Loading...
boa_09 24 2001LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES SEPTEMBER 24, 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 August 27, 2001 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman Scott Richburg Gary Langlais Andrew Francis Fred Gray, Vice Chairman Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson I. NEW ITEMS 1. Z-7084 2. Z-7085 3. Z-7086 4. 5. 6 7 Z-7087 Z-7088 Z-6740 Z-7089 LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 2:00 P.M. 65 Dartmouth Drive 120 Hickory Creek Circle 1401 M. L. King, Jr. Drive 5423 West 12th Street 7621 Geyer Springs Road #3 Statehouse Plaza Lot 5 (unrecorded), I-430 - Colonel Glenn Commercial Subdivision 4907 Country Club Blvd. 19 Arles Drive V- Q) N Ile J 3NId a312tlad t 1lnpBlHf q ^ 1 < yid NVWa30 NIVry ' AVMOV060 N01N08/ 631S310 a3H380 ~HOatl 0NIN lW — MOa000M g 3NId 1J Q 3NId ap0 0 N011lrvp 11005 $ SJNr .� AlIsa3M1iNn AlIS83A1Nn SONIIII a3A3J Q S3H9nH F- $ Idd6s SIM y� _ s 1001H0 — � 8100353 MOa8p9 NHOf 3 3NN13H O80131NJVHS g Oa 3l p $ SIOM _ Z rvpHatld A3N00a — o � s �� � yoj NY OB l $11W1 Alp 30OIa AWN HJb S11WIl Alp Ln "JblS� °bo! N OSiOAI W� $lmn up l�'�P� PP s J s ~�►i Zs42 " NVAIIInS 1a031S HSdyy, OOH VMH IH 11WI1 Alp yv, �p Jc,�� IS ' w !,/010j 31pONa3d 0 0 O September 24, 2001 Item No.: 1 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-7084 Jessie Smith 65 Dartmouth Drive Lot 164, Kensington Addition MWa Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12. The new single family residence was inadvertently constructed with front steps and one side over the front platted building line. Construction of new single family residence Single family residential The R-2 zoned property at 65 Dartmouth Drive is occupied by a new one-story, brick, single family residence. The newly constructed house encroaches approximately six (6) inches over the platted 25 -foot building line along the western property line, with front steps which encroach approximately 10.5 feet beyond the platted 25 -foot building line along the southern property line. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments over platted building setback lines be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. September 24,.2001 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The house has been mostly constructed, with interior and landscape work left to be completed. It is unclear how the error has gone unnoticed throughout the building permit process. It is apparent that during the initial stage of building permit review the elevation of the structure's front porch was not known. The front porch is approximately eight (8) feet above grade. Staff does not believe that the building line encroachments will have an adverse impact on the adjacent property, as both encroachments are along street side property lines. The construction of the steps results in a 14.5 foot setback from the southern property line and a 25.5 foot setback from curb line of Dartmouth Drive. The western side of the house is located 24.5 feet from the property line and 35.5 feet from the curb line of Suffolk Drive. If the Board approves the building variances, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the building line for the newly constructed house. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested building line variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as approved by the Board. 2. The front steps must remain uncovered beyond the platted building line. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 24, 2001) Jessie Smith was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and noted that the applicant had not completed the notification process to property owners within 200 feet of the property, as required. Staff noted that seven (7) of the 15 property owners within 200 feet of the site were notified in a timely manner. Staff then noted that the remainder of the property owners were notified 2 September 24, 2001 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) of the public hearing no more than four (4) days prior to the meeting, and three (3) of them were notified the day of the hearing. Chairman Ruck noted that the Board felt that the applicant should notify the surrounding property owners in a timely manner, so that they may have an opportunity to voice their opinion if they desire. He stated that it was the Board's opinion that the application needed to be deferred to the October agenda and that the applicant needed to renotify the surrounding property owners of that meeting. The applicant offered no additional comments. There was a motion to defer the application to the October 29, 2001 agenda, with the applicant renotifying the property owners of that meeting. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was deferred to the October 29, 2001 agenda. 