Loading...
boa_11 26 2001LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 2001 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the October 29, 2001 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman Scott Richburg Gary Langlais Andrew Francis Members Absent: Fred Gray, Vice Chairman City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA NOVEMBER 26, 2001 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS A. Z -4827-B 6901 Interstate 30 B. Z-7089 19 Arles Drive II. NEW ITEMS 1. Z-6432 500 E. Markham Street 2. Z -6620-A 4 Forest Heights Drive 3. Z -6945-A 1 Deer Meadow Cove 4. Z -7085-A 120 Hickory Creek Circle 5. Z-7104 1001 Bowman Road and 12309 Chenal Parkway 6. Z-7109 2201 West Road 7. Z-7114 32 Margeaux Drive 0 � o N Z 11nVOtHl 3NId y N W Wj rs WN39 — �' (r Nltlry�— AVMOtloa9 H08V Npfhq a 153HJ 83H3ao ONIN 1W M08000M s 3NId S3�AS _ 3NId e atl0 N0111WV 110)S ypbb Sp%yes C� z N � p, � Natld 81tl3 All 8311Nn UIS83AINn S'JNIadS 83430 Q S3H0nH _ IddlSS IW b 1001HJ ,r47 81OAH S MOaatlB NHOf 3 w yya, 3NM3H 08OJ31YOVHS 8 08 310VN5 ,., 5106tl5 N WtlH6Vd A3NO08 Ntl 8 o h� r $11WI1 llIJ 30018 AWN by x $llrvll Alp ` b15F gyp) • �a S1IWI1 ALIO �% p 642 � CRyclP� � e � NVAI11nS 18VM31S OOH tlMH IH z o � $11W11 Allo 3 yr 0�x LrP J 4Jp !jpinJ 31tl0N833 y k� o � O 1 O Nove irL, 26, 2001 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested Z -4827-B Turner Holdings, LLC 6901 Interstate 30 Lots 5 and 7, Tucker's Commercial Acres I-2 Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the easement provisions of Section 36-11. Justification: The applicant wishes to construct building additions to the existing Gold Star Dairy which cross the front platted building line and the platted side building lines and easements between the two lots. Present Use of Property: Industrial Proposed Use of Property: Industrial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: With Building Permit: 1. Proposed building addition is in the floodway. City of Little Rock prohibits building in the floodway; however, a floodway study could be done to mitigate impact on the floodway at this location with the possibility of removing this location from the floodway. Contact Vince Floriani at 371-4817 for details. Novem�,. r 26, 2001 Item No.: A B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: An upgrade in landscaping toward Landscape Ordinance equal to the (46%) will be required. Contact for details. C. Staff Analysis: compliance with the expansion proposed Bob Brown at 371-4864 The property at 6901 Interstate 30 is zoned I-2 and is occupied by the existing Gold Star Dairy development. The development consists of Lots 5 and 7, Tucker's Commercial Acres. There is a platted 40 foot building line along the front of both lots, with a 30 foot side building line and a 10 foot easement on each side of the dividing lot line. The applicant proposes to construct two (2) building additions to the existing dairy building which encroach into the front and side platted building lines and over the existing 20 foot easement (10 foot easement on each side of the dividing lot line). The first proposed addition is a new tank room located on the front of the existing building which encroaches seven feet over the 40 foot platted front building line. The second is a building addition on the east side of the building which will contain additional office space, dry storage and refrigerated storage. This building addition is proposed to encroach over the 30 foot side platted building lines and 10 foot utility easements. There are also several smaller additions which the applicant proposes to make to the rear of the existing building (new tanks and tank room, ice builders and truck leveler) . There are two outstanding issues associated with this application. The first issue is that the applicant needs to provide staff with a revised site plan and additional information so that a complete staff review can be conducted. Staff has requested the following information from the applicant: 1. Existing and proposed building area for each use (office, storage, tank rooms, etc.) 2. Existing and proposed building heights 2 Novem� r 26, 2001 Item No.: A 3. Parking details, including total number of paved parking spaces. 4. Sign -offs from all of the public utility companies regarding the proposed building additions. The second outstanding issue relates to the floodway study required by Public Works. As noted by Public Works, the property is in the floodway and new building construction in the floodway is prohibited. The applicant has informed staff that a floodway study will be done. The applicant needs to provide staff with a letter stating the name of the firm which will conduct the floodway study and the anticipated length of time the study will take to complete. This information will be considered by staff during additional review of this application. Based on the outstanding issues as noted above, staff will request that this application be deferred. When the applicant provides staff with the requested additional information, staff will be able to conduct an additional and more thorough review of this application. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that this application be deferred to the November 26, 2001 Board of Adjustment agenda. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 29, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff recommended that the application be deferred to the November 26, 2001 agenda, to give the applicant time to submit additional information to staff. Staff noted that the applicant had agreed to the deferral. The applicant offered no additional comments. The application was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the November 26, 2001 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. K Novenu z 26, 2001 Item No.: A Staff Update: The applicant has submitted the additional information and a revised site plan as requested by staff. Existing and proposed building area for each use (office, storage, processing, etc.), existing/proposed building heights, existing parking details and sign -offs from all of the public utility companies have been submitted to staff. Upon further review of this application, staff has determined that three (3) additional variances are required and have been requested by the applicant. The first is a variance to allow construction of two (2) of the proposed tanks with an increased building height. Two (2) of the proposed new tanks are proposed to have a height of 71.7 feet, from the base of the tank to the top of the guardrail. These tanks are to be located at the rear of the existing building. Section 36-320(d) allows a maximum building height of 45 feet for structures in I-2 zoning. The applicant notes that the proposed building additions and additional new tanks will not exceed the 45 foot height allowance. Several of the existing tanks are 49 feet in height. The second additional requested variance is from the minimum off-street parking standards of Section 36-502. The ordinance requires a minimum