Loading...
boa_12 20 2004LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 2004 2:00 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Minutes of the November 29, 2004 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present: Members Absent: Fred Gray, Chairman Andrew Francis, Vice Chairman David Wilbourn Terry Burruss Debra Harris None City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT I. DEFERRED ITEM: A. Z-7747 B. Z-7753 II. NEW ITEMS 1. Z-6681 -B 2. Z -6957-C 3. Z-7762 4. Z-7763 5. Z-7764 6. Z-7765 7. Z-7766 8. Z-7767 AGENDA DECEMBER 20, 2004 2:00 P.M. 5804 Scenic Drive 106 Fountain Drive 5400 Highland Drive Colonel Glenn Road at 1-430 912 McAdoo Street 6 Ledgelawn Drive 30 Menden Lane 923 Broadway 2923 N. Grant Street 67 Bellegard Drive 45�, ANON Z SIINII Al0 d' O Q) N 3MId Q imreiN! N a a � < NrNa3D x � W a 4 ALO DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-7747 Owner: Jenny Smith Address: 5804 Scenic Drive Description: Lot F, Block 3, East Palisades Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a carport addition 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: 1. Because of the potential for future interference with utility and maintenance operations, Public Works recommends against a zero setback from the right-of-way line. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5804 Scenic Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence with finished basement level. The property slopes downward from front to back (south to north) and side to side (west to east). A circular driveway from Scenic Drive serves as access. The applicant proposes to construct a 9 foot by 14 foot porte-cochere on the front of the house, covering a portion of the circular drive. The proposed porte- cochere will extend to the front property line with a zero front setback. There is a small landscaped area immediately south of the proposed porte-cochere within the street right-of-way. The porte-cochere will be unenclosed on the DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) south, east and west sides. Additionally, this R-2 zoned lot contains a 20 foot front platted building line, which the proposed porte-cochere encroaches upon. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed porte-cochere addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line. Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. Staff does not view the request as reasonable. As noted in paragraph A. of this report, Public Works notes that the proposed zero front setback would result in the potential for future interference with utility and Public Works street maintenance operations. Additionally, staff's inspection of the area resulted in the observation of no similar encroachments on the single family lots on the north side of Scenic Drive east and west of th8is property. 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 porte-cochere. 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 denial of the requested front setback and building line variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) The applicant was not present. Staff recommended deferral of the application to the December 20, 2004 Agenda. A motion was made to defer the application to the December 20, 2004 Agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. 2 t DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004) Jenny Smith was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Jenny Smith addressed the Board in support of the application. She stated that she would agree to remove the porte-cochere structure if the city or utilities had to work in the area. She noted that there was no other place on the property for covered parking. She explained that the porte-cochere was needed for sheltered parking and security. She referred to other structural encroachments in the area. Chairman Gray expressed concern with the proposed encroachment to the front property line. He stated that he would have a hard time supporting the variances as proposed. He stated that he could possibly support an amended application, moving the structure further back from the front property line. The issue of amending the application was discussed. Ms. Smith noted that she might need additional time to consider possible alternatives. Vice -Chairman Francis also expressed concern with the proposed encroachment. He noted that he would support a five (5) foot front setback and explained. Chris Wilbourn concurred with Gray and Francis. He explained that the proposed porte-cochere structure could be moved back from the front property line, and maintain the same structural appearance. Ms. Smith noted that she wished to defer the application. A motion was made to defer the application to the January 31, 2005 Agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred. 3 November 17, 2004 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 RE: Variance request for 5804 Scenic Drive, Little Rock, AR 72207 I am requesting a variance for my property at 5804 Scenic Drive. I would like to extend the existing carport structure from my front door to the other side of the existing driveway. This will only extend the existing carport structure 14 feet. This will allow me to enter my home under cover when the weather is not permitting. I am a widow who lives alone and this would make me feel much safer getting in and out of my car. Thank you for your consideration. Jenny Smith DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z-7753 Owner: Jeff and Kathy Watson Address: 106 Fountain Drive Description: Lot 1, Block 3, Young's Park Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 and Section 36-255 to allow a garage with increased coverage and reduced separation, and a deck addition with a reduced side setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Issues B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 106 Fountain Drive is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a platted alley along the south and west property lines which serves as access. There is a one-story frame garage structure along the west property line which extends slightly into the alley right-of-way along the south and west property lines. The applicants propose to remove the existing garage and construct a new 22 foot by 22 foot, two-story garage structure within the rear yard. The new garage will have one (1) foot setbacks (corner relationships) from the south and west property lines and a three (3) foot setback from the north side property line. The proposed garage structure will occupy approximately 61 percent of the required rear yard (rear 25 feet). The second floor of the garage structure will be used as a game room. The applicants also propose to replace and expand the existing deck structure on the rear of the house, as shown on the attached site plan sketch. The DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) existing deck will be replaced and expanded to tie into the new garage structure and wrap around the north side of the house, extending to the northeast corner of the residence. At the northeast corner of the house the deck will be approximately 16 feet by 16 feet with a trellis structure overhead. The deck's setback from the north side property line ranges from zero (0) feet to 10 feet. A small portion of the deck (approximately 42 inches) will have a zero (0) setback from the side property line, with approximately 10 linear feet of the deck having a three (3) foot setback from the side line (at the garage structure). The northwest corner of the 16 foot by 16 foot deck section will be three (3) feet from the north property line, increasing to 10 to 11 feet at its northeast corner. Steps