3 September 24, 2001 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: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7085 Don Kirkpatrick 120 Hickory Creek Circle Lot 13R, Hickory Creek Subdivision F"� A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit a porte-cochere addition with a reduced side yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single family residential Single family residential A new, one-story single family residence is currently being constructed (framing) on the R-2 zoned lot located at 120 Hickory Creek Circle. The applicant proposes to add an 18 foot wide porte-cochere on the south side of the residence. The applicant requests a variance to allow a reduced side yard setback for the porte-cochere addition. A 1.4 foot side setback is proposed along the south property line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of 8 feet. Staff does not support the variance as requested. Staff believes that the proposed 1.4 foot side setback will be out of character with the neighborhood. The single family structures in this subdivision maintain side yard setbacks September 24, 2001 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) which are closer to or exceed the minimum ordinance requirement. Staff also is concerned with potential for water run-off onto the adjacent property to the south and the,close proximity of the proposed porte-cochere addition to that single family structure. The existing single family structure on the property to the south is located approximately 8 feet from the side property line. Although staff is not supporting the variance request as filed, staff could support a revised application. Staff could support a minimum 5 foot side yard setback for the proposed porte-cochere addition with the following conditions: 1. The porte-cochere structure must remain unenclosed. 2. The eave line of the porte-cochere structure must not extend any more than one (1) foot into the 5 foot setback. Staff will forward this information to the applicant prior to the public hearing. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the application as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 24, 2001) Frank Riggins and Don Kirkpatrick were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Frank Riggins addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that the property owner wished to have the porte-cochere addition for convenience. He noted that the structure would be proportionately in line with the main structure. He described the appearance/architectural design of the proposed porte- cochere. He explained that the addition would have no adverse impact on the general area. He noted that there was a letter of support from the adjacent property owner, Joseph Blankenship. He stated that the porte-cochere addition would be a quality project. He also noted that the Hickory Creek Neighborhood supported the project. Mr. Riggins also noted that there would be a wall constructed along the property line to screen the activity within the porte-cochere structure. 2 September 24, 2001 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) Chairman Ruck noted that there was no person present in opposition. Vice -Chairman Gray asked Mr. Riggins to explain the roof pitch and grade. Mr. Riggins explained that the property sloped and drained from front to back. He noted that the porte-cochere structure would have a hip roof and that it would have a gutter system to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property. It was noted that the front and rear of the structure would have an archway, but that it would not be enclosed. This issue was briefly discussed. Andy Francis asked if the letter of support was from the property owner to the west. Mr. Riggins confirmed that it was. Chairman Ruck questioned Mr. Riggins about the proposed wall along the west property line. Mr. Riggins explained that the wall would be constructed of brick and limestone and be approximately 8 feet in height. He noted that the primary purpose of the wall was to provide screening. Don Kirkpatrick also added comments related to this issue. Gary Langlais asked Mr. Kirkpatrick about staff's recommendation to revise the application. Mr. Kirkpatrick responded that providing a five (5) foot sideyard would make the porte-cochere too narrow for a vehicle and the residence's trash receptacles. Mr. Langlais asked about the overall width of the porte-cochere. Mr. Riggins noted that it was 18 feet wide and explained. Scott Richburg asked about the clearance width. Mr. Riggins responded that the clearance width would be approximately 14 feet. Vice Chairman Gray asked about conditions of approval. Staff suggested that the Board attach the following conditions to the motion to approve: 1. The porte-cochere structure is to remain unenclosed except for the wall along the west property line. 2. There must be a gutter system on the structure to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property. There was a motion to approve the application subject to the two (2) conditions as noted above. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was approved. 3 } t ? 