Loading...
boa_06 26 2000LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JUNE 26, 2000 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 May 22, 2000 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Gary Langlais, Chairman William Ruck, Vice Chairman Norm Floyd Fred Gray Members Absent: Scott Richburg City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA JUNE 26, 2000 2:00 P.M. DEFERRED ITEM A. Z-6855 5500 Pinnacle Valley Road II. VARIANCE ITEMS 1. Z -6689-C 300 East Markham Street 2. Z -6713-A 5300 Edgewood Road 3. Z-6852 1903 N. Tyler Street 4. Z-6856 14900 Gorgeous View Trail 5. Z-6858 7211 "N" Street 6. Z-6865 5301 Kavanaugh Blvd. 7. Z-6866 Mabelvale West 8. Z-6867 5123 Edgewood Road 9. Z-6868 1212 West 11th Street 10. Z-6869 5318 Centerwood Road 11. Z-6870 1123 Kavanaugh Blvd. 12. Z-6871 #9 Longfellow Lane 13. Z-6872 5418 Asher Avenue III. OTHER MATTERS 14. Interpretative Request U -Haul 0 0 0 • � O `����/// r /1 � _ nnvelHi 3�d a3lZtlai M `- J VJ Z o WW W U U y M I_ _ a r� NIYW AVMOVONS HOatl c� 31SIHO ONIN In OHM _ x MOa000M 3NId S (0 e 3NId � O NO111MY 11005 � s � ulsa tj aavd a1tl3 � ulsa3nwn �o .� � � SONIN aM3s (� j s31anH LO ,�� alOha3S3a MO HV9 NW 3 � 3NN13H Oa 3l o aao33lNavHs � SMYS � a N J O �—n & wvHard A3N008 NV OB — Al VJ UU) J z S11WIl A110 3001a AWN • E �t 0 Je in U a NVnmlls iwm31S 4 m Q jn� 31VONNB Junes 26, 2000 Item No.: A File No.: Z-6855 Owner: Daniel Clayton Address: 5500 Pinnacle Valley Road Description: Lot "A", Berg Subdivision Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to permit a reduced front yard setback. Justification: The house is existing. The survey used to construct the house incorrectly indicated the building line measured from the previous right-of-way and did not account for right-of-way dedication. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: A one-story, brick and frame, single family residence has recently been constructed on the R-2 zoned property located at 5500 Pinnacle Valley Road. The home was built with a front yard setback of 15± feet and has been built across a 35 foot platted building line. The Code requires a 25 foot front yard setback in the R-2 district. Variances are requested to accommodate the existing residence. Jun- 26, 2000 Item No.: A (Cont.) The hardship presented for the variances is obvious in that the only other option is to remove a portion of the residence. This .75 acre lot was platted in 1998 when an 11.76 acre tract was subdivided into 2 lots. Pinnacle Valley Road is classified by the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial street and a 20 foot right-of-way dedication was required to bring the right-of-way to 45 feet from the centerline. Section 31-256(2) requires residential lots fronting on a minor arterial street to have a building line of not less than 35 feet from the right-of-way line. The preliminary plat and the final plat for this lot were approved with the appropriate right-of-way and building line. Subsequently, a building permit was applied for to construct a single family residence on the lot. The survey submitted for the building permit was prepared by a different firm than that one which prepared the plat. Unbeknownst to all parties, the survey submitted for the building permit measured all setbacks and the 35 foot building line from the old right-of-way and did not take into account the additional 20 feet of right-of-way dedication. All clearances, permits and inspections were made based on the erroneous survey. The error was not discovered until after the house was constructed and an as - built survey was prepared. Fortunately, only a relatively small portion of the house is built across the platted building line. The home's garage is located behind the building line and is side -loaded, so that vehicles do not back directly out of the structure into the right-of-way. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback, and building line variances subject to a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 22, 2000) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had not completed the E C Junes 26, 2000 Item No.: A (Cont.) required notices and had requested that the item be deferred to the June 26, 2000 meeting. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the June 26, 2000 meeting. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested deferral to the July 31, 2000 meeting due to ongoing discussions between the builder, engineer and property owner. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 31, 2000 meeting with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 Junes 26, 2000 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: Melissa Tanner/Vesta's 300 East Markham Part of Block 35, Original City GB A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 353(a) to permit a sign which does not conform to the River Market Design Overlay District Guidelines. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Retail Retail No issues related to this sign variance. B. Staff Analysis: This issue is before the Board as the result of action by the Code Enforcement staff. Vesta's is a retail business located in the recently remodeled building at 300 East Markham Street. The site is located in the River Market District. Vesta's occupies the corner of the building with frontage on East Markham and Cumberland Streets. Vesta's has been placing a small, easel -mounted sign within the portico (recessed entry) of the business. The River Market District Design Overlay regulations specifically address allowable signage. The Overlay regulates the number, location and appearance of signs within the District. The easel sign does not conform to district standards. Signage is specifically limited to walls and awnings within the District. Free standing signage is not permitted. Junes: 26, 2000 Item No.: 1 (Cont. The sign is approximately 2' X 3' in size and is placed upon an easel. The applicant states the sign will only be placed out during business hours and will be placed in the portico so that it does not obstruct the sidewalk. The sign will be used to show that the store is open, to advertise River Market events and to advertise store specials. The River Market Design Review Committee voted to allow the sign subject to three conditions: 1. The sign is not to be placed in the right-of-way. 2. The sign is to only be placed outside during normal working hours. 3. The sign is not to advertise prices of items. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance to allow the sign. Although the sign is within the portico (recessed entry) of the building, it is still a temporary sign. Temporary signs are not permitted in the City without a special event permit. Staff is concerned that the precedent which could be set by allowing this sign could lead to a proliferation of similar signs in the area. On December 27, 1999, this applicant appeared before the Board with an application for multiple sign variances for sign size, lettering size, illumination and to have a total of 5 signs. Each business is limited to no more than 3 signs in the River Market District. The Board approved some, but not all, of the variances requested. The Board did approve the request to have 5 signs. This proposed easel sign would bring that total to 6 signs, 3 more than permitted in the District. Vesta's now has as much, if not more, signage than other businesses in the District. The Purpose and Intent section of the River Market District Design Overlay states, in part: "Buildings, signs, street furnishings and landscaping should all be designed to complement and encourage pedestrian use during the day and at night. Careful planning is necessary to ensure the proper placement of such items to avoid visual clutter. Visual clutter is not a major problem in the district at present, but good planning anticipates and prepares for future problems, N Juno 26, 2000 Item No.: 1 (Cont. especially in consideration of positive economic development. Guidelines and strategies must be in place to protect the district from the negative impact of poorly planned or incompatible projects. Incompatible development has the potential to destroy the attributes which will attract people to the district." It is staff's opinion that the proposed sign violates the purpose and intent of the River Market District. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested deferral of the item due to a death in her family. The required notices had not been completed. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 31, 2000 meeting with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 2-6679-C Toes t a s Friday, May 19, 2000 City of Little Rock, Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Requestfor Zoning Variance (Sign) This application is fora variance to place a sign within the portico of the entrance of Vesta's Gifts at 300 East Markham in The River Market District. The proposed sign is approximately 2 feet by 3 feet and is placed upon an easel. The sign will only be placed during business hours. The entrance portico was specifically designed to accommodate such a sign without obstructing the sidewalk. The sign will be used to 1)show that the store is open; 2)advertise River Market events; and 3)advertise store specials. Although the River Market District has been open for several years, it is only recently that retailers have opened stores in the area. This sign is essential to advertise that the store is now open and no longer a warehouse. I believe that such portable signs that are not obstructing the sidewalk, are of modest size, and not electrical or automated are within the spirit and decor of this area. Sincerely, Melissa Tanner, Owner -%leCissa Z"anner, Owner Soo East .Markham River Narket LittCe Rock, AR. 72201 z- 6 G Fq -C— River C_River GregHai-t,Chairman Market Larry Jacimore, Member Design Frank Porbeck, Member Review Don Renshaw, Member Committee 1. Christie Godwin, Member Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock • Arkansas • 72201.501-371-4790 • fax 371-6863 June 12, 2000 Mr. Langlais, Chairman Board of Adjustment 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Chairman Langlais and Board Members, The River Market Design Review Committee (DRC) has met and discussed the temporary sign for `Vesta's' at 300 East Markham. The DRC feels that it would be appropriate to allow Ms. Tanner to place a temporary sign in her vestibule to advertise events in the River Market District and to advertise any specials in her store. The DRC did place three conditions on their recommendation: the sign is not to be placed in the right of way, the sign is only to be placed outside during normal working hours, and the sign is not to advertise prices of items (ie. "shirts $9.99" not allowed, but "shirts on sale" would be allowed. 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 Jun.- 26, 2000 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 -6713-A Wayne Moore/Ellen Yeary, Architect 5300 Edgewood Road Lots 102, 131 and 132, Prospect Terrace #2 R-2 Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to permit construction of additions with reduced side and rear yard setbacks. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family The R-2 zoned property located at 5300 Edgewood Road is occupied by a two-story, rock, frame and stucco, single- family residence. The property consists of three lots at the northwest corner of Edgewood Road and Harrison Street (Lots 102, 131 and 132 Prospect Terrace #2). The house is currently being remodeled. The applicant proposes to construct two additions onto the house. A large addition on the west side is to contain a one-story exercise room and a one and one-half story, two -car garage. This addition is proposed to have a rear yard setback ranging from 3-4 feet. The Code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet. The second addition is a one-story expansion of the family room. Jur, 26, 2000 Item No.: 2 (Cont. This second addition will result in a side yard setback of 3 feet. The code requires a side yard setback of 7.5 feet. Staff has concerns about the proposed expansions and the requested setback variances. The existing house now has a rear yard setback ranging from .8-1.8 feet. Allowing the large exercise/garage addition to have a reduced rear yard of 3-4 feet virtually lines the entire rear lot line with structure. The property has a 20 foot platted building line on Edgewood and the addition is proposed to have a front yard setback of 33 feet. Moving the proposed addition to the building line will provide a rear yard setback of 16-17 feet, creating some open space along the rear lot line and reducing the impact on the adjacent lot (Lot 103). The impact on that adjacent lot is further exacerbated by the reduced side yard setback created by the proposed den expansion. The full complement of additions proposed by the applicant will result in nearly 90 feet of structure located with .8-4 feet of the common lot lines between the applicant's property and the adjacent Lot 103. Although it cannot truly be said that the applicant is overbuilding the property, because of the amount of open space available on the remainder of his 3 lots, staff believes he is overbuilding in a critical setback area which could result in a negative impact on the adjacent property. On July 26, 1999, the Board approved a rear yard setback variance for this lot allowing what was an existing garage to be connected to the main house with an addition which had a rear yard setback of 4 feet. The proposed addition was relatively minor in the scope of things. The existing garage had a rear yard setback of .8-1.8 feet. A copy of that previous action is attached. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested rear and side yard setback variances as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000) The applicants, Ellen Yeary and Wayne Moore, were present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Ellen Yeary addressed the Board in support of her application. She presented plans of the proposed additions. Ms. Yeary F% Jun 26, 2000 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) described the addition as being one story in height with a low eave line which would reduce the visual impact of the reduced setback. She presented a letter from Mike and Robin Smith, owners of the abutting the property at 5305 Centerwood. In that letter the Smiths voiced their preference for the reduced setback proposed by the applicants rather than having the addition moved away from the rear property line as proposed by staff. In response to a question from Fred Gray, Mr. Moore stated that he had met with the owner of the property directly west of this site and that person voiced no objection to the proposal. Ms. Yeary commented that there was a large amount of vegetation between this site and the property to the west. She noted that the proposed addition did not intrude upon the required side yard setback adjacent to the property on the west. In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Ms. Yeary stated that the proposed courtyard was an important issue to the new owners, as they have small children and want to provide a safe play area. Fred Gray asked Mr. Moore if he felt this would be the last variance requested for the property. Mr. Moore deferred to the new owners who indicated that their answer was yes. Due to a lack of a motion, the Chairman called the question on the application, as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 noe and 1 absent. 3 Z-6,713 -,1 Yeary Lindsey Architects May 25, 2000 Mr. Dana Carney Department of Planning & Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: 5300 Edgewood Road Dear Mr. Carney, We are requesting a zoning variance for reduced side and rear yard setbacks at 5300 Edgewood Road. We are proposing construction of a new one and one-half story two -car garage to the west of the existing two story residence. This new garage front will align with the front (south) elevation of the main house, parallel with Edgewood Road. A variance from the rear yard setback will be necessary to facilitate construction of a single story exercise room to be built behind the garage, which will link the garage to the existing house. The minimum distance from this new construction to the north rear yard property line will now be three feet. We are also proposing a one-story extension of the existing family room six feet to the north. This extension would require a reduced side yard setback of 3'-0" from the west property line to the corner of the new addition. An uncovered concrete stoop is planned to link the backyard pool area to a mudroom next to the family room. This stoop will occur in the three foot space between the fence and the new den extension. Thank you for your serious consideration of this variance application. Sincerely, Ellen Yeary, A 319 E. Markham, Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-5940 PX: 501-707-0118 July 26, 1999 Item No.: 12 File No.. Owner: Address: Z-6713 Wayne Moore 5300 Edgewood Road Description: Lot 102, 131 and 132 Prospect Terrace No. 2 Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit construction of an addition with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: Applicant's Statement: We are requesting a zoning variance at 5300 Edgewood to allow an encroachment into the rear yard Iftft setback of lot 131 and into the sideyard setback of lot 132. We are proposing a 2 foot extension of the existing den structure to the north, conversion of an existing stone and stucco garage structure into a heated and cooled playroom, and a 2 story connector piece to link new playroom to the existing house. The "link" piece will include laundry and mudroom areas on the first floor and master bedroom/bath area at the second floor. A stoop to the north of the "link" will be necessary to access the existing backyard. This stoop will come within 18 inches of the north property line at lot 131 and may be constructed of concrete if necessary. The existing house is considered a neighborhood landmark and the new owners plan to remodel and update Juiy 26, 1999 Item No.: 12 (Cont. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: the house while taking care to maintain its existing architectural character. Our proposed 2 story addition will allow the owners to utilize an existing structure by connecting it to the main house. The location of this new connector piece is such that it will impact the existing elevations in the least intrusive way. Our goal is to construct this new piece in a way that will look as if it has always been a part of the original house. Single Family Single Family The R-2 zoned property located at 5300 Edgewood Road is occupied by a large, two-story, rock and frame, single- family residence with a detached two story garage/carport structure. The property consists of three lots which front onto Edgewood, Harrison and Centerwood. The applicants propose to substantially remodel the home including removing the carport, converting the garage into storage and a playroom and constructing an addition which will connect the house to the garage. The new two story addition will contain laundry and mudroom areas on the first floor and master bedroom/bath area on the second floor. The existing garage structure has a rear yard setback of .8 feet. The new connection between the house and garage will have a rear yard setback of 4 feet with a small porch coming within 18 inches of the rear property line. The code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. K Nd July 26, 1999 Item No.: 12 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the requested setback variances. The existing garage and house currently have reduced rear yard setbacks of .8 feet and 6 feet respectively. Allowing the new addition to "fill-in" the gap between these two structures should not greatly increase any impact on adjacent properties. The.home directly behind the garage fronts onto Centerwood Road and appears to have a rear yard setback exceeding 25 feet, providing adequate separation between structures. The proposed remodeling, including the removal of the carport and a greenhouse structure should be an improvement which will be of benefit to the neighborhood. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 26, 1999) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff informed the Board that the notices were completed on July 19, 1999, three days later than required by the Board's bylaws. The notices were substantially completed in a timely manner. A motion was made to waive the Board's bylaws and to accept the notices as completed by the applicant. The motion was approved by vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. The applicant offered no additional comments. The setback variance request was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 Jun- 26, 2000 Item No.: 3 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-6852 Edwin Cromwell/Eugene Levy, Agent 1903 N. Tyler Street Lot 18, Block 2, Englewood Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the area coverage provisions of Section 36-156 to permit construction of an accessory building which exceeds the allowable rear yard coverage. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family The R-2 zoned property located at 1903 N. Tyler Street is occupied by a one-story, frame, single-family residence and a detached storage building. The home is in the process of being remodeled and expanded by the new owner. The applicant proposes to remove the dilapidated storage building and build in its place a new 554 square foot garage/storage building. The new structure occupies 42 percent of the lot's required rear yard. Section 36-156 states that accessory structures are not to occupy more than 30 percent of the required rear yard. The maximum allowed structure for this lot is 375 square feet. Jure 26, 2000 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The proposed structure exceeds all required setbacks. Numerous properties in this block have similar structures adjacent to the alley, some of which are larger than that proposed by the applicant. The 30 percent coverage rule, when applied to the 50 foot wide lots in the City's mature area, does not allow for construction of a typical 2 -car garage without a variance. The 42 percent coverage proposed by the applicant still leaves adequate open area at the rear of the lot. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested area coverage variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. One letter of support had been received from Robyn Zinser of 5305 Kavanaugh Blvd. 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 with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 Edwin B. Cromwell 1720 Beechwood Little Rock, AR 72207 April 28, 2000 Board of Adjustment City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Ref: 1903 North Tyler Street, Lot 18, Block 2, Englewood Addition, Little Rock, AR Dear Sir: We wish to request a zoning variance for subject property to allow a detached garage to be constructed in the rear yard setback area against the existing alley. There is not sufficient property in the backyard to locate a garage outside of the 25' rear yard setback area. There is precedence for this variance in that there are currently nine garage or carports on the existing alley in this block, which are against the alley (and which are within the rear yard 25' setback area). One of these garages is immediately next door to the north of my property. In addition, there is an existing detached storage building in the area of the proposed garage, which is to be removed to make way for the new garage. Thus, this is replacement of an exiting structure with a slightly larger one. Attached is a survey, which shoNASthe proposed location of the garage and also an Application for Variance. Thank you. Sincerely, Eugene P. Levy Agent for Edwin B. Cromwell, P operty Owner EPL/mh Enc. z`,zu,t /Lvz�k- 6`i��a S, Zvo 72 3 ;f4 -7i�o i 4a,t� 4,,-k 4,'c 5'30,5— Ac;r4-r a i Jun, 26, 2000 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: Bobby Makin 14900 Gorgeous View Trail Lot 113, Spring Valley Manor R-2 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-156 to permit construction of an accessory building with a reduced front yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family 14900 Gorgeous View Trail is located in Spring Valley Manor, a residential subdivision at the City's western edge that developed prior to its annexation in 1993. This R-2 zoned lot currently contains a one-story, rock and frame, single family residence. The house was constructed without a carport or garage. The applicant proposes to construct a 16' X 261, open carport in front of the house. The carport construction will match the house and the structure will be connected to the house by an unenclosed, covered walkway. The carport will have a front yard setback of 26 feet. The code requires accessory structures to have a front yard setback of at least 60 feet. Jui._ 26, 2000 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the requested setback variance. The lot slopes down steeply from the street so that the ridge of the house is actually below street grade. The house and parking pad are constructed on terraces with about 5 feet of difference in elevation, making it difficult to build the carport as an attached addition to the house. If it was practical to construct an addition onto the front of the house, the addition could come to within 15 feet of the front property line. Staff believes this proposed carport will have no effect on neighboring properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested front yard setback for the proposed unenclosed carport structure, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000) 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 with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 Z-6 r --6 May 24, 2000 Mr. Dana Carney, Zoning Administrator Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR Re: Request for Zoning Variance Dear Mr. Carney: Attached is a completed Application for Zoning Variance for my residence at 14900 Gorgeous View Trail in Little Rock. I propose to construct a protective carport for my motor vehicle. The residence was originally constructed without a carport or garage and I am in need of a structure to protect my truck from the weather, falling tree limbs and acorns, and birds. I propose to construct an open carport on the existing concrete parking pad in front of the house, with a covered walkway connecting them. Carport construction will match the eAsting house. Attached is a partial copy of my contractor's proposal describing the construction features. The proposed location for the carport is the only feasible alternative due to the following reasons: 1. The lot is steeply sloping from the front to the back. The parking pad and house are constructed on terraces in stair step fashion with the pad elevation being about five feet above the house floor. There is no practical way to attach a carport or garage directly to the existing structure. 2. Access to the backyard is restricted due the following factors a. The orientation of the house on the lot. b. Along the west property line is a 5 -foot drainage and utility easement restricting passage and construction of a drive. Also there are two large oak trees and one sweet gum tree which further restrict passage. c. Along the east property line is a 10 -foot utility easement restricting the construction of retaining walls and dirt fill necessary to extend the drive into the backyard. (This easement is not shown on the survey, but it was acquired about two years ago as a part of the SID'S ongoing efforts to transfer ownership of the sewer collection system to the Little Rock Wastewater Department.) Please accept this application for review by your office and consideration by the Board of Adjustment. Sincerely, Bobby Makin 14900 Gorgeous View Trail Little Rock, AR 72210 Jur, _ 26, 2000 Item No.: 5 File No.: Z-6858 Owner: Michael C. Davis Address: 7211 "N" Street Description: Lot 4, Block 15, Riffel and Rhoton's Forest Park Highlands Addition Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: R-2 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit construction of a carport addition with reduced front and side yard setbacks. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family The R-2 zoned property located at 7211 "N" Street is currently occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single- family residence. A free-standing, 10' X 20', detached carport was previously located over the driveway in front of the house. As part of the City project to widen and improve "N" Street, the carport was removed and the applicant's driveway was rebuilt. The slope of the driveway was changed and the carport would have to be rebuilt to a taller height to provide adequate vertical clearance for vehicles. The street widening also eliminated the applicant's ability to park a second vehicle on the driveway, behind the carport. To replace the loss of the carport and the second, stacked Jul— 26, 2000 Item No.: 5 (Cont. parking space the applicant has proposed to construct a two - car carport addition onto the front of the house. The carport addition will result in a front yard setback of 4 feet and a side yard setback of 2 feet, less than the 25 foot front yard and 5 foot side yard setbacks required for this lot. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. In truth, the loss of the carport and the second, stacked parking space was brought about by the City's street widening project. The previous, detached carport had a front yard setback of 1-2 feet, well below the 60 foot front yard setback required for accessory structures. By making the carport an addition to the house, a 4 foot setback is provided in lieu of the 25 foot front yard requirement. There are other homes on the street with similar carport structures in the front yard, including the homes next door and across the street from this site. The proposed 2 foot side yard setback provides adequate room for installation of guttering and a reduced eave. The carport should remain open and unenclosed. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested front and side yard setback variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1.The carport is to remain open and unenclosed on all sides other than at the point it adjoins the house. 2. The eave/overhang on the east side of the carport is to be limited to no more than 6 inches. 3. Guttering is to be installed on the east side of the carport to prohibit water run-off onto the adjacent property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. Staff informed the Board that, although the notices appeared to be complete, they were completed late. Approximately half of the notices were completed 9 days prior to the Board meeting and the remainder were completed 6 days prior, E Jul.. 26, 2000 Item No.: 5 !Cont. not 10 days as required by the Board's bylaws. After a brief discussion, the Board determined that the notices were substantially complete and a motion was made to waive the Bylaws and to accept the notices. The motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The applicant offered no additional comments. The variance request was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff, including all conditions. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to approve the item. 3 MICHAEL C. DAVIS 7211 "N" Street Little Rock, AR 72207-6056 (501) 663-3737 May 4, 2000 Mr. Dana Carney Zoning Administrator Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Regarding: Application for Residential Zoning Variance Dear Sir, I would appreciate consideration for a residential zoning variance for my property located at 7211 "N" Street, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Arkansas. "N" Street was formerly know as Texas street. My proposal is to replace an existing carport, of twenty(20) feet in length and ten(10) feet wide with a carport of twenty(20) feet in length and eighteen(18) feet wide. Our existing carport was removed to facilitate street reconstruction, and resolve drainage problems. The removal of the existing carport provides adequate vertical vehicle clearance, and the proper slope, for undercarriage vehicle clearance, due to the elevation of the street. The existing carport, of twenty(20) feet in length and ten(10) feet wide exceeded the twenty-five(25) feet offset from the street, required by ordinance. This carport was constructed prior to the implementation of the ordinance. Our property offset from the street has decreased due to the widening of the street. I am requesting a variance to widen the carport to eighteen(18) feet, and to maintain the existing twenty(20) foot length, to park our two vehicles side by side, which can no longer be parked vertically without extending into the street. I have received permission from the adjacent property owner, Mr. Darin Hoover, for this variance. Thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration, and invaluable assistance. Sincerely, Michael C. Davis Permission for Driveway Entrance Flare / 72-6 7 I property owner of 42-e9 "N" Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, arch 3, 2 0o, gi e Michael and Laverne Davis property owners of 7211 "N" Street, Little Ro , Arkansas, permission to extend their driveway into the City of Little Rock's property. I am permitting the entrance flare of the driveway of 7211 "N" Street to extend to the electrical pole, located in the City of Little Rock's property and in front of the adjacent property of -7289 "N" Street. ?267 Jus_ 26, 2000 Item No.: 6 File No.: Owner: Address: Z-6865 TC Real Estate Holdings, LLC/ James Williams, Architect 5301 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lot "A", Dunaway and Fowler's Replat of Lots 12 and 13, Block 2, Englewood Addition Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: MMI Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-281, the on-site parking provisions of Section 36-502 and the buffer requirements of Section 36-522. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Vacant lot Office Building 1. Harrison Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the corner of Harrison and Kavanaugh. 3. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 5. Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards. (ramp shown is not acceptable). Junes 26, 2000 Item No.: 6 (Cont. 6. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant proposes to construct a new, 3 -story office building on the 0-3 zoned lot located at 5301 Kavanaugh Blvd. The lot is located at the southwest corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. and N. Harrison Street. The lot is currently vacant. The property was previously occupied by a service station which had for the past several years been used by a barber shop (Mackey's). The applicant proposes to construct a 6,000 sq. ft. office building with parking on the lower level and 2 floors of offices above. The parking will be partially below grade, reducing the height of the building above grade. A 6,000 sq. ft. office building requires 15 on-site parking spaces. Seven spaces will be provided on-site, in the lower level garage. The proposed building is to have side yard setbacks of 2 feet on the east and 3 feet on the west. The Code requires side yard setbacks of 10 feet in the 0-3 district. The building has stairs in the front which come down to the sidewalk and the main body of the building has a front yard setback of 11.3 feet. The Code requires a front yard setback of 25 feet. The stairs on the rear of the building are set back from the rear property line 11 feet and the main body of the building is set at 15 feet. The code requires a rear yard setback of 15 feet. Zoning buffers of 6 feet in width are required on the east and south perimeters. The applicant proposes buffer widths in these areas of 2 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variances for this