Loading...
boa_10 28 2002LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES OCTOBER 28, 2002 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the September 30, 2002 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. The 2003 Board of Adjustment calendar was approved as presented. IV. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman Fred Gray, Vice Chairman Andrew Francis Gary Langlais Members Absent: Scott Richburg City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA OCTOBER 28, 2002 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Z -6524-B B. Z-7288 II. NEW ITEMS: 1. Z -3478-C 2. Z -5570-B 3. Z -6774-A 4. Z-7302 5. Z-7303 6. Z-7304 7. Z-7305 8. Z-7306 9. Z-7307 10. Z-7308 509 President Clinton Avenue 1617 S. Elm Street 1311 Rebsamen Park Road 12418 Cantrell Road 5513 S. Grandview Road 120 Noyant Drive 24 Warwick Road 4207 "A" Street 3211 Imperial Valley Drive 7619 Cantrell Road 11 Valley Estates Drive 5324 Sherwood Road N O Z3j N • �' /� _ a3RYaf nnvelHl ^ , • V o I LTB � � A MOYOL.. S3 a3H3aO � d ONIN l 13a 3 • 4 MOa 3MId Q O • Rd • m NViIIIYr 1103S $ N d llISa311Nn € AL6a3AINn SONWdS a3A}J < 00 3HOnH IddISS IA LO 1001NO a 3 moddys NHOP P 1. o Y aaodM>IavNs R S Oars Havd A3Naoa - �' • N o Nr oe sllnn Ana r. _ 3001a AHA ZAP km � S141 ALIa Nvnmr>s IWNMS ry ooz M IH S11Hn Alla s s � o O 0 October 28, 20u2 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z -6524-B Julia May Porbeck Larrison Revocable Trust 509 President Clinton Avenue South side of President Clinton Avenue, between Commerce and Sherman Streets UU Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-353 and the awning provisions of Section 36-357 to allow an awning and awning sign which do not conform to the River Market Design Overlay District standards. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT 0 Public Works Issues: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Commercial/Office Commercial/Office The sign encroaches on the public right-of-way. Obtain Franchise Agreement with Public Works. B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 509 President Clinton Avenue is occupied by a two-story commercial building. There is a paved parking area on the west side of the building, with another commercial building further west. The second floor tenant, Big Impressions, recently installed an awning (blue in color) on front of the building between two (2) existing awnings (green) for The Flying Fish restaurant. Additionally, a sign was screen printed on the front face of the awning. The applicant is requesting two (2) variances associated with the awning and awning sign. October 28, 2002 Item No.: A (Cont. The first variance request is from Section 36-357(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. This section states that awnings shall relate to the shape of the building opening. The transom over the building's doorway is rectangular -shaped. The awning which was installed over the doorway is barrel-shaped at the top. Therefore, the shape of the awning is not consistent with the building's,opening. The second variance request is from Section 36-353(a)(2)d. of the Zoning Ordinance. This section allows awning signs in the River Market District to have a maximum area of six (6) square feet. The sign which was screen printed on the awning face is approximately 17 square feet in area. Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. The River Market Design Review Committee (DRC) recently reviewed (August 13, 2002) the awning and awning sign and voted to recommend denial of this application to the Board of Adjustment. The general consensus of the committee was that the awning and awning sign needed to be redesigned. Staff agrees with the DRC and feels that the awning sign is too large and out of character with other awning signage within the River Market District. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 26, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the September 30, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 30, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the October 28, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the October 28, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. E October 28, 20u2 IRaIN, ILI[. WWWW14! STAFF UPDATE: On August 19, 2002 the River Market Design Review Committee met and reconsidered its vote of August 13, 2002. After further review, the DRC voted to approve the awning and sign as installed by the applicant. The DRC recommends a two-year review to assure the proper maintenance of the sign and awning. Therefore, staff will revise its recommendation as follows: Staff recommends approval of the sign and awning variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. A franchise must be obtained for the awning and sign. 2. A sign permit must be obtained. 3. A reinspection will be conducted by staff every two (2) years to assure proper maintenance of the sign and awning. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 28, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the November 25, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the November 25, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 big"- i.Mpressi©ns Date: 06/25/02 Zoning Enforcement Administrator 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4792 Attention: Monte Moore Re: BOA Review 509 President Clinton Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1729 501-301-9031 ph. 501-301-9032 fax http://www.big-impressions.biz swallace@big-impressions.biz I am seeking BOA approval for a sign and awning variance(s) within the RiverMarket District. Due to previous approvals by the DRC the amount of usable space left directed me to exercised my option to combine two of my three signs into one larger one (see attachment "a") Considerations in respects to color, shape and size were made by reviewing the existing conditions within the RiverMarket. The proposed awning is within the height requirements of a nine -foot height from the sidewalk and it projects only thirty inches from the building. This also matches the dimensions of the existing awnings installed on both sides (see attachment "a") After reviewing the sign and awning guidelines I believe that the only item for concern is: Sec. 36-353. Signs (3) Lettering The proposed overall awning sign is approx 36" in height and 54" in width. At this time I also propose to place an architectural enhancement hanging securely from the upper west sidewall of the building and or two permanent banner type holders similar to the ones installed on the Museum of Discovery. These would not be designatedsigns nor a type of advertisement. It would be more of a mural or living canvas changing from time to time with the subject matter to be continually approved by the DRC. I would use it to emphasize projects related to Downtown & the RiverMarket such as Race For The Cure, Riverfest, Big Downtown Thursday's and other special events. Additional content might also display various types of art from local artist and events. The canvas size would be proportional to the graphic's size and vary based on graphical content (see attached) River Market Frank Porbeck, Chairman fl -*O, rz Design Tim Heiple, Member Review Jim Schimmer, Member "A"'CommitteeMelissa Tanner, Member Patty Wingfield, Member Planning dndDevelopment • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock • Arkansas • 72201.501-371-4790 • fax 371-6863 August 20, 2002 7 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Big Impressions Chairman and Members, 2-66,7-4-i3 The River Market DRC reconsidered its vote of August 13. It met on August 19, 2002 and reviewed the awning and signage at 509 East President Clinton for Big Impressions. The DRC did approve the awning as submitted. The motion was made to approve the awning and signage as installed with a two-year review and noting the fact that it was installed illegally. The final vote was 3 yes, 1 noes and 1 recusal. T ank you, Brian Minya River Market DRC Staff October 28, 2002 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z-7288 Owner: Letha Marie Osborne Address: 1617 S. Elm Street Description: Lot 5, Block 8, Braddock's Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from Section 36-156 to allow a carport structure with reduced front and side yard setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues.- No ssues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 1617 S. Elm Street is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. There is an existing two -car driveway from Elm Street. An existing 10 foot by 18 foot detached metal carport structure is located at the southwest corner of the property and covers a portion of the driveway. The carport structure is flush against (but not attached to) the front of the single family residence, and is located on the front (west) and side (south) property lines. Section 36-156(a)(2)b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that an accessory structure be separated by at least six (6) feet from principal structure. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. requires a minimum front yard setback of 60 feet for accessory structures, and Section 36-156(a)(2)f. requires a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from these standards. As noted previously, there is October 28, 2002 Item No.: B (Cont. no separation between the accessory carport structure and the principal structure, and the structure has no setback from the front or south side property lines. Staff supports the requested variances. Staff's support is based primarily on the fact that the carport structure has been in place for years, with no complaints from neighbors. The City's enforcement staff observed the carport during a neighborhood inspection. Therefore, staff feels that it is reasonable to place the carport structure over the existing concrete parking pad. Although staff supports the variance requests, given the fact that the carport structure is not on a permanent foundation, staff feels that the variances should be approved for this property owner's use only. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances for reduced front yard setback, side yard setback and building separation associated with the accessory carport structure, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances be approved for the property owner, Letha Marie Osborne, only. 2. If the property is sold, or Ms. Osborne vacates the property, the carport structure must be removed from the site or moved to meet the minimum required setbacks. 3. The carport structure must remain unenclosed on the north, south and west sides. Staff will inspect the property every five (5) years to verify the ownership and occupancy of the property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2002) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the October 28, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the October 28, 2002 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. i► October 28, 2002 Item No.: B (Cont. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant recently revised the application by submitting an alternate carport plan. The alternate plan includes a permanent carport structure constructed and attached to the front of the existing residential structure. The structure would be approximately 18 feet by 23 feet and have a zero setback from the front and south side property lines. Section 36-255(d)(1) requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet and Section 26-255(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of 4 feet for this R-3 zoned property. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these requirements for the alternate plan. Staff does not support the variances associated with the alternate plan. Although staff has no problems with- the existing metal carport structure and will continue to recommend approval of it as noted in paragraph C. of this report, staff will not support the requested variances associated with the proposed permanent carport structure. Staff feels that the zero setbacks as proposed with the permanent structure are out of character and not compatible with the other single family structures in this area. Staff Recommendation (Alternate Plan): Staff recommends denial of the requested variances from Section 36-255 as associated with the alternate plan for a permanent carport structure. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 28, 2002) Letha Marie Osborne was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff described the requested variances, recommending approval (paragraph C. of this report) of the variances associated with the existing metal carport structure, and denial of the variances associated with an alternate plan for a permanent carport addition. Letha Marie Osborne addressed the Board in support of the application. Chairman Ruck asked if there was a particular design for the proposed permanent carport addition. Ms. Osborne gave a brief description, noting that the roof would be slightly slanted. She noted that the existing metal carport would be removed with construction of the permanent structure. Vice -Chairman Gray asked when the metal carport was installed. Ms. Osborne noted that it was installed six (6) years ago. Gary Langlais asked if there were plans (drawings) for the proposed permanent carport structure. Ms. Obsorne noted that the were none at this time. 3 October 28, 2002 Item No.: B (Cont. Chairman Ruck asked if any of the neighbors had a problem with the existing metal carport. Ms. Osborne stated that none of the neighbors were opposed to the structure. She noted that most neighbors didn't even know the structure was there. There was a motion to approve the variances from Section 36-156 associated with the existing metal carport structure, as recommended by staff. There was a brief discussion of the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. There was a second motion to approve the variances from Section 36-254 associated with the proposed permanent carport structure, as filed. There was a brief discussion of this motion. The second motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent. 0 Z -4pl- -6 2- -72-ge Letha Marie Osborne 1617 S. Elm Street Little Rock, AR 72204 RE: Variance for Lot 5, Block 8, Braddock's Addition To the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas August 12, 2002 To The Little Rock Board of Adjustment: On Tuesday evening, August 6, 2002, I arrived home from work to find a notice that the carport located in my front yard was in violation of Ordinance 36 -156A -2-C. The notice states that the referenced ordinance requires 60' placement behind the front property line. Therefore, I am hereby applying for a variance to, at a minimum, keep the existing portable carport, which is held in place with four (4) bolts. If possible, I would like to have a carport built onto the front of the house, this would cover the existing concrete to the property line. The above mentioned carport protects my car from the falling tree limbs, the tree is located next door, and other elements of nature, including hail. Thanking you in advance for reviewing my case. Sincerely, Letha Marie Osborne October 28, 2002 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z -3478-C Owner: Larry J. Meyers Address: 1311 Rebsamen Park Road Description: Lot 3, Top Cat Subdivision Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the easement provision of Section 36-11, in order to construct a building addition which extends across a platted building line and into a water line easement. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT Q Public Works Issues: No Comments. Landscape and Buffer Issues: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Commercial Commercial An upgrade in landscaping toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance equal to the expansion proposed (74%) will be required. Since this site is located within the designated "mature area" of the City, considerable flexibility with this requirement is allowed. C. Staff Analysis: The property at 1311 Rebsamen Park Road is occupied by a one-story, 6,886 square foot commercial building. There is paved parking along the north, east and west sides of the building. The property is accessed by way of a paved driveway from Rebsamen Park Road. October 28, 2002 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) The applicant proposes to construct a 5,140 square foot (one-story) building addition to the rear (east side) of the existing commercial structure. The addition will be used for additional storage. The proposed building addition will extend across a platted building line and into a 50 foot water line easement, as noted on the attached site plan. Section 31- 12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that any encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Section 36-11(f) of the Zoning Ordinance states that no building or structure shall be constructed over an easement. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the encroachments. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the proposed building addition is reasonable. Central Arkansas Water has no objection to the construction within the 50 foot water line easement, as noted in an attached letter. Aside from the encroachment over the platted building line, the proposed building addition conforms to the setback requirements for C-3 zoning. The existing paved parking areas on the site will be sufficient to meet the minimum ordinance parking standards for this commercial property. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the rear building line for the proposed addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the rear platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. Compliance with the Central Arkansas Water requirements, as noted in the attached letter. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 -378 September 23, 2002 Depa.rtment,of Planning and Development 723 West Markham. Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Lot 3 Top Cat Subdivision 1311 Rebsamen. Park Road Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith are 6 copies of a survey for above dated September 12, 2002. We respectfully request a permit to construct an extension on an existing building. The proposed extension will extend onto an existing fifty -foot (50') water line easement and across the existing rear building line. The rear building line follows along the West line of the fifty -foot (50') water line easement. There was an. application for a Conditional Use Permit for proposed mini -warehouses on, this site on. December 12, 1995. The file number is Z -378-B. Little Rock Municipal Water Works had no objection to construction on part of the fifty -foot (50') easement per a letter dated 7 September, 1995. Copy enclosed. We request being allowed to construct the building extension across the fifty -foot easement. We also request the rear building line be changed to follow the footprint of the proposed building extension. There is a drainage ditch across the rear, east, of this property. There is also a 100' railroad right of way adjacent to this property along the rear line. Respectfully submitted: Larry Meyers 10/16/2002 15:17 PA% 501 992 2491 CAW - ENGINEERING �J002 t. CENTRAL ARKANSAS WATER 18 October 2002 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Planning 723 West Markham Strut Little Rod, AR 72201 R8: ABAh'DON-NIENT OF WATERLINE EASEMENT —LOT 3, TOP CAT SUBDMSION Central Arkansas Water has no existing or planned facilities within the platted 50400t -wide waterline easement across Lot 3, Top Cat, Subdivision, less and except the south 30 feet th.e.reof. We have no objection to abandonment of the northerly portion of that easement as the water main in that portion of the easement has been abandoned. CENTRAL ARKANSAS WATER Mane . D�zgan, nnlne� n Assistant M MCD/s / enclosure 1500 WEST MARYLAND AVENUE • NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72120 • (501) 8348000 RECENT L. OCT 1 8 9002 BY: October 28, 2002 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Z -5570-B John E. Moore 12418 Cantrell Road North side of Cantrell Road, approximately 800 feet east of Sam Peck Road '0 • Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Sections 36-543 and 36-553. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Office Office 1. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, District (569-2260) for approval of sign placement prior to construction. 2. If AHTD approval is obtained, furnish approval documentation to Public Works and obtain franchise agreement from Public Works prior to construction. B. Staff Analysis: The PD -0 zoned property at 12,418 Cantrell Road is occupied by a one- story brick and frame office building which houses Moore Mortgage. There is a paved access drive at the southwest corner of the property. There is also an existing 8 foot high (8 feet by 4 feet) ground -mounted sign located between the office building and the front property line. The sign is set back approximately 20 feet from the front property line. October 28, 2002 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) The applicant proposes to remove the existing sign and construct a new ground -mounted sign within the sloped right-of-way area between the front property line and Cantrell Road. The proposed sign will be 6 feet high (including masonry base), with 32 square feet of sign area. The applicant is requesting the new sign location for improved sign visibility. Section 36-543(4) of the City's Zoning Ordinance states that signs placed on public property or public right-of-way are prohibited. Additionally, Section 36-553(b) requires that ground -mounted signs in office zoning be set back at least five (5) feet from property lines. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these requirements for the new sign location. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff does not feel that the request is reasonable. Section 36-346(f)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance allows a ground mounted sign with a maximum height of six (6) feet and a maximum area of 72 square feet for this property, which is located within the Highway 10 Overlay District. Staff feels that a sign larger than the existing sign (more sign area) could be constructed five (5) feet back from the front property line and provide the additional visibility as needed by the applicant. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 28, 2002) John Moore was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff briefly described the variances associated with the proposed ground -mounted sign, with a recommendation of denial. John Moore addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained the reasons for requesting the sign in the right-of-way. He noted that other signs in this area along Cantrell Road were set back approximately the same distance from the street as the sign he is requesting. He provided photos of these signs. Chairman Ruck noted that these other properties may have reduced right-of-way or a permit from the State. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if other variances for signs in the right-of-way had been approved along Cantrell Road. Staff noted that there had been none that they knew of. 2 l October 28, 20u2 Item No.: 2 (Cont. Vice -Chairman Gray stated that he did not support the sign being in the right-of- way. He stated that the applicant could install a new sign which met ordinance requirements and improve the sign visibility. Mr. Moore noted that other businesses have installed the signs he referred to earlier, in the past two (2) years. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, stated that no case sets a precedent for other cases. Andrew Francis stated that he thought the existing sign location was visible and briefly explained. The issue of sign visibility was briefly discussed by the Board and the applicant. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, noted that staff enforced the sign regulations equally. He noted that there appeared to be more right-of-way on the north side of Cantrell Road in this area. Mike Hood, of Public Works, noted that the Highway Department obtained the right-of-way in front of this property. He stated that it appeared the Highway Department obtained more right-of-way than the City would have, based on the slope of the property. The issue of the sign location was further discussed by the Board. Vice - Chairman Gray briefly discussed the Highway Department's right-of-way and noted that he did not want to penalize the applicant because he is on the wrong side of the road. The Board briefly discussed this issue. Mr. Carney briefly reviewed the issues to be considered by the Board. There was a discussion of amending the application to move the sign back on the property with a zero setback from the front property line. Mr. Moore amended the application accordingly. Staff noted support of the amended application subject to a sign permit being obtained for the new sign. There was a motion to approve the amended application (sign to be located on the applicant's property with a zero setback from the front property line) subject to a sign permit being obtained. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The amended application was approved. 3 MooreMo'rtgage A Delta Trust & Bank Company September 23, 2002 Little Rock Planning Commission Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham, 2nd Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 To Whom It May Concern: Little Rock Office 12418 Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72223 501-225-7703 1-800-235-7703 Northwest Arkansas Office 101 Parkwood, Suite A Lowell, AR 72745-9992 501-770-4700 1-800-474-2554 www.mooremortgage.com One of the goals of Moore Mortgage, Inc. is to support the controlled growth of the community in which we are a part. At present, we are requesting a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in order to relocate signage: Moore Mortgage, Inc.'s office at 12418 Cantrell Road, commonly referred to as the Highway 10 Corridor, has signage along an excessive slope, set back a considerable distance from the roadway and obscured by a natural tree line. A number of problems have developed due to the positioning of the current signage most notably traffic hazards due to drivers in search of our property. The proposed relocation would move the signage to level terrain and free from the dense growth of trees. The new location preserves the integrity of the Highway 10 Corridor yet gives drivers clear visibility to their intended destination allowing for a smooth flow in the traffic pattern and decreased driver distraction. We respectfully submit our request for a variance of the Zoning Ordinance and look forward to your response. Sincerely, John E. Moore President DELTATRUST Delta Trust & Bank October 28, 2002 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z -6774-A William and Peyton Woodyard 5513 S. Grandview Road Lot 46, Grandview Addition R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a carport/porch addition with reduced front and side yard setbacks, and which crosses a front platted building line. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 5513 S. Grandview Road is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. A concrete driveway at the northwest corner of the property serves as access. The property slopes from the front building line downward to the east. The applicant proposes to construct a porch and carport structure on front of the house. The carport structure will extend 25 feet out from the house, across a 30 foot platted building line, and be set back five (5) feet from the front property line. The structure will have a four (4) foot setback from the side (north) property line. The applicant notes in the attached letter that the structure will be unenclosed on the north, south and west sides, and l October 28, 2002 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) that the addition will have a flat or slightly angled roofline. The applicant states that the porch/carport addition is needed to provide covered access and parking for his family. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet, and Section 36-254(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet. Additionally, Section 31- 12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that any encroachment over a platted building line be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff feels that the requested five (5) foot front yard setback will be out of character and not compatible with the other residential properties in this area, even though the applicant is proposing to leave the structure unenclosed on the north, south and west sides. As a result of an inspection of the area, staff observed no other single family properties in this immediate area which had intrusions into the front yard setback as proposed by the applicant. 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 addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the variances as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 28, 2002) Bill and Peyton Woodyard were present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present in opposition. Staff briefly described the requested variances associated with the proposed carport/porch structure, with a recommendation of denial. Bill Woodyard addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented the Board with photos of the property with the proposed carport/porch addition noted on them. He noted that some of the notices to property owners within 200 feet of the site were late. Staff noted that the persons notified late indicated that they had no problem with the late notification. With a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent, the Board waived their bylaws and accepted the late notification. 2 t October 28, 2002 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) Mr. Woodyard described the proposed carport/porch structure and explained the reasons for requesting the variances. He explained the photos submitted to the Board. He discussed the setback of the proposed structure from the front property line and the street. He also described the proposed construction of the structure. He noted that the structure would have a low profile. He presented a petition of support from the surrounding property owners. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if a shorter structure which covered only a portion of the vehicles would work. Mr. Woodyard indicated that it might be a possibility. The issue was briefly discussed. Mrs. W. B. Sipes addressed the Board in opposition to the application. She stated that the carport/porch addition would not be compatible with the neighborhood and that it would decrease the value of her property. She also noted that the structure would cut off her view and make an existing drainage problem between the two houses worse. She noted that she has lived on the property for 40 years. Vice -Chairman Gray asked Mrs. Sipes if she would support a shorter addition which had the appearance of a porch. She indicated that she was opposed to any addition on this corner of the house. Chairman Ruck asked Mr. Woodyard if he had looked at putting the carport/porch addition on the southwest corner of the house. Mr. Woodyard noted that a carport structure at the southwest corner of the house would eliminate all of the trees in the front yard (4 large trees). Peyton Woodyard noted that the carport addition at the northwest corner of the house allowed the easiest access to the house. This issue was briefly discussed. Chairman Ruck asked about an apparent easement along the south property line. Staff noted that there appeared to be some sort of an easement along the south property line which served the property further to the east. The issue was briefly discussed. Andrew Francis noted that he did not support the requested variances, as the proposed structure is out of character with the neighborhood. Mr. Woodyard asked if a carport which extended 20 feet from the front of the house would be acceptable. Vice -Chairman Gray noted that he would like to see how the carport structure would work into the existing house. This issue was briefly discussed. Gary Langlais asked if an architect had done plans for the carport/porch addition. Mr. Woodyard stated that the plans were not yet ready. 