of 68 parking spaces based on the following existing and proposed building areas: Existing Office 5,000 SF Existing Storage 10,519 SF Existing Processing 19,249 SF Existing Mechanical Space 1,351 SF Existing Building Total SF 36,119 SF New Office 2,400 SF New Dry Storage 4,100 SF New Refrigerated Storage 10,000 SF New Addition Total SF: 16,500 SF Total Square Footage: 52,619 SF N NovenL r 26, 2001 Item No.: A According to the applicant, there will be a total of 45 paved parking spaces remaining at the northwest corner of the property after the proposed building addition. The applicant notes that the facility is a 24-hour operation and the employees arrive in shifts. Additionally, the truck drivers park their personal vehicles (and have for a number of years) within the fenced gravel area for security reasons. The applicant has stated that the 45 remaining parking spaces will be more than sufficient to serve the business. The third additional variance request is from Section 8, Article IV, the "Flood Loss Prevention" section, to allow new building construction within the floodway. Section 8-284 requires that variances to allow new construction in the floodway be granted by the Board of Adjustment. Laha Engineers, Inc. has provided the Public Works Department with floodway calculations related to the proposed development of the property. Public Works has noted agreement with the calculations (see letter dated November 6, 2001 from David Hamilton, P.E.). However, the applicant must submit a floodproofing plan to Public Works for review and approval. Staff will attempt to have this issue resolved prior to the public hearing. Otherwise, staff supports the requested variances. Staff feels that the variances to allow encroachment over platted building lines, encroachment into an existing utility easement, increased building height for two (2) of the proposed tanks, a reduced number of off-street paved parking spaces and building construction within the floodway, are reasonable and will allow the applicant a needed expansion of the existing business. Additionally, the proposed building additions, with variances, will have no adverse impact on the abutting properties or the general area. The property is located along a major interstate, with industrial zoned property to the north and south and a large area of floodway to the east. If the Board approves the building line variances, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the building lines for the proposed building additions. The applicant should review the filing procedures with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. 5 NoveU _r 26, 2001 Item No.: A Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of this report. 2. The applicant must submit a floodproofing plan to Public Works for review and approval. 3. A one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the building lines as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 26, 2001) The applicant, Troy Laha, along with other representatives of the property ownership, were present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the issue relating to the required notice of property owners within 200 feet of the site needed to be discussed. Staff explained the requirements for notification. Troy Laha addressed the Board and noted that the property owner to the south, Mountain Pure Water Company, signed a letter of notification on this date (November 26, 2001). Staff noted that the notification as completed by the applicant did not conform to the Board of Adjustment bylaws. There was a general discussion pertaining to this issue. There was a motion to defer the application to the December 17, 2001 agenda, to allow the applicant time to complete the notifications to property owners as required by the Board's bylaws. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred to the December 17, 2001 agenda. C 11/12/200 1 14: 30 501--562--5467 LAHA' EI -IGF: SUP. EYF�aE °;- 0- 71 2Y of Ut le Rack Civil Engineering e!! !! n Deportrtterrt of 701 West Markham f Public Works, OlU Roc> , Arkansas 72201.1300 371-4811 Fax 371-4460 /-- /1 November 3, 2001 RE: Ffoodway Variance -• Gold Star Dairy — 6991 Interstate 30 Mr Troy Laha P.Q.Box 190261 Little Rock, Arkansas 72219 Dear Mr. Laha We are in receipt of your letter of Novemtx,-r 2, 2001 and your calculations for Proposed excavation w..4ume in the flocdway at Gold Star Dairy. Based on your submittal, we agree that fill in the fioodway necessitated by the building addition, will be equalized by the volume excavated, resulting in no rise in hood pool level. Hcmiever, to approve this development within the auspices of the Nationa! Flood Insurance Program, our office must approve a floodproofing plan for the addition. The level of flomdproofing must be to an elevation of 1.0 foot above the base flood level of U. 257.0, which equals El. 258.0 If you have any questions please cal; me at 2"-5402. sincerely, David Hamilton, P E. Cavil Engineer N Novem_ r 26, 2001 Item No.: B 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. Noven. _r 26, 2001 Item No.: B 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 29, 2001) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff noted that the applicant had requested that the application be deferred to the November 26, 2001 agenda, based on the fact that the applicant had not notified the property owners within 200 feet of the site as required. E Noverri r 26, 2001 Item No.: B The application was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the November 26, 2001 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 26, 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 and 1 absent. 3 Ifoleman 04omes, arcife gal statei,ov,otaiset—Ifoizttactot-0Realtot Date: 8/24/01 To: City of Little Rock From: Stephen Coleman Subject: 19 Arles Drive �- 7091 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 Iot 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 lime. 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 Noveri r 26, 2001 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z-6432 Owner: Little Rock Newspapers, Inc./ Arkansas Museum of Science and History Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: 500 E. Markham Street Part of Block 2, Pope's Addition UU Extension of previously approved variances to allow the use of banner signs. Justification: The signage proposed allows for the enhancement of the street and contributes to the public's awareness of the contents of the museum. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analvsis: Mixed use including office, retail, restaurants and museum Mixed use including office, retail, restaurants and museum On December 22, 1997, the Board of Adjustment approved several variances related to the placement of banner signs on the building at 500 East Markham Street. Attached is a copy of the minute record from the December 22, 1997 Board of Adjustment meeting and a letter dated December 1, 1997 from the River Market Design Review Committee. Noveiri_ r 26, 2001 Item No.: 1 The variances for the banner signs were approved for a period of two (2) years only. At the end of the two (2) year period, the variances were to come back to the Board of Adjustment for consideration of an extension. At that time the banners were supposed to be reviewed for appropriateness, deterioration and maintenance. Unfortunately, staff inadvertently overlooked the fact that the issue needed to be reviewed at the end of the two (2) year period in December, 1999. Staff recently realized that the error was made, and therefore, has placed the issue on this agenda for the Board to review and consider an extension to allow the continuation of the use of the banner signs. The River Market Design Review Committee (DRC) recently met and discussed the Museum Center banners at 500 E. Markham Street. (See attached letter dated November 2, 2001.) The Committee notes that the banners have been well maintained and a positive addition to the River Market District. The DRC recommends that the Board of Adjustment extend the variances and allow the continued use of the banner signs as previously approved. The DRC also recommends that the Board of Adjustment continue to review the banners every two (2) years for appropriateness, deterioration and maintenance. Staff is also supportive of a two (2) year extension for the banner signs. Staff feels that the signage will continue to have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties on the general area. The signs have been properly maintained and have worked out well for the district. Staff supports the River Market Design Review Committee's review and recommendation on this application. G. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a two (2) year time extension of the previously approved variances for banner signs at 500 East Markham Street. At the end of this time period, the Board of Adjustment will review the signage to assure the appropriateness and maintenance of the signs. E Noven r 26, 2001 Item No.: 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 26, 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 and 1 absent. 3 Jer ( Frank Porbeck,Chairman Market Greg Hart, Member Design Tim Heiple, Member Review Jim Schimmer, Member I� 11 Committee Patty Wingfield, Member Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock • Arkansas *72201 a 501-371-4790 • fax 371-6863 November 2, 2001 Mr. William Ruck, Chairman Board of Adjustment 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Chairman Ruck and Board Members, The River Market Design Review Committee (DRC) has met and discussed the banners on the Museum Center at 500 East Markham. The DRC is recommending that the BOA extend a variance to allow banners to continue to be mounted on the Museum Center. The banners have been well maintained and have been a positive addition to the River Market District. The DRC would also recommend that the BOA continue to review the banners every two years. The DRC members look forward to working with the Board of Adjustment members on protecting the visual integrity of the district. Shawn Spencer DRC Staff December A2, 1997 File No.: Z-6432 Owner: Little Rock Newspapers, Inc./ Arkansas Museum of Science and History Address: 500 E. Markham Description: Part of Block 2, Pope's Addition Zoned• GB Variance Requested: 1) Section 36-557(d) to permit eight (8) banners 2) Section 36-557(d) to permit year-round use of banners 3) Section 36-557(d)(2) to permit a banner which exceeds 5' X 20' 4) Section 36-557(d)(3) to permit banners which extend into public right-of-way. 5) Section 36-353(3)(a)(2) to permit more than 3 signs per business Justification: The various signage proposed will allow for the enhancement of the street and contribute to the public's awareness of the contents of the museum. Present Use of Property: Mixed use including office, retail, restaurants and museum Proposed Use of Property: Mixed use including office, retail, restaurants and museum Staff Report• A. Public Works Issues: Banners on light poles in this block are to rotate 90 degrees and face building. If banners on building are in conflict with these banners, the banners on the building will need to be adjusted. B. Staff Analysis: The Arkansas Museum of Science and History is requesting variances from several provisions of the City sign code and the River Market District Design Overlay standards to allow l December 22, 1997 Item No • 5 (Cont.) various banners and signs at its new location at 500 East Markham Street. The new museum location is within the River Market District and the proposed signage is designed to capitalize on the festive, unique character of the district. Several banners are proposed to be placed on the front of the building perpendicular to the wall and extending over the sidewalk. These banners are proposed to be left up on a year round basis. The central five feet by twenty feet banner over the main entrance and on the north entrance will serve to announce the presence of the Museum and to direct patrons into the building. Directly under this banner will be a five feet by five feet banner announcing the current traveling exhibit. This banner will change about four times per year. Six four feet by sixteen feet banners are designed around the Museum's six exhibit area themes and will be placed equally on either side of the main entrance. Additional signage in the form of awning signs is proposed to be placed on the front wall of the building. Seven awnings, matching the existing awnings, will be added over the south windows of the Museum. Three awnings will have "Explore Store" repeated across the lower portion of the awning on a single line. The other four awnings will have "Museum of Discovery" repeated across the lower portion of the awnings in the same manner as the "Explore Store" awnings. The lettering for all seven awnings will be six inches high in a light gray color. The variances related to the banners are from Section 36-557 of the Sign Code and are as follow: 1. Section 36-557(d) allows only one banner per street frontage. The applicant is requesting a total of seven (7) banners to be placed on the Markham Street side and one on the river side. 2. Section 36-557(d) limits the placement of banners to 4 events in a calendar year with a limit of 6 weeks per event, a total of 24 weeks. The applicant is requesting that the banners be allowed to remain up on a year round basis. 3. Section 36-557(d)(2) limits the size of banners to 5 feet by 20 feet. The two banners over the main entrance and on the river side are a total of 5 feet by 25 feet, including the 5 feet by 5 feet banner which announces the current traveling exhibit. 4. Section 36-557(d)(3) states that banners may not encroach into the public right-of-way. All of the 2 December 22, 1997 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) banners proposed for placement on the Markham Street side are to be mounted perpendicular to the building. The front wall of the building is on the property line so all of these banners extend into the right-of-way. The variances related to the awning signs are from the River Market Design Overlay District Standards of the Code. 1. Section 36-353(3)(a)(2) limits the number of signs on a building facing Markham Street to 3 per business. The "Museum of Discovery" will have 4 awning signs. 