Loading...
boa_03 26 20011\ itla �.t%! W R+� e.b#�?4w� YK,...iR. r a.•... : ,s ,. LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES MARCH 26, 2001 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 February 26, 2001 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman Norm Floyd, Vice Chairman Fred Gray Gary Langlais Scott Richburg Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson and Steve Giles I. NEW ITEMS 1. Z-6986 2. Z-6987 3. Z-6988 4. Z-6990 5. Z-6991 6. Z-6992 7. Z-6993 LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA MARCH 26, 2001 2:00 P.M. 1800 North Grant Street 820 Louisiana Street 59 Flintwood Drive 127 Fairview Road 6124 Northmoor Drive 25,000 - 25,100 Chenal Parkway 2222 Singleton Cove T— o O — 3Nld ` V nnaalHl T- d �J co 0 � n U +J goNo Nar1a39 ■ N NItlW o v � AtlMOtl0a8 HOW 153H0 a3H3aO Nplhp , ONIN IN _ w _ 0 \R�g0l o MOa000M � 3NId f3�dIS N 3NId HJyy as 3 N0111Wa 11005 N s SJhiya6 N6ad 6163 i �j ti '— yr O y�JJ .-. Al ISa3AINn 8= USd]AiNn u w 3HOnH FT tots SONIad 63439 o Iddiss 11 N Q� 1001H0 Q alona3s3a � M06aa8 NHOP `Q 3NNI3H _ Oa033zioms o as 3l 9a s o SIOaaS o� 6VH8ad GN00a 0 s Na 08 S11WIl A110 — � w 39016 AWU� N,JbpJ��blS o v W ORg\t rfl-J-rl c 0 U �� p r GVH CRyStp\. Ntlnllln5 16VM31S � o S11WIl AlIQ�=2y �dpinp 3WON63d W Mach 26, 2001 Item No.: 1 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property Staff Report: A. Landscape Review: Superior Federal Bank 1800 N. Grant Street Lot 5, North 46.5 feet of Lot 6 and Lot 8, Block 9, Mountain Park Addition O-3 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-281, the parking provisions of Section 36-507 and the buffer requirements of Section 36-522. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Full Service Bank Bank drive-thru teller service only The site plan submitted does not provide for the 9 foot wide street buffers along North University Avenue and Cantrell Road required by the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, it does not provide for the 9 -foot wide landscape strips along North University and along the northern and a portion of the southern perimeters of the site required by the Landscape Ordinance. Since this site is located within the designated "mature area" a 25% reduction is allowed. However, the plan submitted is below this minimum width requirement of 6.7 --feed-To—reduce the—wrdth 1�elow-this minimum requires a - variance by the City Beautiful Commission. B. Public Works Issues: 1. Proposed building is located in MSP right-of-way required for Cantrell Road. M� _.:h 26, 2001 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) 2. A 20' radial dedication is required at the corner of Cantrell and Grant. 3. Cantrell Road is classified on the MSP as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55' from centerline is required. 4. 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. 5. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 6. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. C. Staff Analysis: A Superior Federal Bank Facility is located on the 0-3 zoned property at 1800 North Grant Street. The bank has also acquired an 0-3 zoned lot located across the alley, west of the bank property. The bank proposes to raze the existing bank building and replace it with a drive-through teller only facility. The remainder of the bank's functions are to be located in an existing C-3 zoned building across Grant Street to the east. The recently acquired lot across the alley to the west is to be developed as parking for employees. All customer traffic to the new teller facility will be vehicle traffic only; there will be no public parking or "walk-up" customer traffic. The new teller facility will consist of a small (12' X 501) building with a large canopy that extends over 5 traffic lanes. Four lanes will be teller lanes with the fifth being an ATM lane. Each lane will have stacking space for 5 vehicles. The structure, building and canopy, will meet or exceed the required setbacks on the north (side), east (front) and west (rear). The bank is required to dedicate 25 feet of additional right-of-way for Cantrell Road. The proposed new teller building extends 5.7 feet into the new right-of-way. The code requires a 10 -foot side yard setback, to be measured from the new right-of-way line. Since the 11 new parking spaces proposed for development on the newly acquired lot are separated from the teller and bank facilities by an alley and Grant Street, they are considered off-site parking and a variance is required. 2 M(. -,;h 26, 2001 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) The street buffer along the North University Avenue perimeter of the new parking lot falls slightly below the 9 feet required by the Ordinance. Since the teller facility building actually extends across the property line on the Cantrell Road perimeter (once the right-of-way is dedicated) the buffer on that perimeter also falls below the 9 feet required by the Ordinance. Staff does support the variance to allow the off-site parking to be located on the newly acquired lot. This lot is well within walking distance to both the teller facility and the new bank location. The buffer variance on the University Avenue perimeter is minor and, with a small modification, may not be necessary at all. The issues related to the proposed location of the teller building itself are more complicated. As proposed, nearly half of the building will be located in the public right-of- way. A franchise would be required to allow the building to be constructed in the right-of-way. It is questionable whether it is good public policy to allow this to occur. Initial responses from other City departments are not favorable. Staff could support a 0 setback on the south (Cantrell Road) perimeter, once the required right-of-way is dedicated. This can be accomplished by eliminating one of the drive-through teller lanes and moving the building to the north. This would still leave 3 teller lanes, an ATM lane and a pass lane. Each of the teller and ATM lanes are capable of stacking 5 vehicles each. Even that level of activity on what will be a 70' X 140' lot seems on the verge of excessive. If the building were moved to provide a 0' side yard setback on the Cantrell Road perimeter, staff could also support a reduction in the buffer on that side. Until such time as the road is ever widened, the additional 25 feet of right- of-way would be landscaped yard. A separate issue that is mentioned here for informational purposes only concerns landscaping. There are areas where - ----- - -- ---the-p--roposed landscaping--f-al-l-s b -slow --the minimum -required -by--- the ordinance. Variances from those standards can only be approved by the City Beautiful Commission. 3 M�_ch 26, 2001 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the off- site parking to be located on the lot located west of the alley and of the buffer variance to allow a reduction on the University Avenue perimeter of that parking lot subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any variance or waiver of the requirements as may be granted by the Board of Directors or the Director of Public Works. 2. Compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance including any variance or waiver of those requirements as may be granted by the City Beautiful Commission. Staff does not recommend approval of the requested variance to allow the proposed teller building to be located across the property line and to extend into the right-of-way for Cantrell Road. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2001) William Putnam and Charlie Peden were present representing the item. There were several objectors present. Staff informed the Board that a revised site plan had been submitted in which the proposed teller building had been moved out of the master street plan right-of-way. A 0' side yard setback was now requested on the Cantrell Road perimeter. Staff recommended approval of the requested off-site parking, buffer and setback variances subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. William Putnam stated that he had no comments but would prefer to answer questions and respond to comments raised by those present in opposition. ------ Norm F--oyd—aommented that—he irad a problem wi-tfi the teSler ------ -- building being either in or immediately adjacent to the right-of- way. Mr. Putnam responded that the requirement to dedicate 25 feet of property for right-of-way created the need for the reduced setback. Mr. Floyd stated that he would prefer to see the building centered on the site with the drive-through lanes on either side. Mr. Putnam responded that the bank and its 4 I Mach 26, 2001 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) architect had determined that the proposed design was the most efficient for serving its customers. Mr. Ruck asked if there would be a problem with not having a pass-through lane. Mr. Putnam responded that the ATM lane would serve as a pass-through lane. Mr. Putnam stated that the driving force behind the proposal was the City's request that the bank do something about customers stacking behind the one existing teller window and blocking traffic in Grant Street. In response to a question from Norm Floyd, City Traffic Engineer Bill Henry described the typical construction of a principal arterial street. Moise Seligman, owner of the property at 6020 Cantrell Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated the bank's new development would create traffic problems that would negatively impact the tenant of his building. Billie Seligman chose not to speak. Jan Woods, daughter of Jeanette Corder who is part-owner of the adjacent commercial development at 5901-5921 "R" Street, spoke in opposition. She stated the bank had leased space in a building owned by Ms. Corder and her partner Frances Fields in a building across Grant Street without telling them of its plans for the property at 1800 N. Grant. Ms. Woods stated the bank's proposal would eliminate access to the loading docks and dumpsters located at the rear of the buildings at 5901-5921 "R" Street. She asked if there was not a prescriptive easement that would allow continued use of Superior's property to access the dumpsters and loading docks. She also voiced fears that increased bank traffic could lead to a pedestrian accident if a bank customer exiting the teller facility turned north on the alley, between the commercial buildings at 5901-5921 "R" Street. Jeanette Corder chose not to speak, deferring to her attorney Geoffrey Treece. Mr. Treece addressed the Board and stated he felt there was an issue about whether there was a prescriptive easement to allow continued access to the dumpsters and loading docks. Mr. Treece stated that he understood that was a separate issue, perhaps to be decided by the courts. He stated that he felt the proposed level of development was too intense for the small site and 5 M( Bch 26, 2001 Item No.: 1 (Cont. generated traffic problems. Mr. Treece stated that he felt Superior should address the issue of continued access to the rear of the buildings at 5901-5921 "R" Street to avoid possible litigation. Phil Olinghouse, owner of The Toggery at 5919 "R" Street, spoke in opposition. He also voiced concerns about continued access to the loading dock on the rear of his building. He stated that delivery trucks would have no choice but to park in the alley to unload, blocking Superior's drive-through lanes. Mr. Olinghouse stated that it was difficult to access either Cantrell Road or University Avenue from the bank site. He stated he felt Superior's proposal to go from one drive-through window to 5 was excessive. Norm Floyd asked if the site plan could be reversed so that traffic would access the bank site from the west and exit to the east. Bill Henry responded that such a proposal would funnel all of the traffic onto Grant Street, where the current proposal gave two points of exit, the alley and University Avenue. Frances Fields chose not to speak, deferring to her daughter Libby Williams. Ms. Williams voiced concerns about bank traffic turning north on the alley. She also stated that delivery trucks would block the alley and the bank's teller lanes. Ms. Williams stated that the bank's representatives had refused to meet with Ms. Fields and her tenants. Jerry Makowski, tenant of the building at 6020 Cantrell Road, spoke in opposition. He stated he had limited access to his property that would be impacted if Superior's plans were approved. He also brought up the issue of traffic safety and presented photographs showing traffic in the area. Mike Pierce, owner of Papa John's Pizza in the abutting "R" Street building, spoke of his concerns regarding continued access to the dumpster and the increase in traffic on the bank site. He also stated that Superior had refused to meet with area businesses. --- -- — _ _- ----- - - arse -Se -i Macri interrupted and- question whether any board members had been to the site. William Ruck stated he wanted to hear staff's response to the issues that had been raised thus far. C Mr _ch 26, 2001 Item No.: 1 (Cont. David Hamilton, of Public Works,'stated any approved variances should include the condition that Superior upgrade the alley to provide better access to Cantrell Road. He acknowledged that any regrading of the alley could further impact access to the property at 6020 Cantrell. Bill Henry confirmed Mr. Putnam's statement that the City had asked Superior Bank to come up with a plan that provided more and better stacking space at the drive -up tellers in order to address the problem of customers blocking Grant Street and Cantrell Road. Mr. Henry stated that he did not feel that there would be a large increase in customer traffic to the site just because there were more drive-through teller windows. In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Henry stated that it was his opinion that Superior's plan would work the way it is proposed. Norm Floyd commented that there was a problem accessing Cantrell Road and that he felt this plan created too much traffic on the site. William Ruck asked if the Cantrell/University intersection area was an accident-prone situation. Mr. Henry responded that it was one of the top 5 accident locations in the state. He stated he felt Superior's plan would make the situation better. In response to a question from William Ruck, Mr. Henry stated that the proposed additional stacking