innovative, in -fill development. Staff's support is based, in great part;, on the nature of the Heights neighborhood. The venerable heights Commercial district, particularly the development on Kavanaugh Blvd., is typified by reduced setbacks and parking. Staff believes this proposed brownstone -style development would be compatible with and complement the neighborhood. The 0-3 zoned properties adjacent to the west are occupied by two, one-story office buildings. These adjacent buildings have reduced side yard setbacks of 3-5 feet and are built to within 1-2 feet of the front property line. Other than for the front stairs, the applicant's building 2 Jun'_ 26, 2000 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) will be set back 9-10 feet further from the front property line than the adjacent buildings. The reduced side yard setback on the west, adjacent to the other office buildings, is comparable to setbacks between non-residential developments in the area and should have no impact on the adjacent property. The previous building which existed on this site had a side yard setback of 3 feet on the west. The proposed 11.3 ft. front yard setback is very typical of nonresidential development in the Heights. Most of the older commercial buildings and some of the newer development have less front yard setback and are, in some cases, built to the front property line. The street appeal of this project, with the stairway, landscaping and a fountain feature, will help to assure its compatibility with the neighborhood. The properties across Harrison Street, to the east, are zoned R-2 and are occupied by single family homes. The reduced setback of 2 feet on this side is a potential issue of concern and treatment of this perimeter of the site is of utmost importance. If it were not for the requirement to dedicate 5 feet of the property for additional right-of-way for Harrison Street, the building would have a 7 ft. side yard setback on the east. The building will sit 17± from the curb of the street. The street adds to the separation between this proposed building and the homes to the east. The applicant has proposed to heavily landscape the eastern perimeter of the site, including the right-of-way between the sidewalk and the street, to help mitigate the visual impact of the reduced setback. The building fagade is designed to present a pleasant appearance to the east. The building is proposed to conform to the required 15 foot rear yard setback with the exception of a required stairway. The stairs extend 4 feet into the required setback. The stairs are unenclosed and should have a minimal impact on the adjacent property. The property to the south is occupied by a single family home which fronts onto Harrison Street. An access driveway, a 6 foot privacy fence and the proposed 2 foot buffer separate the proposed building from the adjacent residential property. The applicant has proposed to plant trees in a number twice that required by the Code in the area between the fence and the driveway to help mitigate the impact of the reduced buffer and building (stairway) setback. 3 Jun'_ 26, 2000 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) The issue of parking is a fairly difficult one to address in the Heights in general and for this site in particular. Very few businesses in the area have adequate on-site parking, depending instead on available on -street parking and a walking neighborhood populace. That concept seems to work well for the commercial businesses; retail, restaurants, etc. It is a different issue when addressing an office use where employees might be expected to be on the site 8 hours per day. This site is so small that it would not be feasible to build an office building and to provide surface parking. The applicant has taken the extraordinary and expensive step of providing 7 parking spaces in the lower level of the building itself. On street parking is available on the south side of Kavanaugh Blvd. and on Harrison Street directly adjacent to this property. That on -street parking could provide space for 5-6 vehicles. The total of on-site parking spaces and on -street parking adjacent to the property appears to be 12-13 spaces. The applicant is building the office building for his own use. He owns a private investment company with a limited number of employees and virtually no walk-in customer traffic. The site was small to begin with, being only 5,000 sq. ft. in area. The lot will be reduced to less than 4,500 sq. ft. in area once the required right-of-way dedication is accomplished on Harrison Street and at the corner. Staff believes the applicant has designed a project which is architecturally compatible with the neighborhood and which does the best job possible of working within the constraints of such a small site. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of and parking variance subject following conditions: the requested setback, buffer to compliance with the 1. Compliance with Public Works Comments 2. The eastern and southern perimeters of the site are to be heavily landscaped as indicated on the architectural rendering submitted by the applicant. 3. The building is to be designed in the style represented in the architectural rendering submitted by the applicant. 4 Jui._ 26, 2000 Item No.: 6 (Cont. I*93VAVawa3af`lk106 (JUNE 26, 2000) James Williams and Geoffrey Tirman were present representing the application. There were several objectors and one supporter present. One letter of support, from Wesley Walls of 1915 N. Harrison Street, had been received. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval, subject to compliance with the conditions noted in the "Staff Recommendation" above. James Williams addressed the Board in support of his application. He stated that he agreed with staff's recommendation and would fully comply with the plans he submitted. Mr. Williams stated that it was his intent to build a first class project. He stated that the owner was a neighborhood resident who wanted his office to be located near his home. Mr. Williams commented that the owner had gone to great expense to provide on-site parking by designing a building with garage parking. Fred Gray asked what type of business was proposed for the site and why there was no need for the required 15 parking spaces. Geoffrey Tirman responded that his was a private money management business with approximately 50 clients, 25 in the U.S. and 25 outside the country. He stated that he only had 5 clients in Little Rock and never had more than 2-3 visitors per month come to his office. Mr. Tirman stated that a total of 8 persons worked in the office and 5 of those persons lived within walking distance of the site. He stated most walk or bicycle to work and that there might be 4 vehicles a day come to the office. Fred Gray asked Mr. Tirman if he expected his business to expand. Mr. Tirman responded that he stated his company in 1987 and since that time the business had expanded only from 5 persons to the current 8. He stated that he might hire one more analyst and one more senior person. Tim Hicks, of 1910 N. Harrison Street, spoke in opposition to the item. He stated that he appreciated the applicant's efforts to be sensitive to the neighborhood. Mr. Hicks stated that his concern was allowing a 6,000 square foot office building to have only 7 on-site parking spaces. He asked the Board to consider future users of the building if this applicant moves on. Mr. Hicks stated that he felt the building was too large for the site. In response to a question from Fred Gray, Mr. Hicks stated that the typical neighborhood residence had two cars. He stated that 5 iu.