5 t v R fi� The Mehlburger Firm Engineers ❑ Landscape Architects ❑ Surveyors August 24, 2001 Mr. Dana Carney, Zoning & Subdivision Manager Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dana, Enclosed is an application for a zoning variance to allow a porte cochere addition on to a residence under construction at 120 Hickory Creek Circle. This proposed addition was added to the plans after construction of the main structure had begun. This structure will provide for a covered entry and will consist of four columns and a pitched roof which will attach to the main structure of the house. I have also enclosed, as required, three copies of a recent survey which shows the main house and this proposed addition. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional materials or information concerning this matter. Sincerely, THE MEHLBURGER FIRM, INC. O-_..._ 400* *Rii 201 South Izard 0 P.O. Box 3837 o Little Rock, AR 72203-3837 a 501:'375-5331 0 rax .375-7;5 2 September 24, 2001 Item No.: 3 File No.: Z-7086 Owner: Church's Fried Chicken Address: 1.) 1401 Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. 2.) 5423 West 12th Street 3.) 7621 Geyer Springs Road Description: 1.) Southeast corner of Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. and Daisy Gaston Bates Drive 2.) Southeast corner of West 12th Street and Fair Park Blvd. 3.) Northeast corner of Geyer Springs and Young Roads Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: C-3 Variances are requested from Sections 36-543(7) and 36-557(a) to permit two (2) roof signs and one (1) canopy sign without street frontage at each Church's location. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Commercial Commercial The applicant, Church's Fried Chicken, recently installed new commercial signs at three (3) of their Little Rock restaurant locations. The new signage is part of a national campaign to re-image their restaurants. Two (2) wall - mounted signs, which extend above the fagade roof line, on which they are located and one (1) canopy sign were September 24, 2001 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) installed at each restaurant location. The sign locations are noted on an attached site plan sketch. Based on the fact that the wall signs extend above the facade roof line, they are considered roof signs and are prohibited by City Ordinance. There is a canopy at each location which is located above the drive-thru window. There is a sign located on each canopy. These canopy signs are located on building sides which have no street frontage, which is also prohibited by Ordinance. The applicant requests variances from the City's Zoning Ordinance Sections 36-543(7) and 36-557(a), to permit the two (2) roof signs and one (1) canopy sign without street frontage at each restaurant location. Section 36-543(7) prohibits roof signs (signs erected over the roof of a building) and Section 36-557(a) probihits signs without street frontage. The proposed roof signs extend approximately 2.5 to 3 feet above the fagade that they are located on. However, the roof signs do not exceed the overall roof height. There is an inner fagade which has a roof line that is slightly higher than the signs. Staff feels that the requested variances are reasonable. Each of the three (3) signs at each restaurant location replaced old signs. In the case of the roof signs, the new signs are smaller than the old signs. According to the applicant, the old signs extended higher above the fagade roof line than do the new signs. Also, as noted above, the new roof signs do not exceed the overall roof height of the inner fagade. The new canopy structure with sign over the drive-thru at each location replaced old canopy structures, which also included signage without street frontage. Each of the canopy signs can be seen from one (1) of the street frontages by traffic traveling in one (1) direction. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances and the signage as existing. If the signs are ever removed, they must be replaced with signs that comply with City Ordinance standards, or a new Board of Adjustment variance application must be filed. 2 September 24, 2001 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 24, 2001) 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, 1 abstention (Francis) and 0 absent. 