to the second level of the garage will be incorporated into the deck construction. With the exception of the trellis at the northeast corner of the residence, the deck structure will be uncovered and unenclosed. The applicants also plan to construct anew parking pad at the northeast corner of the property, with a walk leading to the front of the house. The proposed garage structure will be accessed by the alley, with a new drive along the south property line. Section 36-156(a)(s) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum rear yard coverage of 30 percent for accessory buildings in residential zoning. Section 36-255(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet for this R-3 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances to allow the garage structure with an increases rear yard coverage, and the deck addition with a reduced side yard setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. The single family lot immediately to the north is approximately four (4) feet lower in grade, with the house on that lot being at least 10 to 12 feet back from the dividing side lot line. Therefore, staff feels that the proposed deck structure will have no adverse impact on that property. Additionally, the existing garage structure occupies approximately 55 percent of the required rear yard of the property. The requested 61 percent coverage is a relatively minor increase. Staff feels that the overall redevelopment plan for this property represents a good project which should 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. With the exception of the 16 foot by 16 foot trellis structure, the deck must remain uncovered and unenclosed. 2. The second level of the proposed accessory garage structure must not be used as a dwelling unit. K DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the December 20, 2004 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 20, 2004 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 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. 3 CLEMENTS ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, INC. .-L- --- - - e' :2-- 7753 October 22, 2004 City of Little Rock Dept. of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas RE: Zoning Variance for 106 Fountain Drive Dear Sirs: Attached please find application for a zoning variance for the existing residence at 106 Fountain Drive. We wish to remove existing non -conforming garage and replace it with a new 1 %2 story, 2 -car garage. The irregular shape of the lot will not allow construction of the garage with -out exceeding the allowable area coverage for a rear yard. If you have any questions or need any additional information please contact me at the address above. Sincerely, CLEMENTS SSOCIATES/ARCHITECTURE, INC. 4CH'son 507 Main Street • North Little Rock, AR 72114 T.1-11 na lR011 47R_'1gQn. Conoimil.. 1.1411 01. ono --6..+B.....,..... November 5, 2004 To whom it concerns: I, Gary Lambdin, owner of the property located at 2601 W. Markham, share a property line with 106 Fountain Avenue. This letter is to state that I am aware and in agreement of the plans to build an outdoor deck at 106 Fountain Avenue where a portion of said deck is to be built directly to my property line at 2601 W. Markham. The property line for 106 Fountain Avenue crosses into my yard at 2601 W. Markham in a couple of areas and this understanding between me, my wife Leslie and the Watson's has always been amiable. Jeff and Cathy Watson have my permission to build directly to my property line with a portion of their deck pertaining to this project. I1'�/ i ter• �/ �� DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z-6681 -B Owner: Arkansas Maxillofacial Surgery Center Applicant: Randal B. Frazier Address: 5400 Highland Drive Description: Lot 4, Candlewood East Addition Zoned: O-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 281 to allow a building with a reduced rear setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Medical Clinic STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. No comments regarding reduced rear yard setback. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: A portion of the width of the proposed landscape strip along the western perimeter is less than the 6 -feet 9 -inch minimum allowed by the Landscape Ordinance. An irrigation system to water landscaped area will be required. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 1 ICON'T. C. Staff Analysis: The 0-3 zoned property at 5400 Highland Drive is currently undeveloped. Site work has been done on the property in preparation for new building construction. A two -car wide driveway from Highland Drive will be constructed with the property's development. A new branch location of Twin City Bank is located on the property immediately south (northwest corner of Cantrell Road and Highland Drive), with site work for a multifamily development taking place on the property to the north. The Kroger development occupies the property to the west. The property across Highland Drive to the east is currently undeveloped. The applicant proposes to construct a clinic/surgery center building within the north half of the property as noted on the attached site plan. Paved parking will be located on the east and west sides of the building, with a driveway along the south side of the building. A covered parking/drop-off area will be located at the west end of the new building. The applicant is also proposing a 30 foot by 30 foot accessory building at the northwest corner of the property. The accessory building will be located 10 feet from the side (north) property line and approximately 3.5 to 4 feet from the rear (west) property line. The accessory building will be used for records storage. Section 36-281(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet for 0-3 zoned property. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced rear yard setback for the proposed accessory building. All other building setbacks meet or exceed the minimum requirements. Staff is supportive of the requested setback variance. Staff views the request as relatively minor. The property immediately to the west is at a lower elevation and occupied by a commercial development. Any future building expansions on that lot would likely have a side or rear building orientation to this 0-3 zoned property. Staff feels that the reduced rear setback for the proposed 30 foot wide accessory building will have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or the general area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to compliance with the landscape and buffer issues as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report. 2 DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 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. 