__ 26, 2000 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) one car was typically parked on the street and one was parked on the driveway. Wooly Simmons, of 1912 N. Harrison Street, spoke in opposition. He stated that he was concerned about the lack of parking and the height of the building. Mr. Simmons stated that he felt the proposed building was "out of scale" with nearby homes and businesses. Robynn Zinser, owner of the Chiropractic Clinic at 5305 Kavanaugh Blvd., spoke in opposition. Ms. Zinser voiced concerns about the lack of parking and the reduced side yard setback adjacent to her property. She stated that the building which previously occupied the site also had a reduced side yard but it was much smaller and less imposing. Ms. Zinser asked that the building be moved further away from the west lot line. She also expressed concern about possible damage that might occur to her building as a result of excavation on the applicant's property. Ms. Zinser acknowledged that her own building had setbacks less than those required by Code but she stated that the impact is less since her building is much smaller than that proposed by the applicant. Ms. Zinser also expressed concern that the driveway on the south side of the applicant's property be maintained as an access easement to provide access to the parking lot on her property. She also expressed concern about vehicles parking on Harrison Street and traffic congestion in general. In response to a question from Fred Gray, Ms. Zinser stated that she had 4 parking spaces behind her building. She stated that hers was a low traffic generating business and that she employed only one person besides herself. Ms. Zinser had previously expressed concerns about the loss of light and privacy created by the proposed building. William Ruck asked her to describe the type of windows she had on the east side of her building. Ms. Zinser responded that the windows were long and horizontal, along the top of the wall. In response to a question from Fred Gray, Ms. Zinser stated that she had an office, 2 patient rooms and a bathroom without windows located along the east side of her building. Mica Strother, of 1910 N. Harrison, spoke in opposition. She stated that she felt the building was too large for the lot and that it should be reduced in size, consequently reducing the parking requirement. Ms. Strother commented that there would be C Ju%._ 26, 2000 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) rainy days when everyone would drive to the office, rather than walk or bicycle as suggested by the applicant. Scott Johnson, of 1919 N. Harrison, spoke in opposition. He stated that he also was concerned about the lack of parking and the size of the proposed structure. Jim Pfeifer, Ms. Zinser's husband, stated that he endorsed the previous comments by his wife and neighbors. He stated that parking was too tight in the neighborhood. Wesley Walls, of 1915 N. Harrison, spoke in support of the item. Mr. Walls stated that he moved to the Heights because he liked the mixed use neighborhood with offices, residences and commercial uses in close proximity. Mr. Walls stated that he thought the proposed building was architecturally pleasing and would fit in the neighborhood. He stated that he felt the concept of a single -tenant office building was attractive and the proposed use should be considered as a good alternative to urban sprawl. He stated that he appreciated urban infill development. James Williams stated that there was a 10 foot access easement across the rear of the property and the applicant would work with his neighbors to address their concerns about continued access off of Harrison Street (the site plan did not show an access easement but the presence of the easement was confirmed by a survey). Mr. Williams surmised that the high cost of land in The Heights required this type of high quality development. He stated that the applicant had tried to be sensitive to the neighborhood in designing the building. In response to a question, Mr. Williams stated that the west elevation of the building was a mirror image of the east elevation, with the exception of the 1st floor which would have no windows. Norm Floyd stated he was concerned about the radius of the driveway entering the garage. He surmised that if it was too difficult to use the garage, people would park on the street. Mr. Williams responded that the garage door was wide enough to address that concern. Mr. Williams stated that reducing the building in size would eliminate the garage, since it would then be too small to provide required parking and maneuvering room. Geoffrey Tirman stated that the entry to the garage would be gated and would only be open to allow access and egress. Mr. Tirman stated that his was a good use of a small, difficult site. He reiterated his contention that his business would generate very little traffic. He stated that he was trying to do a 7 f � Jun= 26, 2000 Item No.: 6 (Cont.) quality development and was attempting to address parking concerns. In response to a question regarding building a 6,000 square foot structure for 8 employees, Mr. Tirman described other use areas in the building other than the offices for each employee. He stated the building would also contain a conference room, library, computer room, restroom, kitchen and breakroom. Fred Gray asked Mr. Tirman if he could reduce the building to one story in height and 3,000 square feet in area, thus reducing the parking requirement. Mr. Tirman responded that such a proposal would cause all of his parking to be on -street and that small of a building would not meet his needs. William Ruck asked Mr. Tirman if he had approached the property owner to the south about purchasing that lot for additional parking. Mr. Tirman responded that he had not but that he had approached the owner of the property adjacent to the west. Mr. Tirman stated that the property to the west was cost prohibitive. Gary Langlais stated that he felt the proposal was admirable infill development that was actually increasing the parking capacity in the area. A motion was made to approve the requested variances subject to compliance with the conditions recommended by staff. The motion was approved with a vote of 3 ayes, 1 noe and 1 absent. 