The URL can be used to link to this page

boa_01 28 2002LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JANUARY 28, 2002 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being five (5) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the December 17, 2001 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman Fred Gray, Vice Chairman Scott Richburg Gary Langlais Andrew Francis Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA JANUARY 28, 2002 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEM: A. Z-7115 3911 Foxcroft Road II. NEW ITEMS 1. Z -3812-D Northeast corner of West Markham Street and I-430 2. Z -6924-B 5500 Kavanaugh Blvd. 3. Z-7132 2402 Stoney Creek Drive 4. Z-7133 200 Thayer Street 5. Z-7134 8103 Leawood Blvd. 6. Z-7135 2108 N. Beechwood 7. Z-7136 2000 Cantrell Road 8. Z-7137 2604 N. Fillmore 9. Z-7138 1112 Claywood Drive 10. Z-7139 4301 Oaks Bluff Drive 11. Z-7140 4411 Oaks Bluff Drive 1 N O O 00 ■ - 3NId a31Z76d ^ ' ` V 1ln7BIH1 v / - co �O U � ao`'� Ntlwa39 Hi � Nltlw AVMOVO86 H0a7 NOINO S3H0 _ 9NIN IN 83H360 0 - ~ o MOa000M S � � 3NId 133dIs N 3NId NJyy 8V03O NO111MV 110OS s SpN�aS Najd 6173 gi ~fes o !. AlISa3AINn ll15a3nINn S0N16dS a3A39 „�u (� S3HOnH LO IddISS IN s sb a m 1001H3 Q 61On93536 MONM NHOf 3zi 3NN13H —'Q Oa033lNO7HS o � Oa 3l O7 S slaaas - - o w7H6tld A3NO08 � � m _ y� N7W OB a - S11WIl ALIO Y HJb � � 39016 AWN o" � �g\t oJ.�y1s n O 0 �V� StP� c � V J p cR O lQARK�Py = - ' o Nvnnlns ,— 1 1a7M31S Jys�b� L4-- 0 O S11WIl Allo��y yc 0J`t' O�PJvsP 131VON432 O m Januarys 2002 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested Justification: Present Use of Property: Z-7115 Todd and Lisa Cooper 3911 Foxcroft Road Lot 6, Foxboro Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit a new single family residence with a reduced rear yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. 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 3911 Foxcroft Road is undeveloped and wooded. The property slopes downward from south to north and west to east. There is approximately 45 feet of slope from south to north and 30 feet from west to east. The applicant proposes to construct a new single family residence on the property. The proposed residential structure conforms to all of the minimum building setbacks for R-2 zoning, with exception of the proposed rear yard setback. The applicant is proposing a 10 foot rear setback along the west property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. The applicant notes that due to the severe January 2002 Item No.: A slope of the lot, moving the proposed structure down the hill to the north would make construction much more difficult and costly, and in addition, the structure would still not conform to the minimum rear yard setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Given the fact that this is an unusual dagger -shaped lot with extreme slope, it would be difficult to construct a single family residence of any size, and maintain the minimum required front and rear yard setbacks. The proposed structure will have a rear yard relationship with the existing houses to the west. It appears that these adjacent structures are set back 25 feet or more from their respective rear property lines. Staff feels that the separation between these structures and the proposed residence will be adequate, and that the proposed house will have no adverse impact on these adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 17, 2001) The applicant, Todd Cooper, was present. There were two (2) persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff noted that the applicant had informed staff that he wished to revise the application, in an attempt to satisfy the concerned parties. Chairman Ruck noted that the Board had some concerns with revising the application on such short notice, not knowing the impact of the proposed revision on the adjacent properties. Todd Cooper addressed the Board in support of the application. He stated that he wished to amend the application by moving the proposed house 10 feet closer to the street, providing a minimum 20 foot rear yard setback, and encroaching over the front platted building line. He noted that the house could also be shifted to the north, which would lessen the encroachment over the front platted E Januarys 2002 Item No.: A building line to approximately five (5) feet. He noted that there was very limited buildable area on the lot. Chairman Ruck asked how far north the proposed building could be moved. Mr. Cooper regarded that it could be moved approximately 20 feet to the north. Andrew Francis asked Mr. Cooper if he posted the public hearing sign on the property, and if so when. Mr. Cooper stated that the sign was posted on the property the day before the deadline to do so. Fred Gray asked if the proposed house could be moved even further north on the lot. Mr. Cooper explained that moving it too far to the north would cause increased building costs. Chairman Ruck discussed the proposed amendment to the application. There was a general discussion relating to the location of the concerned parties' properties and additional discussion pertaining to the amended application. Don Ryan addressed the Board in opposition. He noted that he represented the Rogers and the Schultzes, property owners to the west. He requested that the application be deferred based on the fact that Mrs. Rogers was out of town and could not attend the meeting. Mr. Ryan stated that he did not believe Mr. Cooper owned the property. He noted that the proposed house would tower over the properties to the west. He noted that the owners of the lots to the west abided by the required 25 foot rear setback and explained. There was a general discussion pertaining to who owned the property. Mr. Cooper noted that he owned the property and bought it from a Mr. Strauss. Marilyn Schultz addressed the Board in opposition to the application. She expressed concern with the proposed placement of the house. She stated that she wanted Mr. Cooper to provide a 25 foot rear setback. She presented the Board with letters of opposition from her and her two (2) sons. 3 January( 2002 Item No.: A The Board took time to read and review the letters presented by Mrs. Schultz. Andrew Francis asked if the required 25 foot rear setback was measured from the easement line or the property line. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, noted that the required setback is measured from the property line. Fred Gray noted that it appeared that the applicant could move the proposed house far enough north, and meet all of the required setbacks. He noted that moving the house further north would take it closer to Mrs. Rogers' house. He stated that he was interested to see if the house could be placed on the lot without a variance. Andrew Francis requested that the lot elevations, as presented on a sketch by the opposed parties, be made part of the public record. He also asked about building height. Staff explained that the height of the proposed building is measured from the lowest finished floor. Chairman Ruck stated that he thought a deferral of this application would be in order. Mr. Cooper questioned the reason for deferral. Chairman Ruck noted that a deferral would be appropriate based on the complexity of the issue and in light of the opposition. Andrew Francis stated that the property owners to the east should be properly notified of the front yard setback variance associated with the revised application. There was additional discussion related to the possibility of moving the house further north and meeting all of the required setbacks. Fred Gray asked Mr. Cooper about his time frame for construction. Mr. Cooper noted that there was no specific time frame, but he wished to begin construction of the house as soon as possible. Gary Langlais asked how far the two (2) houses to the west were set back from the rear property lines. Mr. Ryan noted that the Rogers' house was approximately 25 feet from the rear line (to the patio) and that the Shultz house was approximately 35 feet from the rear property line. Mr. 4 January\ ., 2002 Item No.: A Cooper noted that Mrs. Rogers' patio and pool were very close to the rear property line. Chairman Ruck asked Mr. Cooper if he wished to have a vote on the application or if he would accept a deferral. Mr. Cooper responded that he would leave it to the Board's discretion. Mr. Ryan stated that he was not sure what the revised application involved. There was a motion to defer the application to the January 28, 2002 agenda. There was discussion of the motion. Cindy Dawson noted that Mr. Cooper needed to renotify the property owners within 200 feet. Staff noted that a letter explaining the revised application and a revised site plan needed to be submitted by Mr. Cooper. The Board noted that the letter and site plan must be submitted to staff no later than January 10, 2002. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred to the January 28, 2002 agenda. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on January 9, 2002 revising the original application. The applicant also submitted a revised site plan. The revised plan moves the proposed single family structure 21 feet down the hill and closer to the north property line. The proposed residence has also been shifted toward the front property line. The revised placement of the structure conforms with the 25 foot minimum rear yard setback. The applicant is now requesting a variance to allow the proposed structure to extend a maximum of 10 feet over the front platted building line. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Staff is supportive of the revised application. The revised plan provides for the minimum required 25 foot rear yard setback, which should alleviate the concern of the property owners to the west. Staff does not believe that the proposed building encroachment over the front platted building line will have an adverse impact on the adjacent 5 r January d, 2002 Item No.: A properties or the general area. The entire width of the proposed single family residence will not encroach over the front platted building line, which will lessen the visual impact of the structure to the residences across Foxcroft Road to the east. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line for the proposed residence. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. Revised Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested front building line variance subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) 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. C January 9, 2002 To the Little Rock Board of Adjustment: -Z -- -7 /1 S - We are revising our original variance request in an effort to accommodate the concerns expressed by two of our future neighbors at last month's hearing. We had originally requested a variance to the rear 25' setback provision on residential lots in the Foxboro Subdivision. The two future neighbors that expressed concerns live in the Robinwood subdivision behind our lot. We are now requesting a variance to the front 25' setback provision and do not intend to encroach on the rear setback. More specifically, we are requesting to be allowed to go over the front setback a maximum of ten feet, creating a front setback that would be a minimum of 15 feet. To do this we have had to move the house down the hill to the North and to the East. We will follow the notification procedures regarding our new proposal. Our initial informal poll of our future neighbors that live in front and to the sides of our property indicates that there is no opposition from them to our new proposal. A site plan map that shows the new position of the house has been provided to staff along with copies for each board member. Thank you for your consideration, Todd Cooper JZrI4 (�� ei)"� RECEIVED JAN 9 2002 BY: January( 2002 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Area: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Z -3812-D Chi Investments, LLC Northeast corner of West Markham Street and I-430 Part of Lot 1, Bixler Commercial Subdivision C-3 1.428 acres Variances are requested from the height regulations of Section 36-301, the parking regulations of Section 36-502 and the buffer provisions of Section 36-522 in order to permit the construction of a new hotel building. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Vacant restaurant building Proposed Use of Property: Hotel STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: With Building Permit: 1. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175 and the "MSP". January( 3, 2002 Item No.: 1 B M 5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The plan submitted falls short of the 15 foot average buffer width requirements along Markham Center Dr. by 3 feet and along West Markham Street by 2 feet. Also, it falls short of the 30 foot wide freeway buffer requirement along I-430. Areas set aside for landscaping meet with Landscape Ordinance requirements with the exception of the 30 foot wide landscape strip along I-430. Variances from the Landscape Ordinance requirements must be approved by the City Beautiful Commission. Staff Analysis: The property at the northeast corner of West Markham Street and Interstate 430 is occupied by a vacant restaurant building and associated paved parking areas. There is a mixture of commercial and office uses in this immediate area. There are existing office uses across West Markham Street to the south, with hotel buildings to the north and additional offices to the northeast. A commercial strip center is located across Markham Center Drive to the east. Interstate 430 is located along the property's west boundary. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the property at the northeast corner of West Markham Street and Interstate 430 with a new hotel development. The applicant proposes to remove the existing vacant restaurant building and parking areas and construct a new 115 room hotel building and associated parking areas. The proposed hotel building will have eight (8) stories and a maximum height of 90 feet. The building will be located near the center of the property, with parking on all four sides. Access to the property is gained by way of an existing driveway from Markham Center Drive. This driveway is a shared access with the hotel property immediately to the north, with the shared access being utilized since the initial development of this property. E January s, 2002 Item No.: 1 The applicant is requesting four (4) variances in association with the planned redevelopment of the property. The first is a variance from the height regulations of Section 36-301 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Section 36-301(d) of the ordinance allows a maximum height of 35 feet in C-3 zoning. The proposed hotel building will have a maximum height of 90 feet, measured from the elevation of the lowest finished floor level to the highest elevation point of ceiling of the top story. Staff is supportive of the height variance. There are a number of multi -story buildings in this general area. The adjacent 0-2 zoning to the north and south across West Markham Street allows a maximum height of 120 feet. The proposed height for the hotel building will not be out of character with the area. Additionally, there is no adjacent residential property which could be negatively impacted by the building height. The second variance is a request to provide fewer parking spaces than the minimum number required by ordinance for the proposed hotel development. As noted previously, the hotel will have a total of 115 guest rooms. Section 36-502(b)(1)f. requires a minimum of 126 parking spaces for this proposed development. The site plan submitted by the applicant provides a total of 118 parking spaces. Staff is supportive of the parking variance. The applicant is only proposing a 6.5 percent reduction in the amount of required parking, which in staff's opinion is very minimal. The amount of parking proposed should be sufficient to serve the proposed hotel use. The third variance requested is from the landscape buffer requirements of Section 36-522. The applicant is proposing a buffer along West Markham Street with an average width of 13.3 feet and a buffer along Markham Center Drive with an average width of 11.5 feet. The minimum width of the buffer along either street is nine (9) feet. Section 36-522(b)(3)b.l. requires landscaping buffers along both of these streets with minimum average widths of 15 feet. Staff is also supportive of this variance request. The existing street buffers along West Markham Street and Markham Center Drive are approximately five (5) feet in width along the majority of these property lines. The street W January s, 2002 Item No.: 1 landscape buffers proposed by the applicant are almost double that of the existing buffers. Staff feels that the street landscape buffers as proposed will not be out of character with other properties in this general area. The last variance request is also from the buffer requirements of Section 36-522. Section 36-522(a)(3) requires that street buffers along expressways be a minimum of thirty (30) feet in width. The applicant is proposing a minimum landscape buffer width along this west property line of nine (9) feet to over 25 feet at several points. Staff also supports this buffer variance. The difference in elevation of this property and I-430 is some 20 feet vertically, with an overpass at West Markham Street. Because of the relationship of this property to the interstate, staff feels that a 30 foot wide landscape buffer would serve no real purpose, and have very little visibility from I-430. The 30 foot buffer requirement along expressways is also a Landscape Ordinance requirement. Therefore, this specific variance will also have to be approved by the City Beautiful Commission. As noted above, staff is supportive of all of the requested variances. Staff feels that the variances as requested are minor in nature and will not be out of character with other commercial and office properties in this general area. Staff feels that the proposed hotel development will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested subject to the following conditions: 1. The landscape buffer variance along the interstate (west) side of the property must also be approved by the City Beautiful Commission. 2. The applicant must provide documentation showing that there is a cross -access easement between this property and the property immediately to the north. 3. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of this report. 4 January _8, 2002 Item No.: 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) 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. 5 © WHITE - DATL-, <S & ASSOCIATES, INC. 0 24 Rahling Circle M Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 December 22, 2001 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Neighborhoods and Planning 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Chi's Ramada Inn Mr. Moore, 2-39/)2 -b Please find attached a site plan and front elevation for the above referenced project. We would like to request height and street buffering variances for the use of a Ramada Inn which will work in conjunction with the existing Ramada just west of the Chi's Restaurant at Markham and Shackleford. The property is zoned C-3 General Commercial with a height restriction of 35 ft. We would like to request an allowable height of 90 ft. There are several buildings in the general area which have a height of 60 ft. to 80 ft. Financial Centre III and Embassy Suites are in excess of 90 ft. We believe with this type of use, this is a reasonable request. Also, we would like to request variances for the street buffer requirements. Currently, the old Shoney's Restaurant has street buffers of 5 ft. on the south and east. We would like to increase these street buffers to 9 ft. minimum. The average buffer on Markham Center Drive would be 11.5 ft. with a requirement of 15 ft. The average buffer on West Markham Street would be 13.3 ft. with a requirement of 14.6 ft. There is more streetscape along West Markham than typical due to the bridge approach over I-430. The average distance from our property line to the sidewalk on Markham St. is 32 ft. versus the typical 12 ft. Also, the existing median on Markham Center Drive provides a buffer between this property and the existing development to the east. In addition, we would like to request a variance from the 30 ft. buffer along I-430. The relationship between this property and the highway is some 20 ft. vertically. The existing hotels to the north have been developed with less than the required 30 ft. and are screened quite well from the highway. Mr. Bob Brown thought this issue might require application to the City Beautiful Commission. If so. I will submit this request to Mr. Brown for the February meeting. Please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions or require additional information. I will prepare an additional exhibit which indicates the distance to the pavement on Markham St. and I-430, along with a cross-section along our west property line showing the vertical and horizontal distances from the northbound lanes. I will send this to you as soon as they have been prepared. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. Best Regards, Joe D. PWVhite,r. CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING January( 2002 ITEM -NO. : 2 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Area: Variance Requested Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Z -6924-B Walter Quinn 5500 Kavanaugh Boulevard Lots 13 and 14, Block 33, Newton's Addition C-3 and 0-3 0.32 acre Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-301 to permit a porch addition to the existing commercial building with a reduced front yard setback, and a porch addition with a reduced side yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Vacant commercial building Branch Bank With Building Permit: 1. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Januarys , 2002 Item No.: 2 B. Staff Analysis: The property at 5500 Kavanaugh Boulevard (northwest corner of Kavanaugh and Polk Street) is zoned C-3 and 0-3. There is an existing one-story commercial building within the C-3 portion of the property, with the 0-3 portion being vacant. A structure was recently removed from the 0-3 portion. There are single family residences located north of the site, with a bank across Polk Street to the east and commercial uses along Kavanaugh Blvd. to the west. The new Kroger Store development is located across Kavanaugh Blvd. to the south. Only July 30, 2001 the Board of Adjustment approved a variance from the buffer requirements of Section 36-522 for a proposed branch bank development. The July 30, 2001 minute record for this item is attached for Board of Adjustment review. The proposed branch bank facility is to utilize the existing commercial building and construct covered drive through lanes on the west side of the building on the 0-3 zoned portion of the property. The applicant is now requesting variances to allow construction of two (2) covered porch additions with reduced building setbacks to the existing commercial building. The first addition is a 9 foot by 13 foot porch addition which extends nine (9) feet into the required 25 foot front yard along Kavanaugh Blvd. Section 36-301(e)(1) requires a minimum front building setback of 25 feet in C-3 zoning. The second addition is a 6 foot by 11 foot porch addition to the east side of the building. The existing commercial building sits on the east property line, placing the entire proposed porch addition in the public right-of-way of Polk Street. Section 36- 301(e)(2) of the ordinance requires a minimum street side setback of 25 feet. The applicant has noted that a franchise application has been submitted to the Public Works Department for this side porch. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the proposed porch additions are very minor E January _8, 2002 Item No.: 2 in nature. Given the placement of the existing commercial building, practically any building addition to the north, south or east side of the structure would require a variance. If the proposed commercial porch additions are left unenclosed, staff feels that they will have no negative impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the front and side yard setback variances subject to the following conditions: 1. A franchise must be obtained for the porch addition to the east side of the building. 2. Both covered porch additions must be unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) 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 POLK STANLEY Y E A R Y A R C H I T E C T S L T D. Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Board of Adjustments Application for Zoning Variance Board of Adjustment Members, Metropolitan National Bank is locating a branch bank in an existing commercial building sited on the northwest corner of Polk Street and Kavanaugh Blvd. The existing building was built directly on the east property line (Polk Street) and 24.6 feet north of the southern property line (Kavanaugh Blvd.). The shape of the structure is a simple rectangle with exposed aggregate pre- cast panels Among many improvements to enhance the image of the building, the bank is requesting that two porches be added at the entrance locations of the existing structure. Due to the siting of the existing building, these two porches will violate the city's setback requirements. The front porch would be built 9 feet into the front yard setback, while the side porch would actually cross over the property 6 feet into the city's right of way. A franchise application to The Public Works Department has been submitted for their approval of the side porch. The bank is seeking the approval of the Board for these porches and appreciates your consideration to help them enhance the neighborhood and their facility. Thank you. Sincerely, Jim Yeary. 700 S. Schiller • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 378-0878 • Fax (501) 372-7629 21 W. Mountain/Suite 227 • Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 (501) 444-0473 • Fax (501) 251-7216 Tommy Polk, AIA Joe Stanley, AIA Jim Yeary, AIA Reese Rowland, AIA Craig Curzon, AIA July 30, 2001 Item No.: 1 File No.: Z -6924-A Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: Kidco Properties, Inc. 5500-5508 Kavanaugh Blvd. Lots 13 and 14, Block 22, Newton's Addition C-3 and 0-3 Variances are requested from the on-site parking provisions of Section 36-502 and the buffer requirements of Section 36-522. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Two buildings; day-care center and photography studio Bank Branch With Building Permit: 1. Dedication of right-of-way on Polk and Kavanaugh and corner dedication will be required. 2. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. Widen Polk Street to 18 feet from centerline. 3. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. Reduce driveway on Kavanaugh to 30 feet. 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. B. Landscape/Screening Issues: The plan submitted does not allow for the minimum 6.7 foot wide land use buffer required along the northern perimeter July 30, 2001 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) of the site. The full width requirement along the northern perimeter, which abuts residential property, is nine feet. Since this property is located within the designated mature area, staff may administratively reduce this requirement by 25% or to 6.7 feet. The Landscape Ordinance also requires a minimum 6.7 foot wide landscape strip along the northern perimeter of the site. The City Beautiful Commission reviewed a landscape variance request for this site on July 12, 2001. There were no objectors present. The Commission Chair stated she had personally visited with the owners of the abutting residential property. The Commission voted unanimously to grant a variance from the Ordinance requirement to have a 6.7 foot wide landscape strip along the northern perimeter. The plan originally submitted by the applicant showed 8, 600 angle parking spaces along the north perimeter with only a "sawtooth" landscape strip in front of each space. The plan approved by the CBC had the following: 1. The landscape strip along the north perimeter is to be a minimum of 3 feet in depth, with the "sawtooth" islands extending out from the 3 foot strip. This plan brings the landscape strip much closer to an average of 6.7 feet. 2. Appropriate trees are to be planted in the "sawtooth" islands. 3. A 6 foot tall, brick wall is to be constructed along the north perimeter of the site. 4. Four (4) trees are to be planted in the western perimeter landscape strip. 5. Three (3) trees are to be planted in the grassy, Polk Street right-of-way, if permitted through the franchise process. The change in the northern landscape strip requires that the parking be changed to 450 angle. This reduces the number of parking spaces from 8 to 6. E July 30, 2uUl Item No.: 1 (Cont. C. Staff Analvsis: The C-3 zoned property located at 5500 Kavanaugh is occupied by a 3,750 square foot commercial building. The property has no on-site parking. The adjacent, 0-3 zoned property at 5508 Kavanaugh is occupied by a 1,600± square foot structure. A residential style driveway is located on this site. The applicant proposes to combine the two properties into one development. The building at 5508 Kavanaugh is to be removed. The building at 5500 will be remodeled into a bank with drive-through facilities extending into the 5508 property. The proposed building remodeling will conform to all setback requirements. A row of angle parking will bp - placed at the rear of the site. A one-way drive will enter from Polk and exit onto Kavanaugh. The drive-through facility will consist of 3 lanes, with an escape lane allowing passage without having to go through the drive- through facility. There will be no ATM in the drive-through facility. A 3,750 square foot bank requires 12 on-site parking spaces. The applicant has requested variances to have 6 parking spaces and to reduce the depth of the landscape buffer on the north perimeter. A 6.7 foot landscaped buffer is required along the north perimeter. Staff has reviewed the proposal and is supportive of the development. After a thorough review of the issue, staff has determined that no parking variance is needed for the proposed bank. As was previously mentioned, neither the 3,750 square foot building on the C-3 zoned property at 5500 Kavanaugh nor the 1,600± square foot building on the 0-3 zoned property at 5508 Kavanaugh have any on-site parking that conforms to code standards. They each have non- conforming parking relationships of 12 spaces and 4 spaces respectively. The larger building has been occupied by a steady stream of uses including beauty shops, clothing stores, interior design studios and the day care since its construction. At one time, up to 4 commercial uses occupied the building at the same time. The building at 5508 Kavanaugh has been used as a photography studio for 40± years. The development proposed by the applicant will not increase square footage and actually will result in the reduction of square footage by the removal of the photography studio building. Placing a canopy over the drive-through lanes does not add to the parking requirement. Section 36-506 of the Code states: 9 t July 30, ku01 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) "When a building or structure erected prior to or after the effective date of this chapter shall undergo any increase in number of dwelling units, gross floor area, seating capacity, number of employees or other unit of measure used in determining required parking facilities, and when the increase would result in a requirement for additional parking facilities, such additional facilities shall be accordingly, provided as a condition for obtaining a building permit or privilege license. In computing the number of spaces required for such a building, however, only the increase in unit measure shall be considered." Consequently, remodeling the existing 3,750 square foot building for a bank does not generate a requirement for increased parking. The 6 spaces proposed by the applicant will be 6 more than the site has had in the past. If a use were proposed that had a greater parking requirement, such as an eating place with a parking requirement of 1 space per 100 square feet, the issue would be different. A 6.7 foot land use buffer is required along the north perimeter where the site is adjacent to residential property. With the modification to the site plan as a result of the City Beautiful Commission's Action, the land use buffer will be no smaller than 3 feet and will average greater than that because of the "sawtooth" design. That design, in conjunction with the required 6 foot brick wall, will suffice in staff's opinion. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested land use buffer variance subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the 5 conditions proposed by the City Beautiful Commission and outlined in the "Staff Analysis" of this item. 2. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any variance or waiver as may be granted by the Director of Public Works or the Board of Directors. 4 July 30, 2(k- _ 1 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) 3. All site lighting is to be low-level and directional, aimed away from the adjacent residential property. Staff would prefer to see bollard lighting used in the parking lot area between the building/drive-through canopy area and the north property line. 4. There is to be no parking or ATM located in the designated escape lane west of the drive-through lanes. Staff does not believe a parking variance is required. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 30, 2001) 14' The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Troy Laha, of the City Beautiful Commission, was present to answer any questions regarding that group's action. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. A motion was made to approve the requested variance subject to compliance with the conditions recommended by staff. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 5 January 2002 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-7132 Owner: E. H. and Joyce Barber Address: 2402 Stoney Creek Drive Description: Lot 74, Block 13, Cherry Creek Addition Zoned: R-2 Area: Variance Requested Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: 0.145 acre A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit a room and deck addition with a reduced rear yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residence Single Family Residence STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 2402 Stoney Creek Drive is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence. This particular lot is approximately 6,300 square feet in area, with the existing residential structure being 25 feet back from the front property line and 27.5 feet from the rear property line. There are existing single family residences to the north, east and west along Stoney Creek Drive, with undevelopable R-2 zoned floodplain/floodway to the south and southwest. The January( 3, 2002 Item No.: 3 Brodie Creek Neighborhood is located further to the south. The applicant proposes to construct a 12 foot by 30 foot room addition (for a handicapped family member) and a 12 foot by 10.5 foot covered deck on the rear of the existing residence. The proposed additions will be set back approximately 15.5 feet from the rear property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff's support is based primarily on the fact that there is floodplain/floodway immediately south and southwest of this lot which cannot be developed. Therefore, this lot will be separated by over 200 feet from any future single family development in these directions. The Planning Commission recently approved a single family plat for this area to the south. Additionally, this lot was platted with a substandard size (6,300 square feet). The ordinance typically requires a single family lot to have a minimum of 7,000 square feet. Based on the lot size, any building additions would require setback variances. Staff does not believe that the requested variance will have a negative effect on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) 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. K -2-7132-- BUILT --7/3z BUILT WRIGHT CONST 18 DECEMBER, 2001 16 ROCKY CREST LITTLE ROCK AR, 72211 FOR: 2402 STONEY CREEK DEAR MR. MOORE I NEED TO REQUEST A VARIENCE AT 2402 STONEY CREEK TO ADD A 12 X 30 SUNROOM AT THE REAR OF EXISTING BUILDING. NEED A REAR VARIENCE TO ENCROCH ON REAR SETBACK. THE ADDITION IS NEEDED TO ACCOMIDATE A HANDICAPPED MEMBER OF THE FAMILY. THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HELP. ERNIE WRIGHT January 2002 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Z-7133 G. Robert Hardin and Debra Kay Carter 200 Thayer Street Lot 17 and part of Lot 16, Block 1, Young's Park Addition R-3 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-156 to allow construction of an accessory building which occupies more than thirty (30) percent of the required rear yard. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residence Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residence STAFF REPORT A Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 200 Thayer Street is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence and a one-story brick and frame accessory building. There are single family residences located to the south and west, with an apartment building just further west. There are also single family residences to the north across Grove Circle and to the east across Thayer Street. January( S, 2002 Item No.: 4 The applicant proposes to construct an 18 foot by 22 foot accessory building (one story) near the rear property line. The proposed accessory building will be used as a garage and for storage. The proposed building conforms to the required setbacks for an accessory building, but occupies more than 30 percent of the required rear yard (rear 25 feet of the lot). Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance states that accessory buildings may not occupy more than 30 percent of the required rear yard of a single family lot. For this particular lot, 30 percent of the required rear yard would be 270 square feet. The accessory building proposed by the applicant is 396 square feet in area, with approximately 385 square feet being located within the required rear yard area. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Given the irregular pie -shape of the lot, the required rear yard is only approximately 900 square feet in size. The proposed garage occupies approximately 42.8 percent of this area. Based on the small size of the required rear yard and the fact that the applicant wishes to locate the accessory building where it can be easily accessed from the alley to the west, staff feels that the request is reasonable. Staff does not believe that the requested variance will have a negative impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the accessory building to occupy more than 30 percent of the required rear yard, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. E January d, 2002 Item No.: 4 The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 abstention (Francis). 3 G. Robert ("Bob') Hardin 200 Thayer Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 501-378-0123 December 11, 2001 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Attention: Monte Moore Hand Delivered -7133 Re: Application For A Residential Zoning Variance for 200 Thayer, Little Rock, Arkansas, Lot17 and part of Lot 16 , Block 1, Young's Park Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Dear Monte: Attached herewith is my Application for a Residential Zoning Variance for the referenced lot. A check payable to the Little Rock Department of Planning and Development for the required filing fee in the amount of $80.00 is enclosed herewith. Also enclosed are three (3) copies of a recent survey, which shows the existing and proposed improvements which are properly dimensioned and labeled. The proposed improvements consist of an accessory building on the back of the Lot which will be approximately 18 feet wide (on the side next to the rear property line) and approximately 22 feet long (on the sides next to the side property line) (approximately 396 square feet). The accessory building will have one garage door entrance from the alley, permitting parking one vehicle therein. The purpose for the accessary building is to provide off-street covered parking for one vehicle, storage for tools, bicycles and other personal property and for a small home shop. Currently, almost every house on Thayer Street and Grove Circle has similar accessory buildings or garages at the rear of their lots, similarly situated to the alley. Most of those houses were built in the 1940's or earlier. This construction would be consistent with the existing development in the subdivision. The construction would include a monolithic concrete slab floor and foundation, a roof angle (approximately 10 on 12) which would match the existing main residence on the property and would be constructed of brick veneer on the two sides (the northeast and southeast sides) which would match the brick of the main residential structure, and siding on the remaining two sides (not visible from the street or the front of the lot). The plan provides for three (3) feet of setback of the foundation of the side lot line in order to permit ample access for maintenance. The Section for which the variance is December 11, 2001 Department of Planning and Development Page 2 required (Section 36-156(2)c.) requires that accessory buildings not occupy more than thirty percent (3 0%) of the required rear yard area, which I have been told is the rear 25 feet of the lot. Because of the pie -shape of the lot (being on the corner of Thayer and Grove Circle), the proposed structure obviously exceeds this percentage. Section 36-156(2)fprovides that accessory buildings may maintain a three -feet setback from any side property line and no setback is required upon the alley and the current plan meets those requirements. Currently, there is considerable on -street vehicle parking in the neighborhood, due to the small lot sizes, the existence of a multi -family structure on Grove Circle and the fact that most of the old alleyway garages are too small for modern automobiles. This structure will allow additional off-street covered parking using the alleyway as intended, which will reduce on -street parking. The existence of a swimming pool and the slope of the yard on the lot, prevent moving the structure further to the front lot line. Further, moving the accessory building further to the front property line would seem to be inconsistent with the design of the subdivision's intended use of the alley. Please favorably consider this application. Thank you. :Since/rel Hardin F:\BOB\Bob PersormlWariance Letter L R Planning.wpd January . , 2002 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Z-7134 Alan C. Wray 8103 Leawood Boulevard Lot 139, Leawood Heights Second Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the fence regulations of Section 36-516 to allow construction of a six (6) foot tall privacy fence between a required building setback and a street right-of-way. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residence Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residence STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The property at 8103 Leawood Boulevard is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There are single family residences to the north, west, south across Louwanda Drive and east across Leawood Boulevard. The applicant recently began construction of a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence along the Louwanda Drive side of the property. The fence extended beyond the 25 foot building setback line and into the street right-of-way. Consequently, the City's January 2002 Item No.: 5 enforcement staff issued a notice to cease the fence construction, which was complied to by the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow construction of a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence which extends beyond the 25 foot street side setback along Louwanda Drive. The proposed fence will extend from the rear corner of the house to the Louwanda Drive property line, along this property line to the rear property line, and back to a newly constructed privacy fence located behind the 25 foot setback line. According to Section 36-516(c)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance, fences constructed within the required setback adjacent to streets are limited to four (4) feet in height. Staff is not supportive of the variance as requested. Staff's inspection of the property revealed that the proposed fence would create no sight -distance problems for vehicular traffic. However, the single family residences immediately west of this site, which front on Louwanda Drive, will have a front yard relationship with the proposed fence. Staff feels that the proposed six (6) foot privacy fence extending to the property line along Louwanda Drive will have a negative visual impact on these adjacent properties. However, staff could possibly support a revised application which would move the fence further back from the street side property line. Another possible solution would be to construct, at the location proposed by the applicant, a four (4) foot high solid wood fence with an additional two (2) feet of wood lattice. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not support the variance to allow construction of a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence between the required building setback and the street right-of-way, as proposed. F% January 2002 Item No.: 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the February 25, 2002 agenda. Staff noted that the applicant failed to complete the required notifications to surrounding property owners. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 25, 2002 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 3 Date: December 10, 2001 To: Department of Planning and Development From: Alan C Wray Re: Application for a Zoning Variance at 8103 Leawood Blvd I am writing you this letter to better explain my family's request for a residential zoning variance so that we may enclose a portion of our property to the side and rear of our house. I will try my best to explain the chronology of events that have led to this request without being too longwinded. I bought this house in November from the estate of my deceased aunt (Lucille Alexander). We were in the process of looking at the property when I called and spoke to a gentleman with the City Code department about some landscaping and fence work that I was considering having done. I inquired about where a privacy fence could be built as I had heard that there might be an easement that would have to be met. We talked several times that afternoon and said that he would contact his supervisor and call me back as he was unsure as to exactly where the fence would have to be placed. He called me back and as I listened I could hear who he stated to be a supervisor discussing the issue with them on a conference call. After several minutes, the gentleman informed me that the had pulled my survey and by looking at that determined that if I wanted to build a six foot privacy fence eight feet from the sidestreet, that I could. So I contacted a tree service and after negotiating a $2000.00 price, had them remove a large number of old bushes and trees that grew along the curb of Louwanda Drive and on that side of our yard.. The bushes (some of which were up to 15' in height) caused a blind spot when backing from our driveway and grew out into the street. I then contracted a fence company to tear down the existing fence that ran along the back of the property as it was old and falling down, and erect the new one where the old fence had been with the exception of the new section parallel to the sidestreet and the new section parallel to our driveway where the gate would be located. On the second day of construction, my wife called me at work and said that someone from the Code Enforcement Department had stopped by after receiving a complaint and stated that our fence could not be built eight feet from the road and that we would have to stop construction immediately. A very nice man by the name of Kenneth Jones stopped after I arrived home and explained the situation and that the only recourse that I had was to file for a variance. He told me that I would need to speak with Dana Carney the manager of the Zoning and Subdivision Department before moving forward. I spoke with Mr. Carney and he explained the survey and was puzzled that someone had said that there was no easement as the survey plainly shows a 25' building line. I spoke with him at length, and he concurred that the only chance I would have to finish construction of the fence would be to apply for an variance. He stated that I could not even rebuild the fence that had existed along the back of the property. I have stopped construction in any of the disputed areas until the Adjustment Board has a chance to review my case. I am asking for a variance based on the following reasons: 1. Safety — We have several cats and dogs and plan on having children in the next couple of years. We NEVER would have purchased the property if we would have known that we could not enclose the yard. It is a very busy intersection and without any type of barrier there (There is not much left since we had it cleared), we cannot let our pets run around in the backyard without supervision. 2. Privacy — Anyone driving down Louwanda can look right into our backyard, our porch area, and into our house without anything stopping them. 3. Security — As stated above, it is an open back yard and anyone can stop on Louwanda and step right into our backyard. I have already had some firewood that has come up missing and have concerns for anything else of value that I might place in my own backyard. 4. I am replacing a border as the shrubs and existing fence provided a natural fence that extended further than what I am trying to build. We never would have spent the $2000.00 on yard work in preparation for building the fence if someone at the code dept. had not stated that it would be OK to do so. 5. We are bombarded daily (and nightly) with excessively loud stereos from vehicles passing up and down the street. While I know that the fence would not eliminate this problem, a six-foot fence would greatly decrease the amount of noise that is currently coming straight into the yard and house. 6. There are dozens of fences in the neighborhood that have six foot and over privacy fences that are closer than they should be. Some are even within the eight -foot easement. 7. Our fence will affect no one in any adverse manner. A few other reasons are listed but do not bear the weight of the above list. The neighbors to the back of us keep trash piled on the side of their house. Since the old fence line is gone, we now have a splendid view of it. We cannot build the fence as the easement currently states because we would lose two-thirds of our back yard. We currently have an unfinished fence and I had them remove the posts but not fill the holes where the disputed area is. I hope that this has explained the need for the Board to grant my family a variance in this matter, and I really wish to thank you for your time. Sincerely, V`� C. �Iy Alan C Wray January( 2002 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested Justification: Present Use of Property: Z-7135 Jim S. Porter Jr. Trust 2108 N. Beechwood Lot 3, Block 4, Country Club Heights Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the fence regulations of Section 36-516 to allow construction of an eight (8) foot high privacy fence. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residence Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residence STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 2108 N. Beechwood is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence. There is an existing six (6) foot high wood fence along the south property line and a portion of the north property line. There are existing single family residences to the north, south, across the alley to the west and across N. Beechwood to the east. The applicant proposes to construct an eight (8) foot high wood privacy fence along the south property line, between this property and 2106 N. Beechwood. The proposed eight (8) foot fence would also enclose a January .3, 2002 Item No.: 6 small courtyard area near the southwest corner of the property. The applicant notes in his cover letter (attached) that the purpose of the eight (8) foot high fence is for additional privacy desired by both property owners. He also notes that the property owner of 2106 N. Beechwood is in favor of the proposed fence. Section 36-516 of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet in residential zoning. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff does not believe that the eight (8) foot fence height will have an adverse impact on the adjacent properties or be out -of -character with the general area. To staff's knowledge, the only affected property owner (2106 N. Beechwood) is in favor of the fence construction. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance subject to the following conditions: 1. The fence must be a "good neighbor fence", with the structural supports on the 2108 N. Beechwood side of the fence. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) The applicant, Jim S. Porter Jr., was present. There were no persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval, subject to the conditions as noted in paragraph C. of the agenda report. Jim S. Porter, Jr. addressed the Board in support of the application. He stated that he objected to the following staff condition: "1. The fence must be a `good neighbor fence', with the structural supports on the 2108 N. Beechwood side of the fence." 2 January 3, 2002 Item No.: 6 Mr. Porter explained his position on this issue. Chairman Ruck asked if the neighbor at 2106 N. Beechwood was aware that the structural supports would be on their side of the fence. Mr. Porter responded that the next door neighbor was aware of the proposed fence construction. He further explained his desire for an eight (8) foot high fence. Chairman Ruck asked if the existing six (6) foot high privacy fence along the south property line had the structural supports on the 2106 N. Beechwood side of the fence. Mr. Porter stated that the structural supports on the existing privacy fence were on the 2106 N. Beechwood side. He provided the Board with a photo of the existing fence. Vice -Chairman Gray asked for confirmation that the next door neighbor was aware of the proposed structural supports being on their side of the fence. Mr. Porter responded that they were aware of the proposed fence construction. He stated that the neighbor could attach pickets to their side of the proposed fence, if they desire. Andy Francis asked to make Mr. Porter's photo part of the official record. He also asked if the property owner at 2106 N. Beechwood received notice of the variance request. Staff responded that required notice was given to that property owner. There was a motion to approve the application eliminating staff condition #1 (good neighbor fence) and keeping staff condition #2 (as noted in paragraph C. of the agenda report). The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was approved. 3 7135 Jim S. Porter, Jr. Justice of the Peace State Commissioner Pulaski County Quorum Court Arkansas Entertainers Hall of Fame To: City of Little Rock Planning/Development From: Jim S. Porter, Jr. It is my proposal to construct an 8 foot fence on my property , between my home and that of my neighbor, Cathy Cook Pursell, who is also in favor of said construction. This will prevent us from looking in each other's win- dows, and give us the privacy we both desire. This privacy will extend into our back yards and prevent electrical lighting in both yards from being disruptive to both families. This 8 feet fence will be seen only by both my family and the Pursell's. I appreciate your consideration in this re- quest. J' S. Porter, Jr. 108 Beechwood Street Little Rock, Ar 72207 December 20, 2001 Porter -Jones Entertainment, Inc. 2108 Beechwood Avenue • Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Phone: (501) 664-2641 Fax: (501) 663-4138 January .8, 2002 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Z-7136 Rose Creek Industries, LLC 2000 Cantrell Road Part of Lot 29, Worthen's Subdivision I-3 A variance is requested from the sign regulations of Section 36-554 to permit a ground - mounted sign which exceeds the maximum 30 foot height allowed in industrial zoning. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Mini -warehouse development Proposed Use of Property: Mini -warehouse development STAFF NOTE: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on January 9, 2001 requesting that this application be withdrawn. Staff determined that the site plan for this property as approved by the Planning Commission was conditioned on any signage conforming to the industrial standards as allowed by the City's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff feels that it would not be appropriate for the Board of Adjustment to consider a sign variance and supports the withdrawal of this issue. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter on January 9, 2002 requesting that this application be withdrawn. Staff supported the withdrawal request. January _8, 2002 Item No.: 7 The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 CANTRELL MINI -STORAGE z -z " -7 2000 CANTRELL ROAD LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 TELEPHONE (501) 664-1913 FACSIMILE (501) 664-7539 December 17, 2001 Department of Planning and Development Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 To Whom It May Concern: We are requesting a zoning sign variance for Cantrell Mini -Storage. Address: 2000 Cantrell Road, at the Cantrell Road Mini -Storage units. Sign request: 8'xS' Double -sided, lighted sign, on a 25 ft. metal pole. See attached rendition Location: at electronic gate entrance to Mini -Storage Units, approx. 130' South of Old Perryville Road, on West line of Mini -Storage property. Reason for variance: 25' is minimum height for visibility from Cantrell Road and the Lincoln Viaduct. Sign Contractor: Sign -a -Rama. 11300 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72211. Ph. (501) 221-7477. Property Owner: Rose Creek Industries, L.L.C. c/o John Haley, Suite 300, 2228 Cottondale Lane, Little Rock, AR 72202. Ph. (501) 664-1913. We are sending copies of this letter to all adjacent owners, and will furnish proof of sending. Respectfully submitted, Rose Creek Industries, LLC D/b/a/ Cantrell Mini Storage By: / Johaley, Manager H;_EY CID . PHONE NO. . 5016647=39 'Tf.LEP11()NE, (501) 664-1913 CANTRELL MINI—STORAGE 2000 CANTRELL ROAt? LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 January 9, 2002 Department of Planning and Development Mont -v Moore Board of Adjustment 723 `Fest Markham Little Dock, AR 72201 To Wbo1n It May Concern: j,( O--; 2002 10:244 F2 FAf.SINIU t. i5H) 6(4-7539 We would like to withdr3ti, v our request .for a zoning sign variance for Cantrell Mini - Storage. Address-. 2000 Cantrell Road, ar the Cantrell Road. Nfini-Storage units. Respeetfully submitted, Rose Creek industries, LLC D/b/al Cantrell Mini Storage ,�, r`:c ,John aley, IVia1�. g r ' REE E1W 1 _' JAN 9 2002 BY: January 2002 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Z-7137 John P. and Stacy S. Fletcher 2604 N. Fillmore Lot 9 and the South 1� of Lot 10, Block 23, Park View Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit a building addition with a reduced side yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residence Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residence STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 2604 N. Fillmore is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The existing residential structure sits approximately 44 feet back from the front property line and conforms to all of the minimum required building setbacks, with the exception of the north side yard setback, which is nonconforming. The existing house is located 6'-4" from the north (side) property line. The City's Zoning Ordinance would require a minimum setback of 7'-611, based on the 75 foot lot width. The property is located in an area of R-2 zoning, with all of the surrounding uses being single family residential. January _8, 2002 Item No.: 8 The applicant proposes to construct a room/garage addition to the north side of the existing single family structure. The proposed addition will maintain the 6'-4" setback from the north property line to the exterior wall, with the north wall of the building being extended from 22'-1" to 66'-3". As noted in the previous paragraph, the minimum side yard setback for this property is 7.5 feet (Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance). Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for a reduced side yard setback for the proposed building addition. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the proposed side yard setback variance is very minimal in nature, as the proposed setback is within five (5) inches of qualifying for an administrative staff approval. A number of the single family residences in this general area are located on 50 foot wide lots and have side yard setbacks which are five (5) feet or less. Therefore, the proposed 6'-4" setback for this proposed building addition will not be out of character with the general area, or have a negative effect on the adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 2 John P. and Stacy S. Fletcher 2604 North Fillmore Little Rock, AR 72207 December 21, 2001 Little Rock Board of Adjustment c/o Dept. of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Madame or Sir: Yle,- *Y —2— 7/37 �z P --VI Enclosed are the following documents relating to our residence at 2604 North Fillmore, in the city of Little Rock (the "Residence"): 1. Application for Zoning Variance for a proposed remodeling addition to the Residence. 2. Three copies of a survey dated March 31, 1994, of Donald W. Brooks, Land Surveyor, showing existing improvements on the Residence. 3. Three copies of Existing Site Plan and Proposed Site Plan, dated December 20, 2001, prepared by Jameson Architects P.A. The remainder of this letter describes our proposal and our justifications for the request for variance. Proposal: The northernmost wall of our Residence currently has a 6'-4" side setback on the northern property line, which does not conform to the 7'-6" side setback for, our lot. The northern side setback of 6'-4" existed at the time of our purchase of the property in 1994, and we have not expanded, enlarged or modified this non -conforming structure. The northernmost wall of our Residence is currently 22'-1" in length. We now propose an addition to our home that will maintain the existing line of northernmost wall of the Residence and increase the length of such wall from 22'-1" to 66'-3". Justification Our Residence currently has a 6'-4" side setback on the northern side, and we simply propose to extend the length of the structure from 22'-1" to 66'-3" while maintaining the existing setback of 6'-4". Little Rock Board of Adjustment December 21, 2001 Page Two One purpose of our addition is to add a one -car garage to the front of the home, and the existing driveway is located on the northernmost end that has the non -conforming setback. The Residence comprises 1 '/z lots of the Park View addition to the city of Little Rock, resulting in a lot of 75' with a side setback requirement of 7'-6". We propose to maintain the setback of 6'-4", which does conform to the 5'-0" setback fora single lot width of 50' in this neighborhood. The majority of the proposed addition is to the rear (west) of the north side of the Residence, which is the portion of our lot with the most level grade. Our proposal would add a new rear western addition along the north side of the Residence that is 24'-6" wide, which matches the width of the existing primary structure and allows the roof of our addition to match height and pitch of the existing roof of the Residence. Compliance with the setback would require either: i) moving the entire rear addition 15" to the south, which would obstruct the existing bathroom window in the rear of the home if the 24'-6" width of the addition was maintained; or ii) moving only the northern wall of the addition 15" to the south, while retaining the existing location of the proposed southern wall of the addition, would compromise an important architectural feature of the design by creating an addition with a different width and roof configuration from the existing structure We appreciate your consideration of our proposal. Sincerely, AA;U-, hn Fletcher Sha'L yFcher January 2002 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7138 Carlton and Becky Cooper 1112 Claywood Drive Lot 311, Leawood Heights Addition R-2 The applicant is requesting an appeal of an administrative interpretation, in order to operate a "clothing consulting" business as a home occupation. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential with Home Occupation The R-2 zoned property at 1112 Claywood Drive contains a two-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located on the west side of Claywood Drive between Leawood Blvd. and Linda Lane, in an area that is exclusively single family residential in nature. There are existing single family residences to the north, south, west and across Claywood Drive to the east. On September 10, 2001, the City's Zoning Enforcement Staff issued Becky Cooper a 15 -day courtesy notice to January 2002 Item No.: 9 cease the operation of a retail woman's apparel shop at 1112 Claywood Drive. The notice was issued as a violation of Section 36-254(b)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, permitted uses in R-2 zoning. On November 20, 2001, Mrs. Cooper received a 15 -day letter to comply (final notice) from the City Attorney's Office. The enforcement initiated by staff against Mrs. Cooper was a result of complaints issued by Louis Burgess who is the property owner and resident of 1024 Claywood Drive. The notices were issued by the Enforcement Staff based on the fact that staff feels that the type of business being operated at 1112 Claywood Drive by Mrs. Cooper does not conform to Section 36-253(b)(6)b., uses permitted as home occupations. Additionally, based on information received by Mr. Burgess of 1024 Claywood Drive, staff feels that the amount of traffic generated by Mrs. Cooper's business is in excess of what is normal for residential traffic in this area of the subdivision. The applicant, Becky Cooper, is requesting an appeal of this administrative interpretation, in order to operate her "clothing consulting" business at 1112 Claywood Drive as a home occupation. Mrs. Cooper contends that the City has mischaracterized her use of the property and that her specific "clothing consulting" business qualifies as a home occupation and conforms to the requirements of Section 36-253 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. An attached letter from Marian McMullan, Mrs. Cooper's attorney, gives a detailed description of Mrs. Cooper's use of the property at 1112 Claywood Drive and the justification for requesting an appeal of staff's administrative position. Also attached is a copy of an invitation to the clothing sale which took place at this location between August 2 and August 12, 2001, which was given to staff by Mr. Burgess. The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine if Mrs. Cooper's use of the property at 1112 Claywood Drive qualifies as a home occupation according to Section 36-253 of the ordinance. In reviewing this requested appeal, staff would suggest that the Board consider the following questions: 1. Who are Mrs. Cooper's clientele? Individuals? Retail Clothing Shop owners? E January .d, 2002 Item No.: 9 2. Is the clothing ordered by Mrs. Cooper's customers shipped directly to the customer or to 1112 Claywood Drive? 