3 Randal B. Frazier rfrazier@ggtb.com Mr. Monte Moore Zoning Administrator City of Little Rock Quattlebaum, Grooms, Full & Burrow A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 111 Center Street Suite 1900 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 November 19, 2004 Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Variance Application for Arkansas Maxillofacial Surgery Center Dear Monte: (501) 379-1700 Telecopier (501) 379-1701 Writer's Direct Dial (501) 379.1771 I represent Arkansas Maxillofacial Surgery Center. In that capacity, enclosed please find the enclosed documents for filing a variance with the Board of Adjustment on property located at 5400 Townsend Street: 1. Application; 2. Affidavit; 3. Six (6) copies of Survey; 4. Six (6) copies of Site Dimension Plan; and 5. Check in the amount of $205.00. The applicant is requesting an 11.5 foot setback variance from the rear setback requirement of the 0-3 District for a storage building to be constructed on the lot. The property will be developed as a medical clinic and surgery center. A drive -up patient pick up and drop off area is necessary for surgical patients. A storage facility is also necessary for clinic purposes. To allow sufficient room for the patient pick up and drop off area, the storage building will be detached from the clinic building. It would create an undue hardship on the property if the storage building interfered with or did not allow for the pick up and drop off area. The applicant is requesting to move his storage building to the rear of the property in a location that will facilitate enough space for vehicular traffic to access the pick up and drop off area and make two left turns to return to the main driveway. The variance is requested because of the hardship imposed by the configuration of the lot and the necessity to safely service medical patients entering and exiting the building. 4271.8699 Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow PLLC Your attention to this matter is appreciated. Please schedule this matter for the December 20, 2004, Board of Adjustment meeting. If you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow PLLC ,f Randal B. /'razier RBF/kdr Enclosures 4271.8699 DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -6957-C Owner: Leonard Boen Applicant: McGetrick and MCGetrick Engineering Address: Colonel Glenn Road at Interstate 430 and Talley Road Description: Colonel Glenn Centre Subdivision Zoned: C-4, C-3, 0-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 555 and 36-553 to allow signs which exceed the maximum height and area and off - premises signs. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Mixed Use STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. No Comments — no signs are shown in the right-of-way B. Staff Analysis: The C-4, C-3 and 0-3 zoned property bounded by Colonel Glenn Road, 1-430 and Talley Road (east and south) is occupied by the Colonel Glenn Centre Subdivision. The new Remington College development is located on Lot 14 of the Subdivision, at the end of Remington Drive (the Subdivision's only new street). A car dealership is being developed on Lot 1, at the southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and 1-430 (northwest corner of the Subdivision). The remaining lots are currently undeveloped. The applicant proposes to place one (1) development sign and two (2) off - premise directional -type signs within this subdivision. The development sign is proposed to be placed at the northwest corner of Lot 1, and will advertise the various future businesses within this subdivision. The sign is proposed to have DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) a height of 58 feet and an area of 525 square feet. The two (2) off -premise directional signs are proposed to be located at the northeast corner of Lot 4 (corner of Colonel Glenn and Talley Roads) and the southeast corner of Lot 8 (corner of Talley Road and Remington Drive). The directional sign on Lot 4 will advertise a Holiday Inn which will be located on Lot 19. This sign will have a height of 35 feet and an area of approximately 260 square feet. The directional sign on Lot 8 will advertise Value Place which will be located on Lot 12. This sign will have a height of 10 feet and an area of 20 square feet. The development sign will be located on C-4 zoned property, the Holiday Inn sign will be located on C-3 zoned property, and the Value Place sign will be on 0-3 zoned property. The City's Zoning Ordinance contains no provisions for allowing the type of off - premise directional -type signage as proposed. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow this type of signage. Section 36-553(a)(2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows freestanding signs in office zoning to have maximum heights of six (6) feet and maximum areas of 64 square feet. Section 36-555(a)(2) allows freestanding signs in commercial zones to have maximum heights of 36 feet and maximum areas of 160 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances for increased height and area for the development sign, increased area for the Holiday Inn sign, and increased height for the Value Place sign. Staff is not supportive of the requested sign variances. Given the design of the subdivision, staff does not feel that the request is reasonable. The subdivision is made up primarily of smaller lots which will likely contain individual businesses. Staff believes that each business will likely want their own ground -mounted signage, on their individual lots. This could result in up to four (4) signs along Colonel Glenn Road, with several additional signs along Talley Road and 1-430. Staff recently met with representatives of the car dealership which will be located on Lot 1. It is staff's understanding that the dealership desires to have ground -mounted signage on both the Colonel Glenn and 1-430 Street frontages. One of the purposes of the sign section of the zoning ordinance is to "control and coordinate the type, placement and physical dimensions of signs within the various zoning classifications." Staff believes that a main intent of this purpose is to prohibit visual clutter where commercial signage is concerned. Staff believes that the signage as proposed will add to the possibility of visual clutter along the street frontage of this subdivision, when added to the ground -mounted signs that are allowed by right for each individual lot. Additionally, the two (2) off -premise directional signs proposed are very much beyond the size typically allowed for off -premise directional signs. The ordinance allows directional signs with a maximum area of two (2) square feet and a maximum height of six (6) feet. The signs proposed as off -premise directional signs for Holiday Inn and Value Place 2 DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) have heights, dimensions and designs of primary site signage. Staff feels that the signs proposed will have an adverse visual impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the January 31, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 31, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 3 12-08-204 ( PM FROM MCGETRICK 15012239293 WGMICK WOEMICK i='1VGiN1^t:"R5 - PL�4NN�r�v - �tl�Yi:Y0s�5 November 22, 2004 Monte Moore .Zoning Administrator Dept, of Planning &.Development 723 West Markham St, Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Colonel Glenn Centre Sign Easements Dear Mr, Moore, P.2 .T��-4 z- 9 9 --6157 - c, We are herewith asking for a variance on the size and location of three (3) signs for the Colonel Glenn Project. Sign 41 will be the sign for the entire caimrnercial property. It will be located as shown and serve several different lots owned by different owners. We feel that the size and location of the sign are necessary for visibility to the overall project. Sign 42 located at the intersection of "Palley Rd. and Colonel Glenn will be a directional sign to serve lot 9, It will be located off-site in the sign easement as shown. Sign 03 located at the entrance to Remington Rd, will be a directional sign to serve lot 12. It will be located off-site in the sign easement as shown. If you have any question or problems please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, McGetrick & McGetrick, Inc. Patrick M. McGetrick, P.E. PMM:rm 10 Otter Creek Court, $utw A Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 50-456-&&)9 4w .50A -455-"W DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-7762 Owner: David and Candace Chappell Address: 912 McAdoo Street Description: Lot 15, Block 1, H.F. Buhler's 12th Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow an accessory building with reduced setbacks 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 Issues B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 912 McAdoo Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the southwest corner of McAdoo and "I" Streets. A two -car wide drive from McAdoo Street serves as access. An existing 6 foot high wood fence extends into the right-of- way of "I" Street at the northwest corner of the property. An elementary school is located to the north across "I" Street. Single family residences are located to the south, east and west. The applicants propose to construct a 12 foot by 28 foot accessory storage building near the northwest corner of the property. The structure will be one (1) story in height and located between a 25 foot street side platted building line and the north property line. The proposed accessory structure will be located five (5) feet (corner relation) from the north (street side) property line, 51.5 feet from the front (east) property line and 10 feet from the rear (west) DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T. property line. The accessory structure will be separated from the principal structure by six (6) feet. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 60 feet and a minimum street side setback of 15 feet for accessory buildings in R-2 zoning. Additionally Section 36-12(c ) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the accessory building with reduced front and street side setbacks, and to cross the 25 foot platted street side building line. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff does not view the request as reasonable. An inspection of the area revealed no similar encroachments along "I" Street to the west. All of the structures along "I" Street between McAdoo Street and Shamrock Street appear to adhere to the required minimum 25 foot setback. Staff feels that the proposed structure will be out of character with the adjacent properties and the overall neighborhood. Additionally, ample space exists within the rear yard of the property to construct a storage building and comply with the ordinance required minimum setbacks. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted side building line for the proposed accessory building. 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 denial of the requested setback and building line variances associated with the proposed accessory building. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter to staff requesting that the application be withdrawn without prejudice. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn, without prejudice, by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 To whom it may concern, I am requesting a zoning variance for my residence located at 912 Mcadoo st. itn Little Rock, Ar. I would like to have a storage building located on the premises. I do not have a garage , therefore; I have no way to secure certain items such as lawn mower, bicycles, weed eater, and other lawn and maintenance equipment. As recent as 1 month ago a neighbor down the street had some stuff stolen from the side of there house. I am a landscaper by trade, so the building would be landscaped around and kept up to the same standard as my house. The building would be painted to match the house, as well as the same roof as my house. I honestly believe that this building will help clean up the appearance of my house simply having a place to put everything. ThankYou David Chappell DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-7763 Owner: James and Linda Harvey Address: 6 Ledgelawn Drive Description: Lots 2 and 3, Block 7, Hickory Ridge Addition, Phase III Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed and which is located in the public right-of-way. 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: 1. The fence should extend no more than five (5) feet into the public right-of- way. 2. A franchise agreement must be obtained from Public Works. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 6 Ledgelawn Drive is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. A two -car wide driveway from Ledgelawn Drive serves as access. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and contain single family residences. The applicants propose to construct a five (5) foot high wrought iron fence on a one (1) foot high masonry base as noted on the attached site plan. The fence will be located in the right-of-way, between the front property line and the street curb. The fence will also extend along a portion of the west and south side property lines. The applicants note that the fence is requested in order to provide security and protection for water features which will be constructed on the property. DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum height of four (4) feet for fences on walls located between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way. There is a 25 foot front platted building line along the Ledgelawn Drive frontage. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot high fence structure to be located between the front platted building line and the street. Staff is not supportive of the variance as requested. Staff would have no problem supporting a variance for the six (6) foot high fence if it were located on the front property line. However, staff can see no good reason for locating the fence in the right-of-way, extending across the front property line by approximately six (6) feet. Staff cannot support this type of right-of-way encroachment which could have a negative impact on future utility or street maintenance operations. If the Board approves the requested fence height and location, the applicant will need to obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works prior to any construction. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested fence variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004) Jim Harvey was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Harvey addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained why the fence was requested to be located in the right-of-way. Chairman Gray explained that he could not support the encroachment into the right- of-way. He noted that the fence needed to be put on the property line. Vice Chairman Francis concurred with Chairman Gray. He noted that he was reluctant to support right-of-way encroachments. There was a discussion about amending the application. Mr. Harvey amended the application to locate the proposed fence/wall on the front property line and out of the right-of-way. There was a motion to approve the fence/wall height variance (6 foot overall height), with the fence/wall being located on the front property line. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The amended application was approved. FA Linda and Jim Harvey 6 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Board of Adjustment 500 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR, 72202 Subject: Decorative Fence -'7?43 P e--rs October 31, 2004 As owners of a home at 6 Ledgelawn Drive, lots 2 and 3 Block 7 Hickory Ridge Addition Phase 1II, we are asking for a variance to allow us to install a 6' wrought iron, see- through, decorative fence. Lot 3 is vacant and we are planning to build some water features on both lots, 2 and 3. We strongly believe that a 6' fence will be required to protect young children and pets from wondering into the area. We now have a City permit to build a driveway and garage on lot 3. We are proposing the 6' fence in the utility easement. We have the approval of the three utilities that have facilities in the easement, and signed letters from owners within 200 feet of our property stating that they do not object. The fence will not distract from the neighborhood, will not hamper traffic in any way, will protect young children and will enhance the appearance of the area. We respectfully request that you approve the construction of the fence. a Harvey Linda and Fun Harvey 6 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Homeowner !I 4ed5e,&u , bY- ++int Drive October 31, 2004 Little Rock, AR 72212 Re: Decorative Fence We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see- through, wrought iron. The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet high_ We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance. We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb_ Linda and Jim Harvey I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance. Signature ,�-�- Address Linda and Tun Harvey 6 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Home owner 15 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Re: Decorative Fence October 31, 2004 We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see- through, wrought iron.. The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet high_ We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance. We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb_ Linda and Jim Harvey I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance. Signature Address pocr-,a q171�� Home owner 186 Pebble Beach Drive Little -Rock, AR 72212 Re: Decorative Fence Linda and Jim Harvey 6 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 October 31, 2004 We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of our home_ With the features we know there will be need for protection for young children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence_ The fence would be see- through, wrought iron_ The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet high_ We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance. We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb_ Linda and Jim Harvey I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to consider this variance_ I have not objection to the variance. Signatm Address Linda and Jim Harvey 6 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Home owner -- __..- 7 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Re: Decorative Fence October 31, 2004 We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of our home_ With the features we know there will be need for protection for young children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see- through, wrought iron. The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being attracted to and endangered by the features_ The fence would not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance. We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb. Linda and Jim Harvey I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to consider this variance_ I have not objection to the variance. Signature ' Address 4J fin Linda and Tim Harvey 6 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Home owner 16 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Re: Decorative Fence October 31, 2004 We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence_ The fence would be see- through, wrought iron. The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance. We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb_ Linda and Jim Harvey I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance. Sigriature�_ 2?Z&Y� — Address Linda and Tim Harvey 6 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Home owner 18 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Re: Decorative Fence October 31, 2004 We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see- through, wrought iron. The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance. We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb. Linda and Jim Harvey I. have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance. Signatur Address Linda and Jim Harvey 6 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Home owner 187 Pebble Beach Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Re: Decorative Fence October 31, 2004 We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence_ The fence would be see- through, wrought iron. The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance. We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb. Linda and Jim Harvey I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance. Signature Address 10 /rai c- A4 4 ,l%` Linda and Tim Harvey 6 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Home owner 191 Pebble Beach Drive Little. Rock, AR 72212 Re: Decorative Fence October 31, 2004 We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see- through, wrought iron. The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance. We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb. Linda and Jim Harvey I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance. Linda and Tim Harvey 6 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Home owner 192 Pebble Beach Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Re: Decorative Fence October 31, 2004 We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see- through, wrought iron. The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance. We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb. Linda and Jim Harvey I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance. Signature__,Z 5 k vc, Abe A Address I i 2� p p b� le gP-A C Linda and Tim Harvey 6 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Home owner 193 Pebble Beach Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Re: Decorative Fence October 31, 2004 We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence_ The fence would be see- through, wrought iron. The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance. We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb. Linda and Jim Harvey I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance. Signature r ES 1 V�1 l9a RT Address q e_� biz G e, d, D r r V e L- Q 7 /V P- 1-ZZ11 Home owner 190 Pebble Beach Drive Little Rock, AR 7221'2 Re: Decorative Fence Linda and Jinn Harvey 6 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 October 31, 2004 We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young children and pets_ Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see- through, wrought iron_ The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being attracted to and endangered by the feabmes_ The fence would not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance. We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb. Linda and Jim Harvey I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to consider this variance_ I have not objection to the variance. Address C -' CLQ Linda and Tian. Harvey 6 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Home owner 17 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Re: Decorative Fence October 31, 2004 We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see- through, wrought iron. The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being attracted to and endangered by the features_ The fence would not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance. We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb_ Linda and Jim Harvey I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to consider this variance_ I have not objection to the variance. Signature Address