Section 36-502(b)(3)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 20 on-site parking spaces for use of this 2,000 square foot building as a restaurant. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement. As noted previously, there is a total of 17 on-site parking spaces at 1615 Rebsamen Park Road. The owner of this property also owns the restaurant building immediately to the north, and holds a long-term lease on the 58 space parking lot to the west across Rebsamen Park Road. The parking lot lease has options through 2015, with foregoing options renewing automatically thereafter. Therefore, a total of 75 parking spaces exists for the two (2) restaurants. Section 36- 502(b)(3)c. would require a total of 65 on-site parking spaces for the two (2) restaurants combined. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the request is reasonable based on the long-term lease the property owner holds on the 58 space parking lot across Rebsamen Park Road. The building at 1615 Rebsamen Park Road has a long history of being occupied as a restaurant, with a shared parking arrangement. The 58 space parking lot across Rebsamen Park Road has been part of the shared parking arrangement for restaurants in this area for a number of years. Staff feels that the use of the building at 1615 Rebsamen Park Road as a restaurant with the parking arrangement as proposed by the applicant will have no adverse impact on the general area. As noted in paragraph A. of this report, Public Works will require that the three (3) head -in parking spaces in front of the building be eliminated, with construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk across the street frontage of the property. The applicant will need to work with the Public Works Department on this issue. The two (2) restaurant buildings immediately to the north have eliminated similar head -in parking in recent years. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A. of this report. 2. The lease for the parking area across Rebsamen Park Road to the west must be maintained. E SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered not 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. N Edward A. and Laurie K. David 7 7 I � 27 Perdido Cr. Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: 501-221-7136 August 16, 2004 City of Little Rock, Arkansas Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR Attn: Mr. Dana Carney Subject: Zoning variance 1615 Rebsamen Park Rd. As owners of the subject property, please accept this letter as our formal request for a parking variance for the property located at 1615 Rebsamen Park Road, Little Rock, AR 72202. Currently this property is vacant and has been for four years. Prior to that time the building housed The Faded Rose Restaurant for 18 years. We are requesting a parking variance in order to utilize the building as a possible restaurant and or banquet facility. The building contains 2000 square feet of space and has 17 parking spaces, (see survey). It is our understanding that 20 spaces are required by the current code, thus we are three short on site. However, across the street is a 58 -space asphalt parking lot on which we have a long-term lease, (attached). We would be sharing this parking with The Faded Rose Restaurant once it is reopened. The Faded Rose is approximately 4500 square feet thus requiring 45 parking spaces according to code. Consequently, between The Faded Rose at 1619 Rebsamen Park and the subject property at 1615 Rebsamen Park, a total of 65 parking spaces are required. Using the 17 spaces at 1615 Rebsamen Park and the 58 spaces across the street in our parking Ie have a total of 75 parking spaces or an excess over code of ten. Si erely, A. David SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-7717 Owner: Matt and Missy Newsom Address: 208 Weston Court Description: Lot 14 Block 16, The Villages of Wellington Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to permit a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residence (under construction) Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 208 Weston Court is occupied by a two-story brick and rock single family structure which was recently constructed. There will be a two -car driveway from Weston Court which will serve as access. 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 a six (6) foot high wood fence which is proposed by the property owner immediately to the north (Item #9 on this agenda). The Board of Adjustment recently approved variances for the fences located on the three (3) lots to the north along Weston Court. (north of 206 Weston Court). SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T. 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: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered not 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 �, i -2--7-7/-7 8/20/04 To Whom It May Concern: My family is moving into a new construction home in Villages of Wellington (208 Weston Ct.). It is our understanding that we must apply for a variance to build a 6 ft. backyard privacy fence. We have two small children and a dog. It would be a safety concern with a smaller fence. We also have plans to build a pool and would need privacy to do so. We are aware that all the neighbors adjacent to us have already applied for and received a variance. We would be grateful to get approved to do this. Respectfully, Matt Newsom SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7718 Owner: James and Ann Penick Address: 5216 Crestwood Road Description: Lots 88 and 89, Prospect Terrace Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow building additions 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 5216 Crestwood Road is occupied by a two- story stucco single family residence. There is a one-story stucco garage located at the northeast corner of the residence, approximately 10 feet from the rear property line. The property slopes upward from Crestwood Road from front to back. The existing house is located over 60 feet back from the front (south) property line. The applicants propose to construct one-story additions at the northwest and southwest corners of the existing residence. The additions will align with the first floor of the existing residence, but because of the slope the addition at the southwest corner of the structure will have a lower basement -type level. The addition at the southwest corner will be located 57 feet back form the front (south) property line, and 6 to 8 feet from the side (west) property line. The SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) addition at the northwest corner will be located approximately 27 feet from the rear (north) property line and 8 to 10 feet from the side (west) property line. The property contains no platted front setback line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum side yard setbacks of eight (8) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot side setback for the proposed addition at the southwest corner of the house. All other proposed setbacks conform to ordinance standards. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the requested variance as very minor in nature. The proposed building additions will not be out of character with the massing of other residences in the general area. Only approximately 20 square feet of the proposed addition will be located within the required side (west) yard, as it has a corner relationship with the side property line. Staff feels that the proposed building additions will have no negative impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Sufficient space will exist between the proposed addition and the residence immediately to the west. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered not 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 Yeary Lindsey Architects August 24, 2004 Monte Moore Dept. of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: 5216 Crestwood Road Dear Monte, 4-- -- 44Y --7-7/Y We are asking for a reduced side yard setback at 5216 Crestwood Road. My clients, Ann and Jim Penick, desire to add a new breakfast/ family room and stair (to a new study below) to the southwest corner of their existing house. In order for the new family room to align with the existing adjoining space (which will be converted into a new kitchen) the addition will project 23' to the south and the main room will align with the west wall of the main house. A new stair to the study below will project to the west 6' from the existing west wall. This stair projection will cause the existing 8'side yard setback to reduce to 6' at the closest comer to the west property line. This stair needs to be west of the new room because we will be building new upper and lower patios to the east of the family room to relate to an existing entryway and connect to the existing front porch. Thank you for your serious consideration of our variance application. Sincerely, 001 Ellen Yeary, Va 319 President Clinton Ave., Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-5940 FX: 501-707-0118 SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7719 Owner: Carl and Jennifer Rodgers Address: 206 Weston Court Description: Lot 15, Block 16, The Villages of Wellington Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to permit a 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 Residence (under construction) Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 206 Weston Court is occupied by a two-story brick and rock single family structure which was recently constructed. There will be a two -car driveway from Weston Court which will serve as access. 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 a six (6) foot high wood fence which is on the property immediately to the north. The Board of Adjustment recently approved variances for the fences located on the three (3) lots to the north along Weston Court. 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 SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.) 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 south. 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: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered not 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 501-3714790 To whom it may concern: - -7-7 8-24-04 This letter is to request a privacy fence variance at the residence located at 206 Weston Court, Villages of Wellington subdivision, Little Rock, AR. (This is specific to the 36-516 code) I am requesting that a variance for a 6' tall privacy fence be considered. I am installing a pool in the backyard and the 6' tall privacy fence would have increased safety for my children and other children in the neighborhood. Also I have large dogs and again would like the added safety from the 6' tall fence. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Carl E Rodgers Owner of 206 Weston Ct. 11 0 O U W w W H O H w U) D Q U- 0 Q O CO • 1 Wi �—.A w z m �v a 0 w w o Z Z z Lu m Ll D a v- w i Zz � L- > vj w D m NN _ LL D Q in -r � co � o LL Q o re w co 2 Q Q U) C w m 2 U- m _ ;� Wi �—.A w z m �v a 0 w w o Z Z z Lu m Ll D a v- w i Zz � L- > vj w D m = _ LL D Q in -r Wi �—.A w z m September 27, 2004 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:12 p.m. Date: D 3 Secretary 1