3. If the orders are shipped to 1112 Claywood Drive, does Mrs. Cooper deliver the orders to the customers or do the customers come to 1112 Claywood Drive to pick them up? 4. Is the traffic generated by this specific business in excess of what would be considered normal for a residential neighborhood? BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) Marian McMullan and others were present, representing the application. There were no persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item, noting that Louis Burgess of 1024 Claywood Drive had submitted a package of information to each board member, including a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the February 25, 2002 agenda. It was noted that Mr. Burgess was a concerned neighbor who had an out-of-state trip planned for several months before the public hearing and therefore could not attend this meeting. Chairman Ruck explained the request made by Mr. Burgess and made a motion to defer the application to the February 25, 2002 agenda. He noted that Mr. Burgess should have an opportunity to address the Board. He asked for the Board's opinion on the deferral issue. Andy Francis asked the applicant if there would be any hardship in deferring the application. Marian McMullan, attorney for Becky Cooper (the property owner), stated that there would be a hardship in deferring the application. She stated that Mrs. Cooper had experienced emotional strain over the situation. She also stated that, as a trial lawyer, she did not know whether or not she could be present at the next hearing. She asked to present information to the Board at this meeting. Chairman Ruck stated that he wished to hear both sides of the issue at the same meeting. He also stated that 3 January ..3 , 2002 Item No.: 9 Mr. Burgess needed to hear the applicant's side of the issue. Chairman Ruck's motion to defer was seconded. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred to the February 25, 2002 agenda. 4 MARIAN M. MCMULLAN, P.A. email: marianmajor@aristotle.net THE MCMULLAN LAW FIRM ATTORNEYS AT LAW 815 W. MARKHAM ZIP CODE 72201 P.O. BOX 2839 ZIP CODE 72203.2839 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS TELEPHONE: (501) 376-9119 FAX: (501) 376-8437 January 4, 2002 Members of the Board of Adjustment City Hall Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Becky Cooper 1112 Claywood, Little Rock To the Honorable Members of the Board of Adjustment: Purpose -4 712 C. WESLEY LASSEIGNE email: wlasseigne@aristotle.net We present this letter memorandum in requesting the Board of Adjustment's interpretation regarding activities taking place at 1112 Claywood Drive. Specifically, Ms. Cooper has received notice from the City of Little Rock, Code Enforcement Division, that activities taking place at her residence are in violation of Little Rock, Ark, Rev. Code § 36-254(b)(1). The allegation is that Ms. Cooper is operating a retail women's apparel shop from property zoned residential. The notice of violation resulted from a complaint by one of Ms. Cooper's neighbors, Louis Burgess who resides at 1024 Claywood Drive. In support of these allegations, the City has a copy of a sales pamphlet advertising a Carlisle Clothing Line " Fall 2001", a copy of an invitation for browsing by appointment, and a letter from Louis Burgess. Statement of the Facts Both Mr. Burgess and the City of Little Rock have mischaracterized Ms. Cooper's home occupation. Ms. Becky Cooper is a clothing consultant for the Carlisle Clothing Collection, not operating a retail apparel shop. As a clothing consultant; Ms. Cooper anticipates having four seasonal trunk showings per year. Thus far, Ms. Cooper has had two. The trunk showing is not open to the general January 4, 2002 Page 2 public. Invitations and the season's clothing brochure are sent out by Ms. Cooper which invites guests to the season's show. Each trunk showing is scheduled for ten days. Ms. Cooper or one of the other Carlisle Consultants calls for a consulting appointment to be conducted at Ms. Cooper's residence. Generally, no more than one guest is present at one time. The appointment includes a viewing of samples from the Carlisle Collection, none of which are for sale to the guest. Some guests simply order from Ms. Cooper by phone without viewing the Carlisle Collection samples. For example, on Friday, July 27, 2001, there were two appointments - one at 9:30 a.m. and one at 10:30 a.m. On Thursday, August 2, 2001, there were four appointments - two at 11:00 a.m., one at 2:00 p.m., and one at 3:00 p.m. Of the ten day showing, there are several days in which there are no appointments. Ms. Cooper uses her living room for the trunk showing. The activities could be compared to the sale of Avon, Mary Kay Cosmetics, or Tupperware products except the number of people attending at one time is not similar and there are no products or stock available at Ms. Cooper's residence to be purchased. There is less cars at Ms. Cooper's house than would be expected for a special event (i.e., bridge club, social luncheon, party, etc.). Discussion of Little Rock Zoning Ordinances Little Rock, Ark, Rev. Code § 36-253(b)(6)(a) specifies permitted uses of a residence for a home occupation. The ordinance states that a home occupation will be permitted provided there is : (1) no change to the outside appearance or visible display from the street; (2) no excess traffic or parking generated; (3) no hazardous situations result; (4) no outside storage or display of any product; (5) no accessory buildings; (6) no signs; (7) no more than 500 square feet or 49% of the floor area in the residence is used ; (8) no stock will exceed 10% of the floor area; (9) no construction or addition to the residence or duplicate kitchens; (10) no consumption on the premises of food produced on the premises; and (11) no medical treatment or therapeutic massage are provided. The use of Ms. Cooper's residence in clothing consulting satisfies all of the requirements stated above. Further, Little Rock Ordinance 36-253 (b) (6) (b) (10) permits certain identified home occupations including personal products marketed without stock on the premises. Therefore, Ms. Cooper's use of her premises is permitted. Evidence Attached hereto as Exhibits 1-5 are Affidavits from neighbors of Ms. Cooper January 4, 2002 Page 3 generally stating there has been no increase in traffic or parking problems associated with Ms. Cooper's home occupation. In fact, Ms. Brizzolara, who lives directly across the street from Mr. Burgess, states that Mr. Burgess' carport sales throughout the year cause more traffic and cars than any other event on Claywood Street. All of the persons who are submitting affidavits live on the opposite side of the street from Ms. Cooper and Mr. Burgess. They all have indicated they have personal knowledge of the traffic situation on Claywood Street because most of them are home during the day. The fact that all of them live on the opposite side of the street makes their ability to observe traffic and parked cars easier than neighbors on the same side of the street as Ms. Cooper. A drawing depicting the location of the homes on Claywood street is attached as Exhibit 6. Conclusion Accordingly, Ms. Cooper has provided the Board of Adjustment with overwhelming evidence that the activities she is conducting in her residence do not violate the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinances. Ms. Cooper respectfully requests the Board grant a favorable interpretation of Ms. Cooper's use of her residence so that the alleged violations will be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, The McMullan Law Firm P. O. Box 2839 Little Rock, AR 72203-2839 (501) 376-9119 (501) 376-8437 (fax) B 'yl %dam Marian McMullan e0123 Attorney for Becky Cooper AFFIDAVIT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Janet Brizzolara, after being duly sworn, does depose and state that I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit: 1. I reside at 1023 Claywood, Little Rock, Arkansas. 2. I have lived at this residence for thirteen years. 3. I am at home during most times of the day and night as I do not work outside the home. 4. I observed no additional traffic or cars parked on the street since Ms. Cooper has started her home clothing consulting business in August of 2001. 5. There has not been an increase in people traffic going in and out of Ms. Cooper's residence. 6. My residence is directly across the street from Louis Burgess who has several carport sales throughout the year and whose carport sales cause more traffic and cars than any other event on Claywood Street. Further, Affiant sayeth naught. net Brizzolara EXHIBIT E S bscribed anda sworn to before me, the undersigned notary public, on this _ day of , 20 0 —7 "Smik Notary Public My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Kn-vAr,i n Katht4lne Matchett after being duly sworn, does depose and state that I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit: 1. I reside at 1119 Claywood, Little Rock, Arkansas. 2. I have lived at this residence for 2.5 years. 3. Since August, I have been working part time and am at home when not at work. 4. I am aware of Ms. Cooper's business which she operates from her home and generally have not observed traffic or cars parked on the street or any other thing which would be a safety hazard to the neighborhood. 5. There has not been an increase in people traffic going in and out of Ms. Cooper's residence. Further, Affiant sayeth naught. m pie Matchett I vtr�n EXHIBIT E Subscribed and sworn to before me, the undersigned notary public, on this T day of _ , 20 ,�. My Commission Expires: /�-� �/-"Do7 Notary Public ftc, ��,f f rjjSS ski 07/24/2009 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Nat Butcher, after being duly sworn, does depose and state that I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit: 1. I reside at 1105 Claywood, Little Rock, Arkansas. 2. I have lived at this residence for 31 years. 3. I am retired and at home most times during the day and night. 4. Claywood Street generally enjoys fewer cars parked on the street than other streets in the City of Little Rock. 5. I am aware of Ms. Cooper's new business which she operates from her home and generally have not observed any additional traffic or cars parked on the street that would create a safety issue. 6. I have observed when Ms. Cooper first started her business that a few 4qMJ, n more cars were parked on the street before and I also observed a few people going into Ms. Cooper's house but did not consider either of these to be hazardous or a safety issue to the people in the neighborhood. 7. I do not consider Ms. Cooper's business a nuisance to our neighborhood. Further, Affiant sayeth naught. Nat Butcher EXHIBIT E Subscribe�swornbefore me, the undersigned notary public, on this day of , 2002- . �� -F, Sr'-, Notary Public My Commission Expires: NM O'r-'J(D AFFIDAVIT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Barbara Butcher, after being duly sworn, does depose and state that I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit: 1. I reside at 1105 Claywood, Little Rock, Arkansas. 2. I have lived at this residence for 31 years. 3. I am at home most times during the day and night. 