Linda and Jim Harvel 6 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 - - - - -- - - --- - --October--31, 2004 _ . Home owner S Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Re: Decorative Fence We are planning to install some water features in our yard and on the vacant lot north of our home. With the features we know there will be need for protection for young children and pets. Therefore, we are also proposing a fence. The fence would be see- through, wrought iron. The City of Little Rock restricts fences between the curb and "building line" to 4 feet high. We believe that a higher fence is needed to prevent younger children from being attracted to and endangered by the features. The fence would not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood, but would be attractive and enhance the appearance. We ask that you agree to our asking the City of Little Rock to allow an exemption for a decorative 6 foot fence within 6 feet of the curb. Linda and Jim Harvey I have been notified of the time and date of the hearing by the Board of Adjustment to consider this variance. I have not objection to the variance. Signator, n Address V DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-7764 Owner: David and Tracy Rhodes Address: 30 Menden Lane Description: Lot 12, Block 120, Chenal Valley Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an accessory building with reduced front setback and separation. 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 Issues B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 30 Menden Lane contains a one-story single family residence which is under construction. The property is located at the southeast corner of Menden Lane and Maisons Drive. There will be two (2) driveways on the property, one (1) from Menden Lane and one (1) from Maisons Drive. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2. Several single family residences are currently under construction within this subdivision. As part of the new home construction, the applicants propose to construct a 15'-8" X 21'-8" accessory garage structure with porte-cochere at the northwest corner of the lot. The garage/porte-cochere structure will be located approximately 26 feet from the front (west) and street side (north) property lines, behind a 25 foot platted building line. The structure will be located approximately five (5) feet from the principal structure (corner relationship), and connected to the principal structure by an 8 foot high masonry wall. DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) Section 36-156(a)(2)b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum six (6) foot separation between an accessory building and a principal structure. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. requires a minimum front setback of 60 feet for accessory structures in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the accessory garage/porte-cochere structure with a reduced front setback and separation. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. As noted previously, the proposed garage/porte-cochere structure will be located behind the 25 foot front platted building line which runs along the north and west property lines. Although the design of the residence (with the accessory garage/porte-cochere structure) will be slightly different from other homes being constructed in this subdivision, staff feels that the structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent structure or the general area. Staff will request that the applicants submit a letter from the Chenal Valley Architectural Review Committee approving of the design and placement of the garage/porte-cochere structure. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with the garage/porte-cochere structure, subject to submittal of a letter of approval from the Chenal Valley Architectural Review Committee prior to a building permit being issued for the structure. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 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. --r- IG -,--mss COVER LETTER FOR VARIANCE November 1, 2004 ADDRESS: 30 MENDEN LANE, - THE MAISONS - LR, AR LEGAL: LOT 12 BLK 120 - THE MAISONS - CHENAL We are requesting a variance for a front garage. Noted as an accessory building with reduced front setback and separation. This affects the area provisions of section 36-156 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit.. The front garage is attached to the main structure by an eight -foot tall wall. The wall gives the perception that the two structures are one. Attached you will find pictures of how the wall will look. The front garage is necessary to complete the look of the house. The front garage is being used to create a Port -a -co drive thru and a small courtyard for the homeowners. 7 CII C N A L CLD1 0O1, L L V A K D LITTLL n0CX, AA 7?223 -2-7-261 Friday, May 07, 2004 David and Tracy Rhodes c/o Meredith Homes P. 0. Box 13160 Maumelle, AR 72113 RE: Lot 12, Block 120 - The Maisons The site and budding plan for Lot 12, Block 120 in The Maisons submitted at the regularly scheduled Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee meeting on May 5, 2004 was approved with the following: 1) Submit photos of exterior finishes for approval. Roofing should meet or exceed those requirements speaSed in Paragraph 8.4 of the Chenal Valley Design Guidelines. All curbs must be saw -cut. • Landscaping plans must be submitted prior to installation. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee TR:jw 501-521-5737 aoo-e4a-9ss9 FAX: 501-821-50b5 M W Y. CM LN AL. COM T4:An--4,S ;Z- DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-7765 Owner: EZ Financial Management, LLC/Greg Daney Address: 923 Broadway Street Description: Lots 5 and 6, Block 109, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: UU Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the development provisions of Section 36-342.1 in association with construction of a new commercial building. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Office Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. No comments regarding building setbacks. The general site plan for access and circulation is acceptable subject to review of detailed construction drawings during future permit review. 2. The 10th Street right-of-way must be abandoned by the Board of Directors prior to placement of private parking or building in the right-of-way. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The proposed width of the on-site landscape strip along Broadway Street is less than the 6 -feet 9 -inch minimum allowed by the Landscape Ordinance. Additionally, the Landscape Ordinance requires the width of the northern, southern and western perimeters be increased to an average of 6 -feet 9 - inches and at no point less than 5 -feet. A total of 6 -percent of the interior of the vehicular use area must be landscaped with interior islands of at least 112 square feet in area and 5 Y2 feet in width. A variance of these standards will require City Beautiful Commission approval. This review takes into account the reductions allowed within the designated mature area of the City. DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) C. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 923 Broadway Street is occupied by a small one- story commercial/office building located near the center of the property. The property is located at the northeast corner of Broadway Street and Interstate 630. A driveway from Broadway Street serves as access. Paved parking is located on the north, south and west sides of the building. An alley right-of- way is located along the east property line. Undeveloped West 10th Street right-of-way is located along the south property line. All surrounding properties are zoned UU and contain a mixture of office and commercial uses. The applicant proposes to remove the existing small commercial building from the property and construct a new 5,500 square foot commercial building within the east half of the property. The new building will be located 68 feet back from the front (west) property line, 10 feet from the side (north) property line and four (4) feet from the rear (east) property line. The building will extend approximately six (6) feet onto the undeveloped West 10th Street right-of-way which will be petitioned for abandonment in the near future. The existing curb cut on Broadway Street will be the primary access point. The alley along the east property line and West 10th Street will also be used as access. Paved parking will be located on the west and south sides of the proposed building, extending into the undeveloped West 10th Street right-of- way. A drive-thru window will be located on the north side of the building for a food service type use. The applicant is requesting several variances from the Urban Use development standards of Section 36-342.1 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The requested variances are as follows: 1. Section 36-342.1(c )(3) states that no new drive-in or drive-through facilities may be visible or take directed access from a primary street. The proposed drive-through located on the north side of the building will be visible from Broadway Street. 2. Section 36-342.1(c )(10)b. states that surface parking lots must be located behind or adjacent to a structure, never between the building and abutting street. As noted previously, there will be a surface parking lot located between the proposed building and Broadway Street and 1-630. 3. Section 36-342.1(f)(1) requires a zero (0) foot front setback. The proposed building will be located approximately 68 feet from the west (Broadway Street) property line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the proposed redevelopment of the property is reasonable, given the location of the property. The property is located on the fringe of the UU Zoning District, where the uses E DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) become less pedestrian -oriented and more vehicular -oriented. Fast food restaurants are located north and northwest (across Broadway Street) of the property. A convenience store is also located to the northwest at the southwest corner of Broadway and West 8th Streets. A drive-thru bank facility is located directly across Broadway Street to the west, with a new branch bank being constructed at the northwest corner of West 8th and Broadway Streets. Staff feels that the proposed redevelopment of the property is a quality one, and will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or this general area along Broadway Street, south of West 6th Street. As noted previously, a small portion of the proposed building is located in the undeveloped West 10th Street right-of-way. Although a petition to abandon this section of West 10th Street will be filed with the Planning Commission in the near future, Staff feels that the Board of Adjustment should not act on this application until the applicant has approval letters from each of the five (5) public utility companies, addressing the proposed building construction. Therefore, staff will recommend that the application be deferred to the January 31, 2005 agenda. The applicant has been notified of this issue and agrees with the suggested deferral. The deferral will also allow the applicant time to adjust the proposed site plan to comply with the minimum landscape requirements as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report. D. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances from the UU Zoning District standards, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of this report. 2. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of this report. 3. Letters from each of the five (5) public utility companies approving of the proposed building placement must be submitted prior to Board of Adjustment review and approval. 4. The West 10th Street right-of-way must be abandoned prior to a building permit being issued. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the January 31, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. 3 DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 31, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. n Broadway and 1-630 Commercial Center (Block 5 and 6, Block 109, Original City of Little Rock) The Owners of the property at the northeast corner of 10"' Street and Broadway wish to impme this prQperty from its existing condition an undermsod, non-cQmpiying PrQperty that is an expanse of asphalt with a 1,000 s.f. structure in the center. The proposed development includes a 5,500 s.f. commercial center with 21 parking spaces, circulation through the property for a drive-thru window and street trees along Broadway and the 1-630 access road to the south. The development hopes to include 2 tenants that could be service or food service related. This proposal will utilize the existing Broadway Street curb cut, will be contingent on the ability to acquire and use the short section of 10th street to the south and will have access to the alley to the east for traffic ingress and egress as well as access to a proposed drive-thru window. The quantity of traffic on Broadway, the speed of traffic on adjacent 1-630 and the slope of the sidewalk grade along the property frontage, all suggest that placing the proposed building to the rear of the site is more appropriate for this property. The Owner feels that this property, with its proximity to 1-630 and its distance from the City Center is more appropriately designed as a vehicular oriented property rather than the pedestrian oriented property that the "UU" zoning anticipates. There is also the desire, by the Owners to orient the building and the available parking toward the intersection of 1-630 and Broadway. The Owners wish to provide multiple methods of entry to the property as well as adequate stacking space for the proposed drive-thru window. DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-7766 Owner: Joseph Graham Address: 2923 N. Grant Street Description: Lot 1 and the North 1/2 of Lot 2, Block 11, Park View Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 and the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a garage addition with reduced setbacks and a fence/wall which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. The wall/fence should line up with the existing wall on the property immediately to the east. 2. A franchise agreement must be obtained from Public Works. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 2923 N. Grant Street is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of N. Grant Street and Grandview Road. A two -car wide driveway from Grandview Road serves as access. A detached two -car carport is located along the north property line. Two (2) accessory buildings are located within the rear yard, along the east property line. All surrounding properties are zoned R-3 and contain single family residences. The applicant proposes to remove the existing carport structure and two (2) accessory buildings and construct a one-story garage addition on the east end of the residential structure. The garage addition will be approximately 22 feet by 24 feet in size and located two (2) feet from the rear (east) property line and 11 feet from the side (south) property line, maintaining the same rear setback as the existing house. With construction of the garage addition, the existing 1 DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.) driveway will be removed, with a new driveway constructed at the northeast corner of the property. The applicant is also proposing to construct a short retaining wall with a six (6) foot high picket fence (not opaque) on it along a portion of the side (north) property line. The retaining wall will have a height of 2.5 feet at it's east end, running west approximately 60 feet back to the existing grade. Therefore, the overall height of the wall/fence structure will be approximately 8.5 feet at the east end and six (6) feet at the west end. The wall/fence structure will be located approximately four (4) feet into the Grandview Road right-of-way in order to align with an existing wall on the property to the east. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of eight (8) feet, and Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Additionally, Section 36-516(e)(1)a. allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences/walls located between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements to allow the garage addition with a reduced rear setback and the wall/fence with an increased height. Staff supports the variance for a reduced rear setback associated with the proposed garage addition. Staff feels that the proposed garage addition will not be out of character with the overall neighborhood. Staff believes the garage addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. However, according to ordinance requirements, residential driveways must be located at least five (5) feet from property lines. Therefore, the applicant must relocate the drive to meet the minimum setback from the rear (east) property line. Staff does not support the wall/fence height variance, as requested. Staff does not support the proposed height of the wall/fence structure, nor its location in the right-of-way. Staff believes the proposed location of the fence would result in the potential for future interference with utility and Public Works street maintenance operations. Staff could support a wall/fence with a maximum overall height of six (6) feet located on the side (north) property line. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to the proposed driveway being located at least five (5) feet back from the rear (east) property line. Staff recommends denial of the requested wall/fence height variance, as filed. I• DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the January 31, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 31, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 9 74C November 15, 2004 Board of Adjustment: The purpose of this letter is to request three property variances for the residence at 2923 N. Grant. Our goal for these projects is to provide green space in our "back / side" yard so that our two small children have a place to run and play. The current green space in our back yard is very limited and primarily not visible as there are no windows along the very back Eastern part of the house. It is our desire to remove the carport and incorporate it into green grass that is fenced and in view of the main part of the house. It is also important to note the property has a sunroom with two walls of arched windows that would overlook the proposed green space and deck rather than the carport and deck. 1. Variance at the back of the property to build a two -car garage with entry from Grandview. This garage would be 22 x 24 feet and would have a second floor with a small room to serve as a playroom or small office. 2. Variance on the Grandview side of the property to build a short retaining wall to level out the back yard. The wall would begin at a height of zero feet at the concrete walkway and grow to approximately 2.5 feet toward the back of the property ending at the proposed driveway. The variance request is to build this wall 4 feet into the easement, which is approximately 8 feet currently. The property has no sidewalk or curb. 3. Variance to build a 6 -foot fence to contain our two small children (ages 3 and 5), rather than the 4 -foot limit current zoning requires. We appreciate your consideration to these matters. fs� Joseph L. Graham. DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7767 Owner: Jim and Marla VanWyk Applicant: Richard Harp Address: 67 Bellegard Drive Description: Lot 3, Block 38, Chenal Valley Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow steps with a reduced front setback and which cross a platted building line. 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 Issues B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 67 Bellegard Drive is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence which is under construction and nearing completion. There will be a two -car wide driveway from Bellegard Drive which will serve as access. The property slopes upward from front to back (south to north). The front door of the new residential structure is approximately 12 feet above grade. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and contain single family residences or residential structures which are under construction. The applicant is requesting to construct a step structure (21 steps) from the front door/porch, as noted on the attached site plan. The step structure will extend across a 25 foot front platted building line by nine (9) feet, resulting in a 16 foot front setback. DECEMBER 20, 2004 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12(c ) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the proposed step structure with a reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances associated with the proposed front step structure. Staff views the request as reasonable. Staff feels that given the design of the house and its placement on the lot, the proposed step design is the best and least intrusive option for the structure. Therefore, staff believes the proposed step structure 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 step structure. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with the front step structure, subject to the following conditions. 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The portion of the step structure extending past the front platted building line must remain uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 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. P51 t ism Home Conaacdng &' Remodeling #3 Brandon Centre 61oo West 12th Street Little Rock, AR 722o4 501.661.1800 ofc.. 501.690.4277 cel. 501.661.1777 fax harphomesaall tel.net �- 7.76c�% November 22, 2004 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Planning Department 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Variance Request 67 Bellegarde Dear Mr. Moore: My name is Richard Harp, registered builder of Richard Harp Homes, Inc., city licensel.925, State of Arkansas license 0114180905. With this letter I am respectfully requesting a variance from the. required set- back limitations for 67 Bellegarde Drive, Lot 3, Block 38, LaMarche Place, Chenal Properties Subdivision, City of Little Rock. The reason for this needed variance is due to extreme grade requiring our front steps to protrude approximately 8 to 9 feet into said building set -back as depicted on the plot plan herein attached. Your approval of this requested variance would be most appreciated. Sincerely, Richard Harp Homes, Inc. By: ,-? Richard S. Harp President Attachment O U w w W H O H w i 0 a LL O Lf. a O m 2i n w W ..i �r z W CO co Q W z December 20, 2004 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:29 p.m. Date: ->CJS