2. Section 36-353(1)(a)(5) states that awning valences are the appropriate location for signage. The applicant proposes to place the signage on the lower portion of the awning but not on the valence. The code does not state that signage must be placed on the awning valence. Staff recognizes the unique nature of the River Market District and of the Museum of Science and Natural History. Allowing the banners and awning signs as proposed will add to the unique character of the District and should focus additional interest in the museum, an important public asset. Staff's support for these issues is based solely on this unique circumstance regarding this Public/Institutional use and is not to be construed as support for any future similar request from any other tenant in the River Market District or elsewhere in the City. On November 24, 1997, the River Market District Design Review Committee reviewed the proposal and voted to recommend approval of the requests subject to several conditions outlined in the attached letter dated December 1, 1997. Staff concurs with the Committee and recommends that the criteria outlined in that letter be made part of the conditions of approval by the Board of Adjustment. The applicant must still pursue a franchise for the banners which extend over the public right-of-way. Should the Board approve the variances, that approval will -be forwarded to the Franchise Review Committee. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of all requested variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Criteria outlined in the December 1, 1997 letter from the River Market District Design Review Committee 2. Any signage/banners which extend into the public right- of-way must obtain a franchise. 01 December 22, 1997 Item No.: 5 (Cont.) 3. The banners are approved for a period of two years only. At the end of two years, the banners will be reviewed for appropriateness, deterioration and maintenance. The applicant may apply for another two year period at that time. 4. The banners are to be maintained and are not to be allowed to deteriorate or fade so as to become unsightly. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 1997) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Criteria outlined in the December 1, 1997 letter from the River Market District Design Review Committee. 2. Any signage/banners which extend into the public right-of-way must obtain a franchise. 3. The banners are approved for a period of two years only. At the end of two years, the banners will be reviewed for appropriateness, deterioration and maintenance. The applicant may apply for another two (2) year period at that time. 4. The banners are to be maintained and are not to be allowed to deteriorate or fade so as to become unsightly. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. 4 i, , ver Market Frank Porbeck, Chairman t�i IN ` Design Grea Hart, Member _ 1 Review Fury Jacimore, Member Don Renshaw, Member Committee Shannon Reynolds Torbett, Member Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock • Arkansas • 72201.501-371-4790 • fax 371-6863 December 1, 1997 Mr. Mark Alderfer, Chairman Board of Adjustment 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Chairman Alderfer and Board Members, On November 24, 1997, the River Market DRC met with the representatives of AMR Architects about their proposal to hang banners and signs on the Museum Center. The River Market DRC had a lengthy discussion on banners and signs within the River Market District. The DRC determined that the Museum Center was a public/institutional building and special circumstances pertained to banners and signs advertising public/institutional entities. The committee voted to recommend that the following be allowed only if all the criteria is met. 4'x16' Banners six banners evenly spaced along the entire fagade (3 on each side of the main entrance) 2. banners are permitted only on a public/institutional building 3. banners are not to have a commercial message or logo 4. banners to be permitted for a two -.year period 5. banners to be vertically oriented 6. banners to extend into the public right-of-way Note: The DRC's recommendation of the use of banners is dependent on the placement of the banners evenly across the fayade of the Museum Center. If this criterion can not be met, then the DRC's recommendation on the banners would be negative. The applicant originally wanted to place these banners on the east end of the Museum Center. The DRC felt that the banners should be equally spaced over the entire fagade of the building, since the entire building is called the Museum Center. By spacing the banners equally across the entire fagade, this would prevent a commercial tenant of the Museum Center from requesting a similar banner. The time limitation on the banners was also an important issue. The DRC felt that two years would be a suitable period to review the banners for appropriateness, deterioration, and maintenance. At the end of the two years, the applicant would need to apply for another two-year variance for the banners. 5'x20' Banners 1. one banner over each of the main entrances (1 on Markham, 1 on river fagade) 2. banners are permitted only on apublic/institutional building 3. banners are not to have a commercial message or logo on them, except for the "Museum of Discovery" logo 3. banners to be permitted for a two-year period 4. banners to be vertically oriented 5. banners to extend into the public right-of-way (Markham side only) 6. banners to allow a changeable (5'x5') sign to hang beneath the main banner Awning Signs 1. text limited to the lower 12 inches of the main body of the awning 2. text on main body of awning to advertise a public/institutional business on a RjLbU building 3. limited to text only- no graphics on main body of awning 4. text not to exceed 6 inches in height 5. allow four awning signs that read "Explore Store" 6. allow three awning signs that read "Museum of Discovery" 7. text color to be a light gray Shawn Spencer DRC Staff Novem c 26, 2001 ITEM NO.: 2 File No. Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Ws�XIM" Jenny Smith 4 Forest Heights Drive Lot 94R, Forest Heights Place Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit an addition with a reduced side yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 4 Forest Heights Drive is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame single family residence. There is a swimming pool in the rear yard which is currently under construction. The applicant proposes to construct a bedroom addition at the southwest corner of the existing single family structure. The new addition will have a five (5) foot side yard setback at one (1) corner of the structure. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet for this lot. Novem r 26, 2001 Item No.: 2 The applicant originally requested a four (4) foot side yard setback for the proposed addition, as noted in the attached cover letter. However, after realizing that a four (4) foot setback would be one (1) foot into an existing utility easement (containing a water main), the applicant amended the application and survey to provide a five (5) foot side yard setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Given the fact that this is an unusual pie -shaped lot, it would be difficult to make a room addition to the rear of the existing structure and maintain the minimum required side yard setback. Also, the proposed five (5) foot side yard setback is at one (1) corner of the proposed addition. From this point, the side yard setback increases to nine (9) feet at the addition's southeast corner and 11.5 feet at the rear corner. Staff feels that the proposed addition will not be out of character with the immediate neighborhood. There will be adequate separation from the structure on the lot to the south and the existing swimming pool on this lot. Staff does not believe that the requested variance will have a negative effect on adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 26, 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 and 1 absent. PAI ze> 4 Distinctive Homes and Offices 3714 West Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Donna Dawson 501-227-8556 or cell 951-5143 Fax 501-227-6091 e-mail remodel@hotmail.com Date: 10-25-01 To: Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR Regarding: Application for a residential zoning variance I am requesting a variance on behalf of Jenny Smith for #4 Forest Heights Drive. Lot 94R, Forest Heights Place, an addition being a replant of Lots 94 and part of lot 60, Forest Heights Place an Addition to the City of Little Rock. We are requesting a variance to build an addition within 4 foot of the property line on the south side of the lot. We are requesting the variance due to the unusual shape of the lot. This addition will be a bedroom. We are adding this addition in anticipation of an elderly parent coming to live with Mrs. Smith. We appreciate your consideration of this matter. ;Sincerely,onna enn�yYmith Distinctive Homes Home Owner NovexL r 26, 2001 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested Justification: Present Use of Property: Z -6945-A Casonia Vinson 1 Deer Meadow Cove Lot 14, Block 1, Deer Meadow Addition R-2 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-156 and 36-254, and the easement provisions of Section 36-11. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The property at 1 Deer Meadow Cove is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of Deer Meadow Cove and Deer Meadow Drive. There is an attached wood deck with swimming pool/hot tub on the east side of the residential structure. There is also an existing 10 foot by 20 foot accessory building located near the southeast corner of the property, and a new 8 foot by 16 foot metal storage building which was recently placed along the east property line. Novent r 26, 2001 Item No.: 3 The applicant recently enlarged the deck structure and enclosed a portion of the deck around the swimming pool/hot tub. The covered deck structure was constructed to within three (3) feet of the side (south) property line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet for this lot. Also, the covered deck structure touches the northwest corner of the 10 foot by 20 foot accessory building. Section 36- 156(a)(2)b. requires that single family residences be separated from accessory buildings by at least six (6) feet. Additionally, the applicant recently placed an 8 foot by 16 foot metal storage building along the east property line. The building is located 0.9 foot from the east (rear) property line and is 4.1 feet into a five (5) foot utility/drainage easement. Section 36- 156(a)(2)f. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory buildings maintain a minimum three (3) foot setback from rear property lines. Section 36- 11(f) states, "No building or structure as defined in this chapter shall be erected, converted, reconstructed or structurally altered that encroaches on, over or into any easement." Staff is supportive of the variance requests. Staff feels that the enclosed deck/swimming pool structure and new accessory building will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area. The enclosed deck/swimming pool structure is located three (3) feet from the south property line at one (1) corner point only, sloping back to a setback of seven (7) to eight (8) feet. Also, the enclosed deck structure touches the larger accessory building at only one point. There should be enough space between the structures to allow for maintenance. With respect to the new 8 foot by 16 foot metal storage building, staff has no problem with the 0.9 foot setback as proposed, as long as there is guttering to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the east. Staff also has no problem with the new metal accessory building encroaching into the existing five (5) foot easement, as long as all of the public utility companies approve of the encroachment. As of this 2 Noven r 26, 2001 Item No.: 3 writing, the applicant has not provided staff with sign -offs from the utility companies. This is the only outstanding issue associated with this application. Staff will attempt to resolve this issue prior to the public hearing. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant must submit approvals from all five (5) of the public utility companies for the placement of the 8 foot by 16 foot metal storage building, which encroaches into the five (5) foot utility/drainage easement, or remove the structure from the easement. 2. The applicant must install guttering on the metal storage building to prevent water run-off onto adjacent property. 3.A building permit must be obtained for the new enclosed deck construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 26, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff noted that the applicant had submitted letters of approval from each of the five (5) public utility companies. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 '�z October 26,2001 To Whom it May Concern: This letter is being written in request for a variance. In the rear of my home there is a deck with a pool and jacuzzi. I have enclosed the area surrounding the pool and jacuzzi by covering the sides and adding a roof, but no other additions or adjustments were made to the already existing deck, pool or jacuzzi. The survey I obtained at closing when purchasing my home was found to be inaccurate and I have obtained a more updated one since then.. Please consider my request. Thank you, roM Casonia Vinson -Simmons #1 Deer Meadow Cove Little Rock, Ar 72209 Nove� r 26, 2001 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested Justification: Present Use of Property: Z -7085-A Don Kirkpatrick 120 Hickory Creek Circle Lot 13R, Hickory Creek Subdivision ".M A variance is requested from the fence height provisions of Section 36-516 to permit construction of an 8 foot tall fence/wall. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Install drains at fence line to prevent any water from backing up onto adjacent property. B. Staff Analysis: A new, one-story single family residence is currently being constructed on the R-2 zoned lot at 120 Hickory Creek Circle. On September 24, 2001, the Board of Adjustment approved a side yard setback variance for a porte-cochere addition to the single family residential structure. The applicant is currently proposing to construct an eight (8) foot high brick wall, with nine (9) foot high columns, to enclose the rear yard of the property. The applicant notes that the fence is requested in order to Novem-ter26, 2001 Item No.: 4 provide privacy for an elevated swimming pool and patio in the rear yard area. Attached is a letter from the Hickory Creek Architectural Review Committee, approving the wall construction request. The City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance limits the height of fences in residential zones to six (6) feet. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff feels that the eight (8) foot high wall will provide a good visual barrier from the swimming pool area, and will help prevent children from gaining unauthorized access to this rear yard. The requested brick wall will not be out of character with other such structures in the area. In the past, the Board of Adjustment has approved eight (8) and ten (10) foot high fences and walls within this neighborhood. There is one (1) outstanding issue associated with this application. The proposed wall is to be constructed over an existing sewer line at the northwest corner of the property. The applicant previously encased the sewer line in concrete to allow for the construction of the single family residence over the line. Staff has requested that the applicant obtain a letter from Little Rock Wastewater Utility approving of the wall construction. As of this writing, the applicant has not submitted this information to staff. Staff will attempt to have this issue resolved prior to the public hearing. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested wall height variance subject to compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A. of this request, and written approval being obtained from Little Rock Wastewater Utility. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 26, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff noted that the applicant had submitted a letter of approval (with conditions) dated November 21, 2001 from Little Rock Wastewater Utility. Staff noted that compliance 2 Novem. ,r 26, 2001 Item No.: 4 with this letter would be an additional condition of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 The Mehlburger Firm Engineers o Landscape Architects o Surveyors October 26, 2001 r '4 4 Mr. Dana Carney Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Carney, Enclosed is an application for a Residential Zoning Variance for 120 Hickory Creek Circle. This property is owned -by Mr. Don Kirkpatrick. Mr. Kirkpatrick is currently constructing anew home at this location. This application is for a variance which will allow a brick fence to be constructed to a height of 8' with the support columns of the fence to be constructed to a height of 9' high above finished grade. The fence is to provide privacy for an elevated swimming pool and patio in the rear yard of the residence. This type of fence is common in this subdivision and will be in scale with the house on this site as well as houses on the properties adjoining and surrounding this lot. Also included with this application, is a letter from the Hickory Creek Property Owners Association Architectural Review Committee which supports a portion of this proposal. If you need any further information concerning this application please contact me. Sincerely, THE MEEHLBURGER FIRM, INC. rank R. Riggi SLA 201 South Lard o P.O. Box 3837 o Little Rock, AR 72203-3837 o 501/375-5331 0 Fax 375-7'52 10/25/2001 2 -j 5014552276 KAREN LORD OCT -24-2001 15 FROM: DUALITY FCrXS 5©1-255 3141 10/22/2001 15.52 5618684667 nRTSON 0, EUGENE FORTSON 133 HICKORY CREIRK CIRCLE LITRE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72212 Phone (601) $44.4604 Octobtr 2, 2001 Mr, Don XJrkpatrick 106 Wclwxy Cmk Circle lsula Rock, AR 12212 PAGE 01 TO:501455e276 PAGE. -123 PAGE 01/01 You have roiaiW that the Bicimry Creek Properly Owners ASKWUon, through, ire Amfiltaotura.t Review Came, approve a modi6cstion of your new hvrnt plans. That modifjc Won ears of rcpiacing tha Chain link fc we art the rear of your proper Y with a solid brick wall. 'Y'hlt it the ita►c+e that Bun -0144$ the outer penmeter of tett development anQ the area bohind your to. tm would be a solid wa11 u114tr yotu request. Reberl Erwin and 1, who matpsise the itrchite"&I Teviaw committee have reviewed yow proposal &I d, in the obbem of a Win( p1wo to silp ' #TC pmviding y. with this It= AN evidence of the Comm ace'& apprnvt{l of yout rtsquast. ?cease let MO hear from you if you crave ,any gwwwrfs. &ncerely, 44u, D. Eugena Soot ee; Rdbort Erwin Cynthia Baabeart Law Teater, .ROM i Nover% r 26, 2001 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Owner: Address: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7104 West Group, LLC 1001 S. Bowman Road and 12309 Chenal Parkway 1001 S. Bowman Road - C-3 12309 Chenal Parkway - C-2 Variances are requested from Section 36-557 to allow year- round use of banner signs. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Commercial (both sites) Commercial (both sites) West Group, LLC is requesting variances to allow for the year-round use of banner signs at two (2) shopping center locations. Banner signs were recently placed on light poles within the shopping center sites at 1001 S. Bowman Road and 12309 Chenal Parkway. When the City's enforcement staff became aware of the signs, the property owner was informed that Board of Adjustment variance requests were in order. The property at 1001 S. Bowman Road is occupied by the Bowman Station Shopping Center. There are ten (10) banner signs at this location, which are attached to the light poles throughout the existing parking area. The banners are approximately 5-6 square feet in area and are located approximately 12-13 feet above the Novem .r 26, 2001 Item No.: 5 parking lot. The signs are attached to two (2) poles which extend horizontally from each light pole. There is a small logo in the upper half of each banner sign, with the wording "Bowman Station" within the lower half. The property at 12309 Chenal Parkway is occupied by the Chenal Place Shopping Center. There are approximately 18 banner signs at this location, nine (9) along each side of the entry drive from Chenal Parkway. The signs are attached to two (2) poles which extend horizontally from ornamental light poles. The banners are approximately 5 to 6 square feet in area and are located approximately 8 to 10 feet above the sidewalk along the entry drive. There is a small logo in the upper half of each banner sign, with the wording "Chenal Place" within the lower half. Section 36-557(d) of the City's Zoning Ordinance limits the placement of banner signs to four (4) events in a calendar year, with a limit of six (6) weeks per event, for a total of 24 weeks. The applicant is requesting that the banners be allowed to remain up at each location on a year-round basis. Staff supports the variance request for each of the two (2) locations. Staff feels that the request is reasonable and should have no adverse impact on the general area of each shopping center location, given the small size of the banner signs as proposed. Staff does however recommend that the banner signs be for the identification of each shopping center development only. The banners must not advertise an individual business, sale/promotion, specific merchandise or product line. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow year-round use of banner signs at 1001 S. Bowman Road and 12309 Chenal Parkway, subject to the following conditions: 1. The banner signs are for the identification of the shopping center developments only. F Noven� :r 26, 2001 Item No.: 5 2. There is to be no wording on the banner signs which advertise a specific business, sale/promotion, specific merchandise or product line. 3. The banner signs are to be attached only to the light poles within each shopping center development, with limitation of the size and number of signs as described in the "Staff Analysis." 4. Any banner sign that becomes torn or damaged must be promptly removed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 26, 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 and 1 absent. 3 _r 2.,,,_ s 2-7/00 WILLIS SMITH & CO. #5 Innwood Cr. Suite 104 Little Rock, Ar. 72211 Phone 501-227-9413 Fax 501-2217642 July 31, 2001 Mr. Dana Carney Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re; Flags — Chenal Place and Bowman Station Dear Mr. Qrni y:, It has come to our attention, that we have put flags upand we didn't get approval to do so. We were unaware that we had to. We got the idea from all the flags that the city of Little Rock and other people have put up. We have spent so much money on landscaping and upkeep; we felt this was a great addition to the center. I hope this can be a simple approval by you., because of the time and effort we have put into trying to make our center the nicest in town. I have included a picture of the flags so you cap• ow it looks. Respecy tfu your /j :: Willis Smith Noven, r 26, 2001 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Z-7109 Arthur V. Hope 2201 West Road Lot 124, Westover Hills Addition R-2 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 and 36-156 to permit additions with reduced setbacks. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Install roof drains to avoid any water runoff to adjacent property. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 2201 West Road is occupied by a one-story, frame single family residence and a one- story, detached frame garage. The applicant proposes to construct a 16.5 foot by 24 foot carport addition on the north end of the existing single family residential structure. The applicant proposes the carport addition to have a zero (0) setback along the north, side property line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 6.5 foot side yard setback for this lot. The applicant notes that the north, east and west sides of the proposed carport structure will be unenclosed, and that structure will Nove�, r 26, 2001 Item No.: 6 have a pitched roof (east/west), with a gable extending from the existing structure. The applicant also proposes to construct a 12 foot by 11.5 foot building addition to the east side of the existing 12.3 foot by 21.2 foot detached garage. This building addition is also proposed to have a zero (0) setback along the side property line. The existing detached garage has a zero (0) side yard setback at the structure's northwest corner and extends across the property line by approximately one (1) foot at the northeast corner of the structure. Section 36- 156(a)(2)f. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum three (3) foot side yard setback for accessory buildings in R-2 zoning. The applicant is also proposing an 8 foot by 24 foot porch addition to the front of the existing single family structure. This proposed addition conforms to the minimum required setbacks and requires no variances. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff does not recommend zero (0) building setbacks along common lot lines in single family residential zoning. The main reason for staff's non-support is based on the fact that construction and maintenance of the carport structure and accessory building addition would cause encroachment onto the adjacent single family property. However, staff would support a revised application pulling the proposed carport structure and garage addition (including eave lines) back at least two (2) feet from the north, side property line. This would allow some area of the applicant's property to be devoted to the construction and maintenance of the structures. Staff would also suggest installing gutters on the structures, where necessary to prevent water run-off onto adjacent property. Staff has informed the applicant of this issue, but feels that the applicant would like to pursue the variances as requested. 2 Novem_ ,r 26, 2001 Item No.: 6 C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the variances as requested. Staff could recommend approval of side yard setback variances for the carport and garage additions subject to the following conditions: 1. Both structures (including eave lines) must maintain a minimum two (2) foot side yard setback. 2. Both structures must have gutters, where necessary to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property. 3. The proposed carport addition must be unenclosed on the north, east and west sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 26, 2001) The applicant, Arthur Hope, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial as filed. Arthur Hope addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented a letter of support from Jenny Hatcher, the property owner to the north, to the Board. He explained that drainage would not be a problem, as the property immediately north had a higher grade, which allowed water to drain onto his property. He also explained that he had maintained a small strip of the adjacent lot to the north for over 30 years. He noted that he had spoken to all of the neighbors within 200 feet, and none had any objections to the proposed construction. Chairman Ruck asked Mr. Hope how he would maintain the proposed additions without encroaching onto the adjacent property. Mr. Hope noted that if the eaves of the structures were to extend to the property line, the structures could be maintained without encroaching onto the adjacent property. Andrew Francis noted concern that