4. I am aware of Ms. Cooper's new business which she operates from her home and generally have not observed traffic or cars parked on the street which would be a hazard. 5. I do not consider Ms. Cooper's business a nuisance to our neighborhood. Further, Affiant sayeth naught. EXHIBIT i Barbara Butcher 1' Subscribed a d sworn to before me, the undersigned notary public, on this day of , 20 PI�3MR5MO , - Notary Public My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Betty Brock, after being duly sworn, does depose and state that I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit: 1. I reside at 1111 Claywood, Little Rock, Arkansas, which is directly across the street from Becky Cooper. 2. I have lived at this residence since approximately 1997. While I am at work during the weekday, I regularly come home at lunch. 3. I am aware of the regular traffic flow on Claywood, as well as cars parked on the street. 4. There has not been a substantial increase in traffic which I believe would be a safety issue since Ms. Cooper has begun her work as a clothing consultant in August of 2001. 5. There has not been an increase in people traffic going in and out of Ms. Cooper's residence. 6. There has not been any physical changes made to the residence. Further, Affiant sayeth naught. c IT Subscribed and sworn to before me, day of My Commission Expires: the undersigned notary public, on this 20Da . — XLk�� A/ Notary Public EXHIBIT E 3 U co 0 Cd 0 bip C Cd c U U ip '' N v1 N '7 G4 0 0 0 � 0 0 �lct U C� ctU U LO td O www Z 0 0 0 k U y,U �U .&j x N 41-4 oa � as 0 C 1 cd 41 4J c� cd CCN 7:5b U cd U o C)o0 cq 1-4 EXHIBIT E 3 t D IV -n = N fly -a CA cD 0 rt W cn CD CD O Q O O cn C r -r v � 0 r 3 -h N cr n m co Cr tNn (D cn A% .i r CD � =r C) CD CC) -Pb, CD n cn cr•�+ � /1 V O CD m N 016< r— m a o pp ° _ m O CD j �� • CD ' = V/ 1 O m 0-O ' N C N y O C) m o CD (D X o � =3 coj Q Q Z � :: � O < Q CD O n m o 0 .p O co CD a CD cn cDi N =r CDo sucn C CL CD o CD 0 .I.s O O Cr o' O t --1 CD rt w O < CL Qi C r -r v 3 -h .� A Cc CD (D (D (D A% .i r T C) a at m O O 'fl 0 O � /1 V O iz a 3l< N 016< r— o o C Z rn _ ()CD ca �� N ..1. o� 0 N o � t January( s, 2002 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested Justification: Present Use of Property Z-7139 Bosley Construction, Inc. 4301 Oaks Bluff Drive Lot 1, Oaks Bluff Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to permit a covered porch addition which extends over a front platted building line. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Construction of a new single family residence Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residence STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: A new single family residence is being constructed on the property at 4301 Oaks Bluff Drive. The new single family structure is located 26 feet back from the front property line. Several other homes have recently been constructed on the lots to the north along the east side of Oaks Bluff Drive. There are also single family residences located across Oaks Bluff Drive to the west. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the construction of a 4 foot by 6 foot covered porch on the January 8, 2002 Item No.: 10 I front of the residential structure, extending three (3) feet over the 25 foot front platted building line. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments over platted building setback lines be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Additionally, Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that a front yard setback in R-2 zoning be a minimum of 25 feet. Staff is supportive of the building line variance. The very wide utility and drainage easement along the property's east boundary contains a drainage ditch and vastly reduces the buildable area of this lot. The construction of the covered porch would result in a 22 foot setback from the west property line and a 33 foot setback from the curb line of Oaks Bluff Drive. Staff does not believe that the building line encroachment will have an adverse impact on the adjacent property or general area, as the encroachment is very minimal and on the street side of the property. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line for the proposed house. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested building line variance subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as approved by the Board. 2. The covered porch must remain unenclosed beyond the platted building line. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. 2 January _8, 2002 Item No.: 10 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 I ® WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 December 24, 2001 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Neighborhoods and Planning 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Front Building Line Variance, Lot 1, Oaks Bluff Mr. Moore 1 -#4-/0 -Z- -7 131 Attached is the application for a reduced front building line on the above captioned lot. Please place this item on the agenda for the January 29, 2002 Board of Adjustment. The Owner, Mr. Bill Bosley will present this item to the Board. The depth of this lot was dictated by the location of the street and the floodway on the rear. The front building line encroachment will allow the Owner to cover that front porch. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Tim Daters CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING January 3, 2002 ITEM NO.: 11 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested Justification: Present Use of Property: Z-7140 Bosley Construction, Inc. 4411 Oaks Bluff Drive Lot 8, Oaks Bluff Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12, the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the floodway setback provisions of Section 36-341 to permit construction of a new single family residence which extends over a front platted building line and with a reduced setback from the rear property line and floodway. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Vacant single family residential lot Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residence STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comment. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned lot at 4411 Oaks Bluff Drive is vacant with some site work having taken place. There are newly constructed single family residences to the south along Oaks Bluff Drive and across the street to the west. There is a large drainage ditch immediately January a, 2002 Item No.: 11 north and east of the site. There is an existing wood screening fence along the property's east boundary. The applicant proposes to construct a new single family residence on the site which encroaches slightly over the front platted building line and is located 15 feet from the rear (east) property line, which is also a floodway line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow reduced front and rear building setbacks, encroachment over a front platted building line and a reduced setback from a floodway. The proposed residential structure will extend five (5) feet over the front platted building line at the structure's northwest corner with the southwest corner of the building being located behind the platted line. The structure will also be located 15 feet from the rear (east) property line and floodway boundary. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments over platted building setback lines be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Sections 26-254(d)(1) and 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance require minimum front and rear yard setbacks of 25 feet. Additionally, Section 36-241(h)(2)a. states that no structure shall be located closer than 25 feet to an established floodway line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The original plan submitted for this lot had the same house plan with a 22 foot rear setback and increased encroachments over the front platted building line. At staff's request, the applicant shifted the building back to the 15 foot easement line, thereby reducing the front encroachments. The front of the proposed house will now align with the other houses to the south, with the encroachment over the front platted building line based solely on the fact that the building line is curved to correspond to the curvature of the front property line. With a large drainage area located along the property's east and north boundaries, staff feels that the proposed rear yard setback is reasonable. In addition, Public Works supports the reduced building setback from the floodway, noting that access to the floodway for maintenance is gained from other areas. Staff does not believe that the requested Fa January _8, 2002 Item No.: 11 variances will have a negative effect on the adjacent properties or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line for the proposed house. 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 subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 28, 2002) 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 1 © WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 December 24, 2001 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Neighborhoods and Planning 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Front Building Line Variance, Lot 8, Oaks Bluff Mr. Moore . �e-7- --4 It F---7r�o Attached is the application for a reduced front building line on the above captioned lot. Please place this item on the agenda for the January 29, 2002 Board of Adjustment. The Owner, Mr. Bill Bosley will present this item to the Board. The depth of this lot was dictated by the location of the street and the floodway on the rear. This lot is at the end of the street and abuts property owned by the City of Little Rock on the North and East side. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Tim Daters CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING 01/08/2002 15:i"' 8211668 WHITE DATERS PAGE 01 t ; -4� l Me o -71 V 0 M= Monte Moore Frani Tim Daters CC: Date: 1/8/02 Re: Variance, Lot 8, oaks Bluff Monte, Attached is a revised survey for the above captioned lot. We have moved the house back to provide a 15' rear yard setback. In addition to our previous request we would ask for a variance of the following; 1. Section 36-254 (d) (3) to allow a 15' rear yard. A 25' rear yard is required by this Ordinance. 2. The provisions Section 31-176 0) which require a 25' vehicular access easement adjacent to floodways to allow construction of the residence 15' from the rear line. Please call me if you need any additional information. Thank you for your assistance. Tim Daters 0 Page 9 PROM BOSLEY CONS ION PHONE NO. 501 225 eO94 ' (YN C O N agents r, air... ,Ya b:t�n lta lo# Wit ft t ��pp?`oved by this'8iara: would be appreciated. 07 2002 01:53PM P2 by Mosley Construetion Im was also off caffs have been receivedd That home generated SU tl ry s �on;': .`::;`rito.�a�her plau •`we;bave .. s'a+triei�t::u'oifer:l.. s ready for 1.� O U LU w w 0 F - z LU U) Q LL O Q O m m WE 0 m ii c z w m Q LU Q z 01 LU i Q W N d .a9 y C-3 1-4 0 w F- o Q w `LwQ� o0 t -- I-- 0 LLQ C6U5 U LL Q CD Lr Z W LL U QZ J _ U Q' Z _ WE 0 m ii c z w m Q LU Q z 01 LU i Q C-3 0 w t -- I-- 0 o z C) o Z Q w LL U Ci J Z _ U z Q m Y LU2 LL U J WE 0 m ii c z w m Q LU Q z 01 LU i Q January 28, 2002 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Date: Chairman