3 October 28, 2002 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) Mr. Francis noted that he also had a problem with a shorter carport structure. Other alternatives to the proposed carport/porch structure were discussed. The issue of deferring the application was discussed. Vice -Chairman Gray asked Mrs. Sipes if she would support any type of addition to the front of the house. She noted that a circular drive would be a possibility. Vice -Chairman Gray stated that he would support a deferral and explained. The issue of deferral was discussed. Mr. Woodyard stated that he would like to defer the application. There was a motion to defer the application to the November 25, 2002 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. BILL & PEYTON WOODYARD 5515 SOUTH GRANDVIEW RD. LITTLE ROCK, AR 72207 W(501) 664-8044 H(501) 664-2753 September 27, 2002 Dept. of Planning & Development Board of Adjustments 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Sir or Madam: Attached, please find the required application and documents for making a request for a residential zoning variance. I am requesting this variance so that we can build a porch and carport to provide covered access and parking for my wife and expected twins. Currently, we have a 20 foot exposed walk through our yard to the parking pad. This house was built in 1975 with a one -car garage. Since that time, the garage was converted into a sitting area. When we purchased the home two years ago, the seller had removed the north/south walkway attaching the front walk with the driveway. The driveway was converted into a parking -pad 14 feet from the front of the house. Our plan is to build a covered front porch that extends from the front door to an open carport that is attached to the house and porch on the east side. Since the parking -pad starts 14 feet from the house, our cars currently extend 33 feet from the house. The new carport will only extend 25 feet from the house, bringing the cars to within five feet of the house and increasing the north/south line of sight by 8 feet. The porch and carport will be open on the north, south, and west sides, allowing a line of site through the structures. To limit the profile of each structure, the roofs of both will be flat or slightly angled into the roofline for drainage. Although this project will encroach on our front property line, there is an additional 13 feet to the street. This will help diminish the overall impression of the structures. Thank you for this consideration. If I you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me. Sincerely; Bill Woodyard IV 4 rt `art "d V� Rat '. is a �'s�ry; ai q J• a �; f ,;. - � ��� .s 1 October 28, 2002 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7302 James F. Holmes 120 Noyant Drive Lot 9, Block 43, Chenal Valley Addition (W Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an accessory structure with a reduced front setback and separation from the principal structure. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residence under construction Single Family Residential Construction of the foundation for a new single family residence has begun on the R-2 zoned property at 120 Noyant Drive. In addition to the new single family structure, the applicant proposes to construct a 673 square foot accessory building to the east of the principal structure. The accessory building will be connected to the principal structure by way of a porte cochere. All of the structure will be located behind a 25 foot platted building line which runs along the front of the property. The accessory building will be located approximately 26 feet from the front (street side) property line. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 60 feet for accessory structures. Additionally, Section 36-156(a)(2)b. requires a minimum separation of six October 28, 2002 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) (6) feet between accessory and principal structures. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these standards. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Based on the fact that the accessory structure is connected to the principal structure by way of a porte cochere, they will have the appearance of a single structure. Additionally, staff feels that the placement of the accessory structure in relation to the principal structure works well given the irregular shape of this lot. If the porte cochere was enclosed, heated and cooled space, the entire structure would comply with the ordinance required setbacks for a principal structure. Staff feels that the proposed accessory structure will have no adverse impact on the general area. The proposed construction is compatible with other, similar homes in the neighborhood. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 1► f , 4 JAMES F. HOLMES, INC ,Z — 73 � 2021 Wellington Woods Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72112 (501) 8218-65 September 17, 2002 Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 I, James F. Holmes, owner of James F. Holmes, Inc., a residential contracting company, licensed by the State of Arkansas Residential Building Contractors Committee, License No. 0101180603, a member of the Greater Little Rock Home Builders Association, and the Arkansas State Home Builders Association, submit the following request for a residential zoning variance. The lot in question is Lot 9, Block 43, La Marche Place, Chenal Valley. The attached survey proposes a residence to be constructed which includes a bedroom or office, bathroom, and single car garage to be attached by a porte cochere to the larger portion of the residence which includes among other features three additional bedrooms, two and one-half baths, and additional two -car garage. I learned upon submitting the plan and survey to the Department of Planning and Development that city building code requires a 60 foot setback for the portion of the residence that is attached with said porte cochere. Lot 17 is a very irregular shaped lot with two sides, and a large curved frontage. There is no rear dimension to the lot. The irregular shape of the lot does not lend itself to the 60 - foot setback and the design of the house. The design of the house would be seriously compromised without the feature in question. The Architectural Control Committee of Chenal Properties has approved both the house blueprints and site plans. I have observed residences of the same design with additions linked with porte cocheres in other subdivisions in Chenal Valley which apparently have been given the same zoning variance. Your granting of the variance for me would be greatly appreciated. erely, / Y J Holmes October 28, 2002 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-7303 Owner: John Elliott Address: 24 Warwick Road Description: Lot 6, Block 6, Breckenridge First Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow for the construction of an 8 -foot tall privacy fence. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 24 Warwick Road is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family -residence. A driveway from Warwick Road serves as access to the property. There is a six (6) foot tall wood privacy fence which encloses the rear yard portion of the property. The applicant proposes to remove the six (6) foot tall fence and replace it with an eight (8) foot high wood privacy fence along both side and rear property lines. Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement. The applicant notes in the attached letter that the primary reason for the eight (8) foot fence height is for privacy, as there is an elevated deck on the rear of the house. Additionally, the houses to the southwest are at a slightly higher elevation than this property. October 28, 2002 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the variance as requested by the applicant. Staff feels that the request is very minor and will have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties. The adjacent property owners on both sides of this property and to the rear are in support of the eight (8) foot high fence. Letters of support from these property owners are attached. Staff will recommend that a finished side of the fence face these adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained. 2. A finished side of the fence must face the adjacent properties to the sides and rear. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 OCT -17-2002 Oe:3(.rr0l'1cPROFESSIChI COUNSELIN 501-221-8686 TO:5013993435 ( 003%003 73o3 911.6/2002 Dear ,Mr. Moore, My name is John Pllion and jam, a Homeowner and resident in Little, stock, My address is 24 Warwick Rd.,'i-,R. 72205. My phone numbers aru (M) 224-4.290 and (W) 225-4512. My current privacy Pence has deteriorated, and i am planning on roplacing it. The current fence is the standard) six foot sleight wooden privacy Pence. i have noted that this fence does not prwido the intended privacy and .I am. hoping to mndify the height ofthe rvplacem.ont fence. The problem with the current ftnce is that I h nve a raised wooden deck in my backyard, The deck is lovel with. the ,floor of my hotne. Aum-yer, bc.Gju.c my ].lame is hui.lt on a perimeter ofstandard concrete blocks tine flacrr is a bit more than two feet: above ground level. (:nrtsequomlfrom my deck. I cAt7 see into my neighbor's yards. Also the land slopts uphill alightly for th.e neilghliors Lm'.. the.right side of mybramv. This creates furthor visibility problems for the standard six foot fence. Bo use Of the deaign of my neighborhood it vriII, be difficult for other hmeG to see the proposed feace clearly tmless they directly abutt my property, I am requesting perm imion for a replacement eight foot f'en.ce on both side yards and ih.e backyard, 7'hc pertiun of the fence with the gargs, feeing the street in frnnt of rely house, will remain six feet. Rcslrect8tlly��� 9A' - n Joh. Elliott z--73�)3 �� -7 9-17-02 I V (C k I 6& LL am a resident of the City of Little Rock. My address is _ 1� WO -C GO (, - Yv . My residence is directly next to Mr. Elliott's house and my property will directly abutt Mr. Elliott's privacy fence. I have seen the Ingle Fence Company estimate and I am aware the fence height will be eight feet in his backyard, and seven feet for a portion of the left side yard. I have no objections to Mr. Elliott's proposed fence. Print name: Viu-l- (...� ' I et Signed: &A date: 1-7 - aZ �Z--73 3.7 j 9-17-02 I n a" C 0 L C& 1 f E � am a resident of the City of Little Rock. My address is C� A bi . My residence is directly next to Mr. Elliott's house and my property will directly abutt Mr. Elliott's privacy fence. I have seen the Ingle Fence Company estimate and I am aware the fence height will be eight feet in his backyard, and seven feet for a portion of the left side yard. I have no objections to Mr. Elliott's proposed fence. Print name: ,a P, e, Signed ' 1E .. date: q— Jr? — 9-17-02 I am a resident of the pity of Little Rock. My Cr address is (96 V /6- (-9 V . My residence is directly next to Mr. Elliott's house and my property will directly abutt Mr. Elliott's privacy fence. I have seen the Ingle Fence Company estimate and I am aware the fence height will be eight feet in his backyard, and seven feet for a portion of the left side yard. I have no objections to Mr. Elliott's proposed fence. Print name: f Signed: date: J-0-02- h2 � 4 < 4 October 28, 2002 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7304 Susan F. Bell 4207 "A" Street Lot 8, Block 4, Pinehurst Addition R-3 Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow a detached carport structure with reduced front and side yard setbacks, and reduced separation from the principal structure. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-3 zoned property at 4207 "A" Street is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. A concrete driveway at the northeast corner of the property serves as access. On September 10 of this year the applicant installed a 10 foot by 20 foot metal detached carport structure over a portion of the driveway. The structure is located approximately 6.5 feet from the front property line, two (2) feet from the side (east) property line and one (1) foot from the principal residential structure. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory structures be located at least 60 feet back from front property lines. Section 36-156(a)(2)f. requires a minimum side yard setback of October 28, 2002 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) three (3) feet, and Section 36-156(a)(2)b. requires that accessory structures be separated from principal structures by at least six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements. Staff does not support the variance requests. Staff feels that the metal carport structure is out of character with the other single family properties in this area. The parking structures which exist in this general area are located in rear yards, with vehicular access taken from alley rights-of-way. There is a paved alley located along the south property line of this lot which could be used for vehicular access. There is ample space to relocate the carport structure to the rear yard area and meet the ordinance required minimum setbacks. As noted previously, the metal carport structure was installed September 10, 2002. The Zoning Enforcement staff issued a courtesy notice to the property owner on September 13, 2002. Therefore, this carport structure is different from several carport structures that the Board has dealt with recently, in that it has not existed on the site for a number of years. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 28, 2002) Susan Bell was present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present, in opposition. Staff gave a brief description of the proposed variances associated with the existing metal carport structure, with a recommendation of denial. Susan Bell addressed the Board in support of the application. She stated that moving the carport structure to the rear yard would mean removing a privacy fence between her property and an adjacent property. She stated that she would not feel safe with a parking structure in the rear yard. She stated that a carport in the rear yard would not protect her from the weather. Chairman Ruck asked if she could get from her house to the existing carport without getting in the weather. Ms. Bell noted that an overhang on the house kept her out of the weather and explained. 2 October 28, 2002 Item No.: 6 (Cont. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if any complaints had been received on the carport structure. Staff noted that a complaint had been received which initiated enforcement. Staff indicated knowledge of one (1) nearby property owner who opposed the application. Chairman Ruck noted that none of the single family properties in this area had encroachments into the front yards as the one proposed. He indicated that the metal carport structure encroaching into the required front yard was a detriment to the neighborhood. Vice -Chairman Gray asked who used the parking lot immediately east of this property. Ms. Bell stated that it was: used by UAMS. Vice -Chairman Gray asked if the carport structure could be pushed back any. Ms. Bell stated that it could not and explained. Chairman Ruck asked if any of the neighbors within this block used the alley for vehicular access. Ms. Bell stated that she knew of none. The issue of moving the carport structure to the rear yard with alley access was discussed. Winifred Minyard, owner of 4223 "A" Street, addressed the Board in opposition. She noted that seven (7) of ten house within this two (2) block stretch of "A" Street (south side) had alley access. She noted that the metal carport structure was out of character with the neighborhood, and explained. She indicated no opposition to