space was a definite improvement. At William Ruck's request, Dana Carney of the Planning Staff outlined the specific variance requests. Jerry Makowski addressed the Board and questioned Mr. Henry's assessment of the traffic situation. Mr. Henry reiterated his opinion that he felt Superior's plan would improve traffic in the area. Mr. Henry stated that more teller lanes did not necessarily mean more customer traffic. He stated the City's primary concern was getting the customer traffic off of the street. Mr. Henry stated that the City had not received -- comp�ints from customers trying to exit the site, but rather about traffic stacking up entering the site. Mr. Henry stated the site may not have the most advantageous access but it has the best that it has to work with. Jan Woods reiterated her concern that more teller lanes would result in more traffic on the site. 7 M( _:h 26, 2001 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) Rodney Getchell, owner of Hestand's at 5915 "R" Street, spoke of his concern about having continued access to the loading dock and dumpster. William Putnam addressed the Board and stated that all that was being done was in response to the City's direction to address the problem of customers blocking Grant Street. He stated Superior had tried to locate another site in the area but could not, so the decision was made to divide the bank's operations, leaving only the drive-through facility on this site. Mr. Putnam stated that Superior had worked with staff to devise a plan that worked best. He stated the multiple lanes would spread out the customers and reduce the possibility of traffic backing into the street. Mr. Putnam stated that a title search had revealed nothing that allowed access across the bank property to reach the loading dock and dumpster on the abutting property. He stated the Chairman of the Board of Superior had expressed concern that allowing continued access across the bank property was a liability. Mr. Putnam stated that the proposal was not going to triple or quadruple business but was going to address traffic concerns related to the existing customers. Norm Floyd asked why the Bank had not met with the neighbors. The response was that the plan was in flux and the decision was made at the corporate level not to meet. Mr. Floyd commented that a meeting might help. Geoffrey Treece asked if the bank was required to have all of the parking spaces shown west of the alley. Dana Carney responded that they were not but that the bank was providing extra spaces since parking was at such a premium in the Heights. Mr. Treece asked that the item be deferred to allow the neighbors to meet with Superior. Mr. Putnam responded that he could not accept a deferral because the project was behind schedule. He stated the bank was not requesting any variances that were unreasonable and had done everything requested by the City. He ----- as--ed--if—he—c®u�d—have—a—decision . Phil Olinghouse stated the issue was stirring up the neighborhood and asked that the Board deny the request. Mr. Putnam stated the bank was not stating that it wouldn't work with the neighbors. C M( _ch 26, 2001 Item No.: 1 (Cont. Jerry Makowski reiterated his opposition. Dana Carney reiterated the various issues for the Board. He noted that the buildings at 5901-5921 "R" Street were built with a reduced rear yard setback of 0 feet as a result of Board of Adjustment approval in 1962. He noted that the 1962 plan for those buildings showed service entrances and dock access to be taken from the alley, not from the abutting property. Mr. Carney noted that the City's traffic engineer had voiced definite support for Superior's proposed plan. He outlined the particular variance requests and noted that the bank could erect a fence and landscaping along its northern perimeter, blocking off the loading docks and dumpsters, with or without the Board's approval. Norm Floyd thanked Mr. Carney for pointing out what could be done. He stated he still felt that Superior was proposing to overbuild the lot and that he had to oppose the issue. A motion was made to approve all requested variances subject to compliance with the conditions recommended by staff and the additional condition proposed by Public Works that the alley be improved to the City's specifications. The vote was 2 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Richburg). Since the item failed to receive 3 votes either in favor or against the issue, the item was deferred to the April 30, 2001 meeting. William Ruck voiced his opinion that increased traffic was his primary concern. He stated he felt there would be an increase in traffic if the Board approved the variances and that the bank should either find another site or reduce the size of the proposed facility. Gary Langlais stated that he felt it would be advantageous for all parties to meet prior to the item returning to the Board. Fred Gray stated there were some issues that could not be handled by the Board of Adjustment. He also encouraged a meeting to be arranged between the parties. 9 PUTNAM REALTY INC. SUITE 1820 UNION NATIONAL BANK BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS'72201 PHONE AC 501376-3616 February 15, 2001 Public Works IAtiI\f.r,.;E,' Special Programs City of Little Rock NEWROCK 701 W. Markham, Room 211 PARKING DECK Little Rock, Ar 72201 .s TRAVELERS INSURANCE BUILDING -1 The Superior Federal Bank building was constructed JONARD SON approximately 40 years ago, .and has remained open as a RESTAURANT banking facility until this time. r+ VILLAGE SHOP However, the City advised us (Superior Federal Bank) CENTER that the modern way of banking via drive-thru, has created a } change and a traffic congested situation. STORYBOOK VILLAGE ;, The Bank was advised of the problem and took it upon GLENWOOD themselves to correct the situation by moving all inside HEIGHTS banking across Grant Street in a new office (leased). HOWARD JOHNSON The present building will be demolished and tellers MOTEL windows installed with servicing tubes, creating a magazine SCHOOLWOOD area for 20 cars. No parking on site, will be allowed a ALLENDALE See the attached designs by the architects. r{ JAMESTOWN APARTMENTS Employee p yee parking will take place on a recently acquired site for parking. WINDAMERE APARTMENTS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL SPECIALISTS i f 1 BUSINESS COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTSv;. ' `1 REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS i .r -) DIVESTMENTS & ACQUISITIONS �-4 • APPRAISALS Page 2 A great deal of study was done before the subject plan was decided on. Turning movements, ingress, egress were analyzed. The present design was arrived at thru a great deal of discussion with the architects. When the present building is razed, it changes the footprint and therefore allows the City to ask for an additional 10 feet of setback from the center line of Cantrell Road. The City already had 45 feet. The present building set on this line - the addition requirement makes a 55 foot setback. The above increase caused the Bank to have to ask for a Franchise on the additional 10*feet required by the City for right-of-way,in order to solve the problem as set forth in the letter to the Branch Manager, attached hereto. W.B. Putnam, Applicant WBP/jh M( -ch 26, 2001 Item No.: 2 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Landscape Review: Metro Center Health Clinic, LLC 820 S. Louisiana Street Block 88, Original City of Little Rock UU Variances are requested from the Urban Use development criteria of Chapter 36, Article 5, Division 6 The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Vacant building and parking lot Credit union with drive-thru teller, offices and parking lot Any landscaping that is removed must be re-established. B. Public Works Issues With Building Permit: 1. A 20' radial dedication of right-of-way will be required at all corners. 2. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. 3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Mc_ ch 26, 2001 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) C. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned block bounded by West 8th, West 9th, Center and Louisiana Streets contains a 22,000+ square foot office building and an associated parking lot. The building has been vacant since the previous occupant, Metro Center Health Clinic, an entity of St. Vincent Health System, ceased operation. Telcoe Federal Credit Union, located across Louisiana Street to the east, proposes to purchase the property. Telcoe proposes to occupy 10,000+ square feet of the building and to construct a drive-through teller facility on the property. The remaining 12,000+ square feet of the building will be leased to a tenant. The drive- through teller facility consists of a canopy covering 5 lanes, 4 teller lanes and 1 ATM lane. Each lane is capable of stacking 5 vehicles. The facility will be built on the existing parking lot on the south side of the block, in front of Telcoe's portion of the main building. The tellers will actually be located in the main building, at right- angle to the drive-through lanes. Only slight modifications will be made to the existing parking lot and drives to accommodate the proposed drive-through facility. The UU Urban Use zoning district was created on March 7, 2000 with an effective date of September 7, 2000. The majority of the "core" of downtown Little Rock was rezoned to UU. The purpose of the UU district was to create a compact, dense, distinguishable core area that provides for a variety of office, civic and business uses. The UU district contains design criteria, the intent of which are to develop a pedestrian oriented atmosphere. One of the development criteria is: No new drive-in or drive-through facilities may be visible from or take directed access from a primary street. Primary streets are listed as: Capitol Avenue, Broadway, Byrd, Center, Chester, Commerce, Cross, Cumberland, Louisiana, Main, Markham, 9th, Scott, 7th (west of Center), Spring and State Streets. 2 Ma -ch 26, 2001 Item No.: 2 (Cont. The proposed drive-through banking facility is visible from, although it does not take directed access from, 9th and Louisiana Streets. The UU district has a front "build -to -line." All new development is required to build to the front property line, other than along portions of Capitol Avenue and Chester Street. This property fronts onto Louisiana Street and the drive-through canopy is proposed to have a setback of 130 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. When balancing the literal application of the Code with the positive aspect of redevelopment of a vacant block located in the core of downtown, it was felt that it would be appropriate to grant the requested variances. The drive- through facility is being built over an existing paved parking lot, an existing vehicle use area. Allowing the structure to be placed as requested provides for adequate, safe stacking space with controlled ingress and egress. Telcoe has submitted two proposed site plans, with only minor differences. One plan shows the canopy being erected over an easement remaining from the abandonment of an alley that extended through the block, from West 8th to West 9th Streets. The second plan shows the canopy being erected east of the easement. The Board of Directors will hold a public hearing on April 3, 2001 to consider abandonment of the easement. There are no existing or proposed utilities in the easement. All utility companies have stated that they have no objection to abandonment of the easement. D . Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances to allow the proposed drive-through teller canopy subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any variance or waiver of those requirements as may be grantee by the Board of Directors or the Director of Public Works. 2. Compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance. 3. Compliance with the remaining provisions of the Urban Use District. 3 Mach 26, 2001 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2001) David Carpenter and Dickson Flake were present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed under the "Staff Recommendation" above. Norm Floyd commented that he had not seen the sign advertising the public hearing on the site. David Carpenter responded that he had posted the sign on the day he received it from staff and that the sign had been placed on the northeast corner of the building. Mr. Floyd stated that he accepted Mr. Carpenter's explanation. A motion was made to approve the requested variances subject to compliance with staff's recommended conditions. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 4 REALTORS February 19, 2001 Mr. Dana Carney Zoning and Subdivision Manager City of Little Rock 500 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Carney: Enclosed for your review is an application submitted on behalf of Metro Centre Health Clinic, L.L.C. to the Board of Adjustment for approval of an auto bank facility to be located in the block between Louisiana and Center Streets, 8th and 9th Streets, in Little Rock. The block which is the subject of this application was re -developed by Metro Center Health Clinic, L.L.C., an entity of St. Vincent Health System, for a downtown medical clinic. It was staffed by full-time primary care physicians and rotating specialists to serve the business community and the downtown neighborhoods. The venture was not successful, and the newly -constructed facility has essentially been closed for several months. It has only one occupant, a physical therapist. St. Vincent Health System does not intend to reopen the facility, and it has been offering the real estate for sale. Telcoe Federal Credit Union, currently a neighbor to the subject property on the east side of Louisiana Street, has experienced considerable expansion and the need for new facilities to serve its members. One of its significant deficiencies is the lack of a modern, convenient auto bank. Telcoe Federal Credit Union has been a significant stabilizing_ influence in this business neighborhood following relocation of Little Rock's main library. Similarly, Telcoe's management and board thinks that the neighborhood has served it well, and it intends to remain in the area if it can provide the required facilities for its members. It has entered an agreement with MetroCentre Health Clinic, L.L.C. to