the neighbor to the north would not own the property forever, and that the zero (0) 3 Novem ,r 26, 2001 Item No.: 6 setback proposed could be a problem to a future owner of that adjacent property. Mr. Francis noted that he would have no problem with the zero (0) side yard setback if a construction/maintenance easement were dedicated on the lot to the north. He noted that the easement needed to be a minimum of two (2) feet in width. This issue was briefly discussed. Chairman Ruck noted concern with the possibility of water run-off onto the property immediately to the north, and noted that the structures should have gutters. This issue was further discussed. Mr. Hope noted that the proposed roof slope (east/west) for the carport addition would not create water run-off onto the north property. There was additional discussion pertaining to the issue of a construction/maintenance easement being dedicated along the south line of the lot immediately north of Mr. Hope's property. Staff suggested moving the proposed addition to the accessory building back two (2) feet from the side property line. This issue was discussed. Mr. Francis noted that he had no problem with the zero (0) setback as proposed as long as a construction/maintenance easement was dedicated. Mr. Hope stated that he would withdraw the variance request for the addition to the accessory building. The Board accepted this revision to the application. There was a motion to approve the zero (0) side yard setback variance for the carport addition only, subject to the following conditions: 1. A minimum two (2) foot wide construction/maintenance easement, extending at least 10 feet east and west of the proposed carport addition, being dedicated (properly filed with the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk Recorder's Office) prior to a building permit being issued. 2. The carport addition must be unenclosed on the north, east and west sides. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The revised application was approved. 4 ART HOPE 1 " �-V,- 2201 West Road ,Little Rock AR 72207 Phone of Fax (505) 8842112 Z- 7 - /l oI 10/17/01 Re: Residential zoning variance Our home is over 50 years old. and it looks like it. It has a very small front porch with no carport or garage on.the end of the house. It has a very small garage in the rear that is not even large enoughfor modern cars. _ We would .like to add. a.. large front porch and a carport which would really enhance the looks of our house and the neighborhood. Our neighbors think it would really help the neighborhood. We would also like to extend the garage for storage space so we can keep the new carport clean Thanks for your consideration Arthurr V. Hope, owner Nover_ .r 2 6, 2 0 01 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Z-7114 Eugene and Lillian Sullivan 32 Margeaux Drive Lot 26, Block 51, Chenal Valley Addition Variances are requested from the easement provisions of Section 36-11 to permit construction of a deck addition over an easement, and the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow construction of a deck with a reduced side yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 32 Margeaux Drive is occupied by a two-story, brick single family residence. A 12 foot by 32 foot wood deck was constructed at the southeast corner of the residential structure. The deck extends approximately 2.5 feet into a utility and drainage easement. The easement ranges in width from 27.9 feet to 29.5 feet from the rear property line. Section 36-11(f) of the City's Zoning Ordinance Nove m _r 26, 2001 Item No.: 7 prohibits building construction "...that encroaches on, over or into any easement." Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this provision. The applicant is also requesting a side yard setback variance for the deck construction. The first set of stairs and lower landing for the deck are located 3.5 feet to 5.5 feet from the side (eastern) property line. The second set of stairs and main body of the deck are located 7.5 feet to 9 feet from the same side property line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the code requires a minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet for this lot. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The applicant has supplied staff with sign -offs from all of the public utility companies, approving of the deck construction 2.5 feet into the existing utility easement. There is an existing sewer main located within this easement. Little Rock Wastewater Utility notes "...that if in the future the Utility needs to perform maintenance on this sewer main, the owner of the property shall remove the deck from the easement to facilitate any repairs required to the main." Additionally, staff feels that the deck construction will have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties or the general area. The single family residence located on the lot to the northeast appears to meet the minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet, giving a separation of over eleven (11) feet between the two homes. Staff will recommend that the lower set of stairs and landing, which are the parts of the structure located closest to the side property line, remain uncovered and unenclosed to lessen the impact of the reduced setback. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances subject to the following conditions. 1. If in the future, the deck structure has to be removed from the easement area in order for one of the utility companies to install new lines or E Noven. :r 26, 2001 Item No.: 7 maintain existing lines, the removal will be at the property owner's expense. 2. The lower stairs and landing area of the deck must remain uncovered and unenclosed. 3. A building permit must be obtained for the deck construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 26, 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 and 1 absent. 3 Memo To: Mr. Dana Carney From: Tim Daters CC: Date: 10/26/01 Re: Board of Adjustment The Owner of Lot 26, Block 51 Chenal Valley would like a waiver granted to allow the existing wood deck to encroach 2.5 feet to 3 feet into the plated rear utility easement. The sewer on the rear of this lot was constructed away from the rear lot line to preserve a small draw on the rear of these lots. The easement width and terrain allow the utilities access to their facilities with this encroachment. I have attached three copies of the lot survey with the sewer line draw in red. Please place this item on the docket for the November 26th, 2001 Board of Adjustment meeting. If you need any additional information please call. Thank you for your assistance. Encl. As noted 9 Page 1 �i N� O U W w W H O z W a LL O O m FR E L 0 ll r_ LU Q z 0 0 w } o ozQ(3u'Q Q J Q ct� U) �f Z Uu" Q LLJ z } o Q Y w Q U w LL03 C Q U J W c U Q J m E L 0 ll r_ LU Q z 0 0 w } o ozQ(3u'Q Q J Q ct� U) �f Z Uu" Q _ z } U m Y p LL U J 1-1� 0� E L 0 ll r_ LU Q z 0 November 26, 2001 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:43 p.m. Date: 0. Chairman