the carport being located in the rear yard with alley access. There was a motion to approve the variances associated with the metal carport structure, as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 3 nays and 2 absent. The application was denied. Ms. Bell asked when the carport structure needed to be removed from the site. Staff noted that it had to be removed within 30 days of this date. 3 73G}�f Susan F Bell 4207 A Street Little Rock AR 72205 Little Rock Board of Adjustment 2nd Floor, City Hall Soo W Markham Little Rock AR September 26, 2002 I am requesting a variance from ordinance requirements for a carport at 4207 A Street in Little Rock. This is a temporary metal structure which is not attached to the permanent structure, but is bolted to the concrete driveway. The purpose of the structure is to protect my automobile from the elements, as well as to protect myself as I move to and from the house and automobile. The carport was installed on the property on September 10, 2002. Sincerely, 41--��aed Susan F Bell October 28, 2002 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-7305 Owner: Brad and M. C. Burney Address: 3211 Imperial Valley Drive Description: Lot 14, Block 31, Pleasant Valley Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a carport addition with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT Q Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The property at 3211 Imperial Valley Drive is occupied by a two-story rock and frame single family residence. The house is located approximately 33 feet back from the front property line. The lot contains a 25 foot platted front building line. An existing driveway at the southwest corner of the property serves as access. The applicant proposes to construct a 20 foot by 34 foot carport addition, with a 10 foot by 13 foot storage addition, at the southeast corner of the residential structure. The proposed addition will be located approximately 16 feet from the rear (east) property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet in R-2 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement. t October 28, 2002 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the requested rear yard setback variance. As noted previously, the single family structure is located 33 feet back from the front property line. If the structure were located on the 25 foot building line, the rear yard setback would not be an issue. Additionally, the property backs up to Central Arkansas Water's Jack Wilson water treatment plant (east). There will be no further single family development to the east. Therefore, staff feels that the reduced rear yard setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. The side yard setbacks proposed for the carport structure far exceed the minimum requirement of 8 feet. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow a reduced rear yard setback subject to a building permit being obtained for the construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 �z - a73o5 September 27, 2002 Board of Adjustments Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Variance Request Homeowner: Brad Burnay 3211 Imperial Valley Little Rock, AR 72212 Contractor: John Shaw Company License No. 0130900903 Purpose/Description: Construction of a 34' X 20' carport with a 10' X 13' storage building added to the east end of carport. All is to be under one roof with a straight ridge and gable at end over storage. This design allows the homeowner to use more of the backyard for family activities and is the most cost effective. The requested variance would consist of approximately 8' encroachment, which would make the distance from the property line approximately 17'. The property to the east where this variance is required belongs to the Little Rock Water Works and no residential construction is planned for the future. JOHN SHAW CONSTRUCTION Jray4z;6�� SHA October 28, 2002 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7306 Owner: One Source Address: 7619 Cantrell Road Description: South side of Cantrell Road, approximately 300 feet west of Mississippi Street Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-557 to allow a wall sign with no public street frontage. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Commercial Commercial The C-3 zoned property at 7619 Cantrell Road is occupied by the Cantrell Design Center and Arnold's Flooring America. There are three (3) commercial buildings on the site. The property was previously occupied by One Source Lumber Company. The applicant recently installed a 4 foot by 8 foot wall sign on the east facade of the commercial building nearest to Cantrell Road. The applicant's intent was to increase this sign to 8 feet by 8 feet, as shown on the attached drawing. However, the City's Zoning Enforcement Staff issued the applicant a courtesy notice based on the fact that the sign did not have direct street frontage. October 28, 2002 Item No.: 8 (Cont.) Section 36-557(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance read as follows: "(a) All on -premises wall signs must face required street frontage except in complexes where a sign without street frontage would be the only means of identification for a tenant." Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement. Staff supports the variance as requested. Staff feels that the variance request is very minor in nature. A sign on the east fagade of the building nearest to Cantrell Road will provide much better visibility to westbound traffic than a sign on the north fagade. The east building fagade is at a slight angle to, and not perpendicular with, Cantrell Road. Additionally, according to the applicant, a wall sign once existed on this east fagade for a previous building tenant. The proposed wall sign should have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow a wall sign on the east fagade of the northernmost commercial building subject to the following conditions: The wall sign must not occupy more than 64 square feet of the east fagade area. 2. A permit must be obtained for the sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 AR OLDfS Floorin AERICA September 26, 2002 Re: Sign Variance To: Little Rock Board of Adjustment 2^7306 We are requesting usage of the east facing wall of our property to erect a sign that will Pot exceed eight (8) x eight (8) in dimension. The signage will be comprised of our logos and brand names. The attached drawing is a preliminary, however the finished product Will be similar. We are requesting this variance due to the very high visibility of this particular wall. It is superior to other areas that have the required street frontage. Th , Steven Arnold ANSTRGELL CANTRELL DESIGN CENTER ■ 7619 CANTRELL ROAD ■ LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72227 cox 501-225-3840 0 FAX: 501-225-3679 0 WWW.ARNOLDSFLOORINGAMERICA.COM October 28, 2002 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7307 Owner: Wes Kirtley Address: 11 Valley Estates Drive Description: Lot 11, Pleasant Valley Estates Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the floodway setback provisions of Section 36-341 to allow construction of a single family residence with a reduced setback from the floodway. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: The applicant has asked for a variance from the floodway buffer requirements of Section 36-341(h)(2)a. that requires no structure to be located closer than 25 feet from the floodway line. The applicant is proposing to construct a residential structure within approximately 2 feet of the floodway line. A review of the flood study for that area shows that the 100 year base flood elevation is approximately elevation 425.0 and the velocity of flow is approximately 1.4 feet per second. The minimum ground elevation around the structure is around 418.0 and the proposed finished floor elevation is 426.0. The applicant is proposing to furnish a 27 foot wide private drive and public service easement near the floodway for access. Several homes in the area have also been built very close to the floodway line. October 28, 2002 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) Public Works does not believe it is good practice to construct a residential dwelling within such a close distance to the floodway. The close proximity to the floodway raises severe concerns that some encroachments may incidentally occur in violation of Section 13-62 of the Code of ordinances. However, given the past practice of constructing homes very near the floodway in this area, Public Works is not opposed to this construction as long as the following conditions are met. The applicant must obtain a flood hazard development permit from Public Works. The construction must meet the requirements of Sections 13-58, 13-59 and 36-341(h)(2)c. of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances and plans indicating compliance with these provisions must be submitted to Public Works for review and approval before a building permit is issued. Second, the applicant shall establish and maintain the floodway line throughout construction and shall conduct no construction activity within the floodway including temporary placement of fill or construction materials. Third, the applicant shall keep the floodway free of structures or other encroachments as required by Section 13-62 and 36-341(h)(2)d. Finally, the applicant shall file with the circuit clerk's property records an affidavit with wording approved by the Public Works Department noting that this property has been granted a variance from the floodway buffer requirements, that a portion of the property is regulatory floodway, and that there are restrictions on developing that portion of the property located in the regulatory floodway. B. Staff Analysis: Lot 11, Pleasant Valley Estates is zoned R-2 and is currently undeveloped and wooded. There is a creek and floodway along the southern boundary of the lot. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story single family residence on this lot. The proposed residence will be set back 53.5 feet from the front property line and 25 feet from the side (south) property line. The southern one-half of the proposed residence will be located within the floodplain. Section 36-341(h)(2)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance states the following: "a. No structure shall be closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any established floodway line." The south wall of the proposed residential structure will be setback 2 to 2.5 feet from the floodway lirie, and approximately 15 feet from the top of the creek bank. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for this reduced setback. 6 October 28, 2002 Item No.: 9 (Cont. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. With floodway setback variances, staff relies heavily upon the review and recommendation of the Public Works Engineering Staff. The Engineering Staff has stated that they are not opposed to the construction of the new residence, subject to several conditions as noted in their comments (paragraph A. of this report). The proposed residential structure exceeds all of the minimum building setback requirements for R-2 zoning. As a point of reference, the existing single family residence directly across Valley Estates Drive is setback approximately the same distance from the top of the creek bank as this proposed residence, with a zero setback from the floodway line. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested floodway setback variance, subject to compliance with all of the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of this report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 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 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 0 ® WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. [� 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 September 27, 2002 Ms. Donna James City of Little Rock Neighborhoods and Planning 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Lot 11, Pleasant Valley Estates Residential Zoning Variance Ms. James, -�' - �Z— 73c--7 Attached are 3 copies of the survey for Lot 11, Pleasant Valley Estates. The owner is requesting a zoning variance from Section 31-176j to permit construction of a residence closer than 25' to the floodway. A 25' setback from the floodway will reduce the effective width of the lot such that a typical residence cannot be constructed on the balance of the lot. The attached survey shows the proposed residence without the 25' setback. Please do not hesitate to call if you need any additional information or have any questions. Best Regards, Aldo�— Larkin Gieringer CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING October 28, 2002 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7308 Charles and Caroline Bell 5324 Sherwood Road Lot 168, Prospect Terrace No. 2 R-2 A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a room addition with a reduced side yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 5324 Sherwood Road is occupied by a two- story brick and stucco single family residence. Access to the property is gained by way of a concrete driveway from Sherwood Road. The applicant is proposing to construct an 18 foot by 29 foot building addition to the rear of the existing single family structure. The addition will be two- story construction, with a den on the ground floor and a master bedroom upstairs. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. The proposed building addition will have a 1.7 foot setback from the west side property line, which would be a continuation of the side yard setback of the existing residence. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for the October 28, 2002 Item No.: 10 (Cont. reduced side yard setback. The applicant is requesting the 1.7 foot side yard setback in order to maintain the existing side yard setback and maximize the remaining rear yard area. Staff is not supportive of the reduced side yard setback variance, as requested. Although the existing residence has a 1.7 foot side yard setback, staff feels that a three (3) foot setback would be more appropriate and reasonable, as required for accessory buildings. Staff feels that there is ample space in the rear yard to provide a three (3) foot side yard setback and not adversely impact the remaining rear yard area. Staff would possibly have a different opinion of the request, if the applicant could show structural reasons why the addition must be constructed as requested and shown on the attached site plan. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the side yard setback variance, as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 28, 2002) Charles Bell was present, representing the application. Staff noted that Mr. Bell wished to amend the application. Mr. Bell stated that the application would be amended to increase the proposed side yard setback (west side) from 1.7 feet to 3 feet, as suggested by staff. Staff supported the amended application. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved, as amended, with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. K CIDA70- 7 oY BALFOUR PRINTING COMPANY INCORPORATED -'- Tti.1 tC bS A -f-, 0 rj.4-o VVI o V -t-, IV 12 t �► GAF �� P.O. Box 3444 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 • (501) 374-2363 • FAX(501)371-9029 CDA72) BALFOUR PRINTING COMPANY INCORPORATED f7o,n., f� +�ztl 0 6. A L-rG U LO C --r-4 C4�IT-74l i-� ',� S T c�.r � 4-j!j f,�L•�G�'y�B N- C, S o r� �. Y i • rs-e�rice .civ, (►- Pao 'EecT y L—fjr.LL a-6 `7 F ec F 6 -,,- r ?`! d�r� �Q e �4_vj 0 rale -f- -i3 y -T-14,c cz�-- y , -F l+=5 Hipp L41F a P— P.O. Box 3444 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 • (501) 374-2363 • FAX (501) 371-9029 Ell z D rn D m z All C J (D (D I x ;a r- G) n --qC) -n C z D �zm' D:z=G� m i cD - m n Z, X cl) Cl) D � G) - m> m z 1DCny�z�' n w �r mm ol. c' D m i cn z x � ml C D � C) m O - m D o C) O � � � m w �r D m i October 28, 2002 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Date:�9L/. 25 Zooz 2�/ �rz Chairman Secr y -----