purchase the block which is the subject of this application. The recently -adopted zoning ordinance for the downtown 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1200 POST OFFICE Box 3546 L= ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203 PHONE 501-372-6161 • FAX 501.372-0671 E-MAIL bgfa@bqfa.com httpJ/www.bqfa.com L. DICKSON FLAKE, CRE, CCIM, SIOR NOLAN, L. RUSHING PHYLLIS LASER GLAZE, CPM DALE L. COOK, CPM DIANA G. LACY DRu E. ENGLISH, CPM MELANIE GIBSON, CCIM, CPM LEAH M. SEARS KEVIN H. HUCHINGSON, CCIM, SIOR J. FLETCHER HANSON III GAINES BONNER DAVID B. CARPENTER DENISE BOWERS GARY L. JONES KIRK A. HOFFMAN KAREN R. FLEMING INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE MEMBERSHIPS Counselors of Real Estate Commercial• —anent Institure Institute of Real Estate Management International Council of Shopping Centers Little Rock Board of Realtors, Inc National Association of Realtors Society of Industrial and Office Realtors I Mr. Dana Carney February 19, 2001 Page 2 area requires that the Board of Adjustment approve a drive-in facility. The existing building will be utilized without major exterior alteration, occupied by Telcoe on the south and tenant lease space on the north. The area proposed for the auto bank is the part of an existing asphalt parking lot, so no existing improvements or landscaping are being removed. This is an ideal adaptive reuse for the closed health clinic facility. Not only will it retain Telcoe in the immediate neighborhood, but the availability of quality, first floor lease space may attract more telecommunication -related users to take advantage of the proximity to Southwestern Bell Telephone's main switch and the telecom hotel under development in the former main library. Enclosures Sincerely, L. Dickson Flake M_ch 26, 2001 Item No.: 3 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-6988 Casper and Sherry Nehus 59 Flintwood Drive Lot 5, Leawood Place R-2 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single family home, under construction Single family A new, single-family residence is now being constructed on the R-2 zoned lot located at 59 Flintwood Drive. When a city official made the footing inspection, he observed a portion of a retaining wall for the driveway had been located across the 25 -foot front building line. The property owner had the site resurveyed and discovered that, in addition to the retaining wall, a corner of the house and -a port -ion -o­f--the -front--porch were-ioca�ed--beyond-tFie 2-5 foot-- __ front building line. The retaining wall has a front yard setback of 19.5 feet. The corner of the house and front porch have front yard setbacks of 19 feet and 21.7 feet respectively. The Code requires a front yard setback of 25 feet for this lot. As best as can be determined, due to the Mach 26, 2001 Item No.: 3 (Cont. slope of the lot, the contractor miscalculated the measurements from the property line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The intrusions are minor and should have no effect on other properties in the area. The variances are for only a small corner of the house and a portion of the 35 -foot wide porch. The reduced setbacks represent a very small portion of this lot, which has over 200 feet of street frontage. The retaining wall and the corner of the house will sit back 30± feet from the curb of the street. The porch will be set back 35± feet from the curb. Flintwood is not a through street; ending at a cul-de-sac at this lot. The reduced setbacks should have no impact on traffic in the street. If the Board approves the building line variances, the applicant will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the circuit clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested building line and setback variances subject to a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as approved by the Board. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 2 02/22/20\. 08:51 FAX 501 257 5305 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMF,_ 0002 February 20, 2001 Mr. James Lawson Director of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Lawson, Enclosed you will Find a copy of the most recent survey showing the foundation walls of my house at 4591 lintwood. It reflects that our porch will be over the building line by 3.29 feet, and the corner of the house is 5.67 feet North and 7.18 feet West of the line in the cul-de-sac. The retaining wall was stopped short of the end of the footing so it crosses the building line by 5.5 feet according to the survey. The retaining wall was the only item of concern noted by the city inspector at the time of the footing inspection. The inspector ultimately gave my builder verbal approval on 7anuary 30`h to pour all footings and proceed with work on the house with the understanding that we would deal with the retaining wall as work progressed. A subsequent survey was conducted to ascertain the exact distance that the retaining wall footing had crossed the building line. When this survey was picked up from Carter:13urgess on 2/13, I discovered that the front porch and Northwest comer of the house had also traversed the building line. I immediately contacted my builder and the City Planning and Development Department. By this time, all foundation wall blocks had been laid and I wanted to determine what my options were at this point. The builder ie -measured the location of the walls and realized that due to the slope of the lot, he had matte a miscalculation in the position of the house layout. A third survey was requested to identify the location of the existing walls in relation to the building line. This was completed on 2/15/01 and the variances are detailed in the first paragraph. Because of the uncertainty of the Spring weather and the potential risk of losing some of my subcontractors, I would like to continue building at my own risk pending final approval by the Board of Adjustment_ I feel it is important to note the following: --The significant slope of the lot caused a slight error in the measurement to be exaggerated. --The error in the location of the house was not recognized by the city inspector and he gave approval to continue with the house construction. -The house was positioned on the lot in a way to retain as many trees as possible. --The current location of the front porch is 35 feet from the curb. --The houses preceding mine at #57 and #55 Plinttwood are located 28 feet and 31 feet from the curb respectively. Thank you for your assistance and consideration in this matter. If you have any questions, please call me at 257-5314 (work) or 868-7420 (home). Sincerely, (��Wt44Z_ Casper Nehus Enclosure (1) Ma -.:h 26, 2001 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: Z-6990 Kent and Mary Ann Davidson 127 Fairview Road Lot 13, Block 24, Hillcrest "'M Variances are requested from the accessory structure area coverage and setback provisions of Section 36-156. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned lot located at 127 Fairview Road is occupied by a one-story, frame, single-family residence and an accessory building. The accessory building, a 20' X 20', single -car carport and storage building, is located at the rear of the lot. The applicant proposes to remove this old accessory building and a replace it with a new, 22' X 301, two -car garage and storage building. The new accessory building -is-proposed to have -0'-rear-yard setback, a 1.3' side yard setback and will cover slightly less than 44% of the required rear yard. The code requires rear and side yard setbacks of 3' and limits the rear yard coverage to 30%. Mi :h 26, 2001 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) Staff is generally supportive of the requested variances. The lot backs up to Wait Street, a barely improved right-of- way. The street functions as an alley used to access the rear of the lots that front onto the adjacent streets. Many other properties in the area have similar accessory buildings built on or over the rear property line adjacent to Wait Street. The code allows accessory structures to have a 0' setback when adjacent to an alley. Insomuch as Wait Street functions as an alley, it does not appear to be inappropriate to utilize the same standard for rear yard setback. The existing accessory building on the applicant's property currently extends 0.2' over the rear property line, into Wait Street. The existing accessory building has a 1.3' side yard. The applicant proposes to maintain that same side yard. The reduced side yard is for only a corner of the proposed structure. Due to the angle of the proposed structure in relationship to the rear and side property lines, both encroachments involve only a corner of the structure. In both instances the structure angles away from the property line so that the setback quickly exceeds the ordinance minimum. Staff believes it would be appropriate to limit the size of the eave/overhang on the side of the accessory building and to require guttering to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property. Although the accessory structure is larger than allowed by - right in the rear yard, it is not out of character with similar structures in the area. The allowable coverage permitted on a 50' wide lot does not lend itself to constructing a two -car garage. The lot has no street access from Fairview Road. The lot is deeper than the typical Hillcrest lot and there is more than adequate open space on the property. Allowing the slightly larger garage structure would not appear to be overbuilding this lot. Permitting the requested setback and area coverage variances should have no impact on adjacent properties. The Wait Street right-of-way provides adequate separation from the lot to the rear. The lot adjacent to the southeast has an accessory structure that is located on the far side of the - - - -ot;-wel3--separated—from the applicant's propos structure. ---- C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and area coverage variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: CA% M( --h 26, 2001 Item No.: 4 (Cont. 1. The eave/overhang on the side of the proposed accessory building is to be limited to no more than 6 inches. 2. Guttering is to be installed on the side of the accessory building to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property. 3.Compliance with Public Works Comments including any variance or waiver of those requirements as may be granted by the Director of Public Works or the Board of Directors. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2001) Kent Davidson was present representing his application. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan in which the existing accessory building was not to be removed but was to be added onto. Staff stated the variance requests would remain the same with the exception that the rear yard area coverage was now to be 56% not 44%. Staff recommended approval of the variance requests subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. Norm Floyd commented that he had driven by the site three times and was unable to see the sign which advertised the public hearing. Mr. Davidson responded that his wife had placed the sign on the front porch of the house and he had personally observed the sign. Mr. Floyd questioned whether the existing accessory building was structurally sound enough to add onto. Mr. Davidson responded that he thought it was. A motion was made to approve the requested variances subject to compliance with conditions recommended by staff. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 9 Tom Cosford, Custom Improvements, Inc. 5134 "P" Street Phone 501-663-0682 Little Rock, AR 72207 Fax 501-663-0694 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Residential Zoning Variance for 127 Fairview Road To Whom It May Concern: February 21, 2001 The property owners, Kent and Mary Ann Davidson, request a variance of setback requirements for the construction of a two car garage at the rear of their property. The variance will allow convenient and reasonable access for parking in the garage. There is an open and active alley providing access to all of the properties from the rear because of the steepness of the front portion of the lots facing Fairview. An undersized single carport with storage currently exists at the location the owners wish to build. Their desire is to raze the existing structure and rebuild a new garage in its place. The new garage will be somewhat larger to accommodate modern vehicles and to provide a small storage area for yard equipment. The variance is requested because the orientation of the lot to the angular alleyway would make access to the garage much more difficult if required to conform to current zoning ordinances. The owners would like to be able to approach and enter the garage from the north west. As they enter from this direction they will have to swing into their rear yard slightly to be able to enter the garage. If the ordinance is enforced in this situation, the garage will be moved forward into the rear yard. This will make access to the garage extremely difficult if not impossible. Permission to construct the new structure at the rear line, as the current structure sits, will enable cars to approach the garage entry at a reasonable angle. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Respectfully, Tom Colford Mf _ .h 26, 2001 Item No.: 5 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property Staff Report: A. Landscape Review Integrity, Inc. 6124 Northmoor Drive Lot 120R, Broadmoor North C�IIc7 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-281 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Vacant lot Office building with associated day-care According to the dimensions noted on the plan submitted areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. A water source within 75 feet of all landscape areas is required. B. Public Works Issues: With Building Permit: Property—front-age—n-e-e-ds—to have the s cYewalks 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. M� jh 26, 2001 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) 4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. C. Staff Analysis: Integrity, Inc., a Little Rock -based community services organization that provides a variety of healthcare, home care, rehabilitative and child care services, is building a new two-story office building on the 0-3 zoned property located at 