3 _P --,, -tf 3 i�-- -7 OY6 ArkansasSign 8525 Distribution Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (501) 562-3942 OEM and Neon AUGUST 16, 2001 CITY OF LITTLE ROCK MR. DANA CARNEY RE: CHURCH'S FRIED CHICKEN NATIONAL RE-IMAGE CAMPAIGN DEAR SIR(S), CHURCH'S FRIED CHICKEN IS WORKING ON A NATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO RE-IMAGE THEIR RESTAURANTS. ARKANSAS SIGN & NEON HAS BEEN CONTRACTED TO REMOVE THE OLD SIGNAGE AND INSTALL THE NEW SIGNS FOR THEIR THREE LITTLE ROCK LOCATIONS AT; 1401 MARTIN LUTHER KING, 5423 W. 12TH, AND 7621 GEYER SPRINGS. THE WALL SIGNS APPEAR TO BE ABOVE THE ROOFLINE, THEREFORE, WE NEED A VARIANCE TO PUT THEM UP IN ORDER TO KEEP THE NEW IMAGE THAT CHURCH'S IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE NATIONALLY. WE PRAY THAT A VARIANCE WILL BE GIVEN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER. SINCERELY, CHARLIE WITHROW GARY MENEAR ARKANSAS SIGN & NEON Designers and Fabricators of Quality Electrical Outdoor Advertising Displays Neon - Plastic - Flexible Face Signs - Service & Repair - Erection - Outdoor Advertising September 24, 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: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7087 Peabody Hotel Group #3 Statehouse Plaza North side of West Markham Street, between Center and Main Streets UU A variance is requested from Section 36-547(6) to allow a commercial sign with the illusion of movement. The applicant's explanation is presented in attached letter. Hotel Hotel The UU zoned property at #3 Statehouse Plaza is occupied by the Peabody Hotel. The applicant proposes to place a sign on the north wall on the hotel building, above the 22nd floor on a brick elevator shaft. The sign will overlook the Arkansas River. The sign ("Marching Ducks" logo) consists of three (3) 10 -foot ducks constructed of neon and aluminum framing. The applicant requests a variance to allow for very subtle movement of the feet of the "Marching Ducks" logo. According to Section 36-547, "no sign regulated by this chapter may utilize:" (6) "The illusion of movement by means of a preprogrammed repetitious sequential switching September 24, 2001 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) action in which illuminated elements of the sign are turned off or on to visually simulate the impression of motion characteristic of chasing, running, blinking, oscillating, twinkling, scintillating, or expanding and contracting light patterns." The applicant notes that the "Marching Ducks" logo will be static during the day, with no lighting or movement. The sign will be illuminated only at night, to identify the property. When the sign is illuminated, the only neon movement will be the feet of the ducks in a back and forth rhythmic motion, simulating the marching of the ducks. Only approximately 10 percent of the overall "Marching Ducks" logo will have any movement. Staff feels the variance request is reasonable. Given the fact that such a small percentage of the sign will have simulated movement and that the sign is located above the 22nd floor of the existing building (overlooking the Arkansas River), staff feels that the proposed sign will have no adverse impact on the general area or create a distraction. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 24, 2001) 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, 1 abstention (Langlais) and 0 absent. 2 08/24/2001 FRI � 3 FAX t lin002/004 z4e�,— -?4� 2- 76,Y7 "FA9VO MITCHELL SIGNS P.O. Box 4177 3208 Hwy. 45 North Meridian, MS 39304 (601) 482.7471 FAX (601) 482-7474 August 24, 2001 To: The Honorable Board of Adjustment For The City of Little Rock, Arkansas Department of Planning and Development For The City of Little Rock, Arkansas Mr. Dana Carney Thank you for your consideration to allow very subtle movement of the -feet of The Peabody "Marching Ducks" logo. The "Marching Ducks" logo consists of three 10' ducks made with neon and aluminum framing. The "Marching Ducks" logo is synonymous with the grand tradition and heritage of the Peabody Hotel associated it. , as well as the quality The "Marching Ducks" logo would be static during the day, with no neon or subtle movement showing. They would illuminate at night only, to identify the property. At night, when they are illuminated the only neon movement would be the feet in a back and forth rhythmic motion, simulating the marching for which the Ducks are famous for. Only 10 percent of the overall "Marching Ducks" logo would have any movement. The ducks are on the North wall, above the 22nd floor, on the brick elevator shaft. This wall faces the Arkansas River. The "Marching Ducks" logo would not be a distraction, but instead become a landmark for the City of Little Rock. This would only have a positive impact on the City and Downtown. Thank you for your consideration and allowing The Peabody to be a part of the City of Little Rock. Rick Courtney President Mitchell Signs, Inc. www.mitchsllCcmpanies.Com September 24, 2001 Item No.: 5 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: Z-7088 Vogel Enterprises Near the southwest corner of Interstate 430 and Colonel Glenn Road Lot 5 (unrecorded), I-430 - Colonel Glenn Commercial Subdivision C-3 and C-4 A variance is requested from the height regulations of Sections 36-301(d) and 36-302(d) to permit a new commercial building to exceed the 35 -foot maximum allowed height. The applicant's explanation is presented in an attached letter. Vacant, undeveloped lot Commercial Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: With Building Permit: 1. Health Care Blvd. and Commercial Center Drive are classified on the Master Street Plan as commercial streets. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. 3. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. Eliminate driveways that do not meet Ordinance requirements. September 24, 2001 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 5. Grading permit will be required on this development. 6. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Areas set aside for perimeter, interior and building landscaping meet with landscape ordinance requirements. However, a portion of the street buffer along Health Care Blvd. drops 6 feet below the minimum 20 -foot width allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. All landscaped areas will be required to be irrigated. Prior to a building permit being issued, a landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect will be required. C. Staff Analysis: The proposed Lot 5, I-430 - Colonel Glenn Commercial Subdivision is zoned C-3 and C-4 and is currently undeveloped. The lot is approximately 14 acres in size. The applicant proposes to construct a new one-story commercial building on the property which will house a multi -screen movie theater. The proposed theater prototype building will have a maximum height of 51 feet - 6 inches. The maximum building height allowed in C-3 and C-4 zoning is 35 feet. Staff feels that the variance request is reasonable. The proposed commercial building is located on a 14 acre lot, with building setbacks which far exceed the minimum setbacks allowed in C-3 and C-4 zoning. Based on the size of the commercial lot and placement of the proposed commercial building, staff feels that the proposed building height will have no adverse impact on the surrounding lots. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the height variance subject to compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs A and B of this report. The proposed commercial building will have a maximum overall height of 51 feet - 6 inches. 2 September 24, 2001 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 24, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item -was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 absent. 3 Transmittal To: Mr. Dana Carney From: Tim Daters CC: Date: 8/24/01 Re: Zoning Variance — Lot 5,1-430 Col. Glenn Commercial Attached are six copies of the site plan for Lot 5 (unrecorded) on the above captioned project. The Owner would like a variance of the maximum building height. Please place this item on the agenda for the September 24t�' Board of Adjustment Meeting. The multi screen movie theater proposed would exceed the 35' allowable under C-3 or C-4 zoning. The building and central lobby area are of such a scale that the maximum height proposed of 51'-6" will not look out of proportion on the 14 acre lot. The Operator has constructed this building in the Dallas area and can furnish photographs of the building as well elevations. If you think it will be helpful I will obtain these and forward them to your office. Please call me if you need any additional information. Thank you for your assistance. Tim Daters • Page 1 CAMy Documents\danacameycolglenn.doc 24 Rahling Circle, Little Rock, Ar 72223 501-821-1667 501-821-1668 fax September 24, 2001 Item No.: 6 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Background: Z-6740 Nolan and Barbara Rushing 4907 Country Club Blvd. Lot 3, Block 15, Newton's Addition MWA A two-year time extension for previously approved reduced rear yard setback and increased fence/wall height variances for a proposed single family residence. Vacant lot New Single Family residence On September 27, 1999, the Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to approve a reduced yard setback variance and an increased fence/wall height variance for a proposed new single family residence at 4907 Country Club Blvd. The proposed single family residence was approved for a rear yard setback of 17 feet. Wing - walls, which are to extend out from the front wall of the proposed house to the side property lines and down each side line for a short distance were approved for a height of 9 feet - 6inches. The setback and fence/wall height variances were approved subject to a stormwater/drainage plan being approved by the City and that the City contact Ashley Rankin, a nearby neighbor, for her input on the drainage issue. September 24, 2001 Item No.: 6 B. Proposal: According to Article IV, Section 2 of the Little Rock Board of Adjustment Bylaws, "If an application is approved by the Board, all permits necessary for the initiation of work shall be obtained within two (2) years from the date of approval, unless an extension of time is granted by the Board." The previously approved application will expire on September 27, 2001. The lot is currently vacant. Therefore, the applicants, Nolan and Barbara Rushing, request a two-year time extension for the previously approved application. The applicants have noted that they hope to begin construction on the new single family residence later this fall. C. Staff Analysis: The applicants are requesting a two-year time extension on the previously approved application for reduced rear yard setback and increased fence/wall height variances for a proposed new single family residence. To staff's knowledge there are no new circumstances concerning this property and staff can see no reason why the application should not be extended. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the two-year time extension as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 24, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 absent. 2 September 24, 2001 Item No.: 7 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-7089 William F. Ward 19 Arles Drive Lot 52, Block 48, Chenal Valley Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit a new single family residence with a reduced side yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single family residential Single family residential A new, one-story brick single family residence has recently been constructed on the R-2 zoned lot located at 19 Arles Drive. After construction, the applicant found that the southwest corner of the structure was only approximately 4.7 feet from the south (side) property line. The City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of 6.9 feet. l (- September 24, 2001 Item No.: 7 According to the applicant, it is his opinion that the survey pin at the southwest corner of the property was originally placed in the wrong location, giving the residence a 9 foot side setback (at the southwest corner) when it was first laid out. This is further supported by the fact that the water meter for this lot was placed 4 to 5 feet onto the property to the south. Staff is supportive of the requested variance, given the fact that an apparent error was made in the original property survey. The southwest corner of the structure represents an appropriate 32 percent encroachment into the required side yard. The southeast corner of the structure complies with the minimum setback requirement, as the structure angles away from the south (side) property line. Staff believes that the survey mistake was not intentional and that the applicant did not knowingly place the residential structure within the required side yard setback. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback variance as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 24, 2001) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff noted that the application needed to be deferred based on the fact that the applicant did not notify the property owners within 200 feet of the site as required. The application was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the October 29, 2001 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. 2 oleman onze.6, 0 eal cfitate Oq ,:a,otaiset—Jffonttactot—�eaitot 9- 7 ok 1 Date: 8/24/01 To: City of Little Rock From: Stephen Coleman Subject: 19 Arles Drive The above referenced home is located 4.7 feet from the property line at the right front corner and 7.5 feet at the right rear corner (as shown on the attached "as is" survey). At the beginning of construction, the home was placed approximately 9 feet from the right property line. The method used in placing the home on the lot was as follows: 1. Lamar James extended a sting from the right front survey pin to the right rear pin. The right side was used in placing the home due to a tree being located on the left line. A line was also extended from the right front pin across the lot to the left front pin. 2. The batter board lines were placed with the home being approximately 9 feet front the right line, as indicated by the right side string line. The location of the home was rotated, to allow about 1 foot at the front line and left side line which would be adequate for brick and a reasonable margin of error due to the tree on the line and the curve in the front street. 3. Lamar James measured for adequate set backs. I was there to observe the location and the building inspector viewed the set backs for compliance. Lamar James and I have the opinion that the survey pin was placed in the wrong location. Also, the water meters are located about 4-5 feet on the adjoining lot. The water department is currently in the process of moving the meters to the lot line. I believe that Lamar James, the building inspector and myself did not knowingly place the home out of compliance with zoning ordinances at the beginning of construction, based on what we assumed to be an accurate survey pin. At this time I will request a right side variance be granted for this property. Cor 'ally, Stephen Coleman P.O. Box 241069, Little Rock, AR 72223 N0 D1 O U W w F- 0 z 2 F- U) Q LL O 0 Q O m v F- ii IN c <9 W Q z 0 W Q r � Q W M W r. �— F- Q ozoc��Q Z Q W C� J 2 V Z_ U Q � WQaz=U Q Q W 0-1Q LCL� CD E cr- W o<cnQ U (D J_ UQ z Q = U W 2 � LL cl� (D Q J U ii IN c <9 W Q z 0 W Q Q W W �— F- Q ozoc��Q Z Q W C� J Z_ U Q � WQaz=U Q LCL� CD E cr- ii IN c <9 W Q z 0 W Q September 24, 2001 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Date:. 4 W/ 1 , Chairman Secret ry