6124 Northmoor Drive. Due to the slope of the property, the building will have the appearance of a one- story structure from the front and two -stories from the rear and sides. The face of the building is set at the 25 foot building line on the Northmoor and Charlotte perimeters. An uncovered retaining wall, first level walkway and second level stairway extend out from the west wall of the structure 4 feet across the 25 foot building line. A canopy entrance cover extends out from the north wall of the building 4 feet across the front 25 foot building line. The code requires a 25 foot front yard setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The uncovered walkway and second floor stairway on the west side of the building serve as fire escapes for their respective levels and will not be used on a regular basis as entrances. The 4' X 25' intrusion represents a small portion of the Charlotte Drive frontage of this property. The stairway will be set back 32-33 feet from the curb of Charlotte Drive. The 0-3 zoned property across Charlotte Drive to the west is currently vacant. Allowing the reduced side yard setback of 21 feet for the stairway should have no effect on other properties in the area or on traffic in the street. The 4' X 301± intrusion on the north side of the building is for a decorative, canopy/porch cover over the main entrance to the building. Again, the area requested for a variance represents only a small portion of the 2801+ frontage that this property has on Northmoor Drive. The closest edge of �aIG c.;C111v.Py W111 1.)t! JJ -34 zeeL zrom Lne CUrID Ot Northmoor Drive. The 0-3 zoned property across Northmoor is currently undeveloped. Allowing the reduced front yard setback of 21 feet should have no effect on other properties or on traffic in the street. 2 MLzh 26, 2001 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) I If the Board approves the building line variances, the applicant will have to do a replat reflecting the change in the building lines on both the Charlotte Drive and Northmoor Drive perimeters. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested building line and setback variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. 2. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any variance or waiver of those requirements as may be granted by the Director of Public Works or the Board of Directors. 3. A one lot replat reflecting the change in the building lines as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. Staff informed the Board that the site plan had been amended slightly because the original site plan did not take into account the right-of-way dedication for the abutting streets. By reducing the parking lot and moving the building slightly south and east, the variance issues remained the same. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended-by-s-tatf-The vote-wa-s 4 ayes ; 0 -roes ; 0acbFserit grid - 1 abstaining (Gray). 3 H+W Heiple Wiedower Architects Planners February 23, 2001 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Dana Carney Planning & Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 SUBJECT: Zoning Variance Application, Integrity, Inc. 6124 Northmoor Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Dana: Attached please find a variance application form for the above referenced applicant/owner related to their variance request. Additionally enclosed is the filing fee, six (6) copies of the survey/site plan and a copy of the active Bill of Assurance and Plat. Currently the drawings show an intrusion across a platted building line existing on the West side of the building as shown on the attached site plan. This intrusion is caused by the placement of a retaining wall, first level walkway and second level stairway both of which serve as the fire exits for their respective levels. The intrusion is approximately four (4') feet wide (East to West) and extends North and South for approximately twenty-two and V2 (22.5') feet. There is no canopy structure and from an operational standpoint the exits will be used as fire exits only. If we have to move the building four (4') feet to the East we will lose our ability to provide a turnout, stacking lane on the East side of the building for car storage during drop off and pick up of daycare clients. We are already being squeezed by new site - internal landscape requirements (which we gladly will adhere to) in the same parking lot area that contains the turnout lane. A second intrusion occurs on the North side of the property where part of a canopy structure crosses the platted building line. A portion of the canopy at its furthest point North intrudes into the setback approximately four (4') feet. Due to the sloping nature of the lot we have had to keep the building as far forward (North) on the site as possible and still accommodate the daycare outdoor play area on the South side of the building. The South side of the building would also be the building expansion area for our client should they decide to expand. I am thanking you in advance for your cooperation in this matter and should you have any questions or Sincerely, Ti A. Heiple, AIA Agent for Owner /fg 319 East Markham; Ste 201 + Little Rock, AR 72201 + (t) 501-273-2822 + (0 501-707-0118 M� _ �h 26, 2001 Item No.: 6 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Landscape Review: Z-6992 Armistead Apartments, Inc. 25,000 - 25,100 Chenal Parkway Lots 4B and 4C, Northwest Territory MF -18 A variance is requested from the on-site parking provisions of Section 36-502. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Undeveloped 18 unit, Easter Seals apartment development Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. An irrigation system to water landscape areas is required. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide landscape plans stamped with the seal of a registered Landscape Architect. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible on this tree covered site. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance can be given when B. Public Works Issues: With Building Permits: 1. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. M( .._.:h 26, 2001 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 3. Provide design of street conforming to "MPS" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. Improvements as shown are not approved. 4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Grading permit will be required on this development, if it is regulated by Ordinance 18,361. C. Staff Analysis: Easter Seals proposes to build a small, 18 unit apartment complex on the MF -18 zoned 4.2± acre tract located at 25,000 - 25,100 Chenal Parkway. This undeveloped tract is located at the far northwest corner of the City, near the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Arkansas State Highway 300. The development consists of 5 buildings built around a circular driveway. Four of the buildings contain 4 units each. The 5th building contains 2 units and a community room. All required setbacks are met or exceeded. Easter Seals has proposed to construct 22 vehicle parking spaces, 6 of which will be handicap accessible. The code requires 1.5 parking space per unit, a total of 27 parking spaces. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Although the development is a 18 unit apartment complex with fully independent living arrangements in each apartment, the residents are clients of the Easter Seals program for developmentally disabled persons. Few of the residents will drive so the parking, for the most part, is for visitors, Easter Seals staff and travel vans. As long as the apartments are occupied by Easter Seals' clientele, the proposed 22 parking spaces should prove to be sufficient. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. The 18 unit apartment development is to continue to be owned by Easter Seals and the apartments are to be occupied by clients of the Easter Seals program. 2 MC _ch 26, 2001 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) 2. Compliance with Public Works comments including any variance or waiver of those requirements as may be granted by the Board of Directors or the Director of Public Works. 3.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2001) Brian Dale of White-Daters Engineers and Paula Hibbs of Easter Seals were present representing the application. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. William Ruck asked why a variance was being sought. Brian Dale responded that the typical resident of the facility would not drive and the full parking requirement was not needed. Paula Gibbs stated there would be 18 units, 1 manager's unit and 17 that would be occupied by persons with disabilities ranging from severe physical handicaps to mental retardation. Ms. Gibbs stated that all 18 units would have one bedroom only. Norm Floyd asked if the residents would require caregivers. Ms. Gibbs responded that the residents must be capable of living independently but that a support person might come by once -a -day or once -a -week. In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Ms. Hibbs acknowledged that some of the residents would drive. Larry Bates, architect for the project, commented that the property had contours that dictated how the site could be developed and also added to the reduction in the number of parking spaces. Mr. Bates added that there were no immediate plans to expand onto the property behind this site. A motion was made to approve the parking variance subject to compliance with the conditions recommended by staff. The vote u noes aria c�ansent . 3 23 February 2001 Board of Adjustment City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Easter Seals I Armistead Village Circle West Chenal Parkway Little Rock, AR File 20001-014 Members of the Board of Adjustment: We sincerely request your assistance in the approval of the site plan for the above project. The site is zoned MF -18 so the density is only half that allowed by the zoning ordinance. All setbacks are correct and no request for change is anticipated. The buildings and improvements will all meet the required building and bill of assurance regulations. The residents of this complex are all learning to be new taxpayers. They will all live independently and hold jobs or be involved in work training. This effort removes them from a care environment and allows them to learn/earn the skills to be independent citizens. The low impact of this project on the surrounding traffic, use, or city services will be minimal. The approval we are requesting will not accrue to any `soon to change' building ownership because this continued site use and services are required by the mortgage documents to remain in force for the next forty years. The dwellings are arranged around a small private circle drive. This is the best layout for access by emergency vehicles or the weekly trash removal without requiring a stop on the Chenal Parkway. Individual disposal cans are intended to teach the occupants the required method to dispose of waste when they join the wider community in another apartment group. The single in- and- out drives will be controlled to allow only right turns when the additional lanes of the parkway are constructed. Most of our residents will not have a driver's license so sufficient parking is available and is basically for visitors, Easter Seals staff and travel vans. There will be a parking space for each dwelling unit. One of the spaces in each building parking area will be handicap accessible. For the 18 dwellings there will be a total of 22 parking spaces, 6 of which will be handicap accessible. Thank you for your consideration. We have already negotiated our contract for construction and await only your approval to obtain our funding. Sincerely, anino Peckha As ciates Liam R. Canino, AIA ® v 501 .227.7777 ® f 501 .227.8888 ® 10401 WEST MARKHAM 0 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72205 ® WWW.ELEVATION.COM ■ CANINO PECKHAM & ASSOCIATES, INC M(. --h 26, 2001 Item No.: 7 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Z-6993 City of Little Rock 2222 Singleton Cove Lot 8, Parkview Hill R-2 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254. Justification: This lot has a 45 -foot platted front building line, causing the house to be located closer to the rear property line. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Vacant lot Single Family The City of Little Rock, through its Affordable Homes Program, is proposing to construct a new, single-family residence on the R-2 zoned lot located at 2222 Singleton Cove. The proposed house will meet all required setbacks but a deck on the back of the house is proposed to extend 12 feet into the required 25 -foot rear yard setback. Staff supports the requested variance. This "pie -shaped" l o t i-s—o311-v 10-9±—feet—r3 Pra„zl h a a Y, ra o,a r.,, building line. This increased front setback, much more than the 25 -foot front setback typically required in R-2, has the effect of pushing the house more toward the rear of the lot. The requested encroachment is for only the 12 -foot width of the deck. The encroachment represents a minor percentage of the overall width of the rear yard. A drainage ditch along Ma.ch 26, 2001 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) the rear property line separates this lot from the property adjacent to the rear. The reduced setback for this 12' X 12' deck should have no impact on adjacent properties. The deck is not proposed to be covered or enclosed. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance subject to the deck remaining uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2001) Rick Jones was present representing the application. There were no objectors present. A board member had commented that he did not observe the required sign advertising the public hearing on the property. Mr. Jones informed staff that he could not address that issue since the application had been handled by someone else in his office. He suggested that the item be deferred and the issue of the sign addressed. Staff informed the Board of the applicant's request for deferral. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the April 30, 2001 meeting. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 2 �o2i QC/)Q O Z W W CD a� J m ❑ } } Q CD m Y W OJ � Q = U March 26, 2001 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Date: p p ,� �' 2, Z/,- Chairman