8 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE The applicant is planning to build an office building for his own use. He owns a private investment company and would relocate his existing offices to this building. With the small size of the original lot and the required reduction in size due to the additional 5' right-of-way dedication, it is nearly impossible to build an office and have on site parking. The applicant is asking to adjust the Harrison Street setback from 15' to 2', the sideyard from 10' to 3', the rear yard can be maintained at 15', and the front yard setback (Kavanaugh) reduced from 25' to 11'. In order to provide off-street parking the owner is constructing 7 enclosed parking spaces beneath the building . It is estimated that a maximum of 15 spaces could be required for this building, therefore a variance is also being asked to the parking requirement. It should also be pointed out that the building which existed on this site previously was only 3.4', from the sideyard property line and its entry canopy was setback only 8' from the front property line and 3' from the new Harrison Street property line. This lot, though zoned 0-3, was originally 5,000 sq.ft. but with the right-of-way dedication the area will now be 4500 sq.ft. Minimum lot size for new 0-3 development is 14,000 sq.ft. and the minimum lot width is 100'. Because of this large discrepancy in size and dimension, typical 0-3 requirements are impractical to apply to this lot. Junc 26, 2000 Item No.: 7 File No.: Z-6866 Owner: Larry and Martha Cross, Robert and Carolyn Ashcraft, Ray and Mary Cross/William Putnam, Agent Address: North side of Mabelvale West Road, west of its intersection with Darris Drive Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: Long Legal O-3 A variance is requested from the floodway provisions of Article IV, of Chapter 8 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock. It is the applicant's contention that the flood insurance rate map is incorrect, that this property is not in the floodway. Vacant Potential future development of retail store 1.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 29-186(b) will be required with building permit. 2. A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 8-283 will be required with building permit. 3. Show floodway/floodplain on site plan/base flood elevation and site contours at 2 feet increments. 4. Calculate runoff and upstream flow for 100 -year storm as outlined in May 5, 2000 letter to Mr. Ken Harper on same subject. 5. Design on-site structures to accommodate 100 -year flow as outlined in May 5, 2000 letter. Jun _ 26, 2000 Item No.: 7 (Cont. 6. Mabelvale Pike is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline is required. Right-of-way radius at curve, 600 feet at centerline. 7. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. 8. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 9.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. B. Staff Analysis: An undeveloped 5.23± acre, 0-3 zoned tract is located on the north side of Mabelvale West Road, west of its intersection with Darris Drive. The Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel No. 050181-0021E dated November 3, 1993 shows portions of the property to lie within the regulatory floodway. Section 8-305(a) of the Code prohibits development in the floodway unless a professional engineer certifies that the development will not result in an increase in base flood elevations. The applicant is in the early stages of possible development of the land. Any potential development is affected by the floodway designation. It is the applicant's contention that the flood map is incorrect and that this property should not be designated floodway. The City's Public Works Department has been reviewing this issue for some time. Public Works agrees that this site should probably not be designated floodway due to the small drainage basin which flows through the site and the realignment of Mabelvale Pike/Mabelvale West Road. Public Works will support a "conditional variance" based upon the applicant providing the required hydrologic study and Corps of Engineers permits prior to the issuance of any development/building permits for the site. A copy of the FIRM panel and a letter from Public Works to the applicant is attached. The property is currently zoned 0-3. The applicant is proposing a commercial development. This Board of Adjustment Action does not include a review of the site plan nor is it an endorsement of the required rezoning. Those are issues to be resolved by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors. K Junes.: 26, 2000 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a conditional variance subject to compliance with Public Works Comments, including these outlined in the May 5, 2000 letter from Public Works to Ken Harper. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000) The applicant, William Putnam, was present. There was one concerned neighborhood resident present. Steve Haralson, Environmental Compliance Engineer with Public Works, presented the issue. Mr. Haralson presented a copy of the FEMA map indicating flood hazard areas. He surmised that this property should not be designated floodway. He stated that the upper 1,000 feet of the drainage way (north of this site) serve as a holding area for Nash Creek. Mr. Haralson stated that the drainage basin that flows into this area is less than that area typically regulated by FEMA. William Ruck asked Mr. Haralson if he had done a study of the drainage area at full development and determined that there would be no problems. Mr. Haralson responded that he had and development of the site would be designed to accommodate a 100 year flood. Norm Floyd asked how drainage went under Mabelvale West Road. Mr. Haralson responded that there were culverts under the road bed. William Putnam presented aerial photographs and discussed the drainage pattern in the area. He stated that Nash Creek was the major drainage -way in the area. Ann Schweitzer, owner of the property at 10117 Nash Lane, stated that she was neither for nor against the item, that she only wanted assurances that development on this site would not affect how water flows across her property. She stated that development in the area had increased the speed at which water flowed across her property. Mr. Haralson briefly discussed the City's Stormwater Management regulations. He stated that features would be designed into the development to assure that water flow is not increased in either speed or volume. He stated that those features would hold the water on the site and control the speed at which it leaves the site. 3 Jun- 26, 2000 Item No.: 7 (Cont. A motion was made to approve the variance subject to compliance with the condition recommended by staff. The motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 4 t urc� City of Little Rock Department of Public Works Via Regular Mail May 5, 2000 Mr. Ken Harper. Harper Development 5200 Highway 5 North, Suite Bryant, AR 72022 Le Civil Engineering Division 701 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1300 D� N 371-4811 FAX 371-4460 i Subject: Proposed Commercial Development Mabelvale West Road Dear Mr. Harper: We have reviewed the plan that you left us after our meeting last week and have examined in depth its status as it relates to floodplain and floodway development considerations. As we will explain below, the proposed entrance violates city ordinances because it encroaches on a regulatory floodway. Referenced drawing shows southern and eastern portions of property to be in a regulatory floodplain which includes floodway. Although the building is located outside the floodplain and floodway, the site entrance is shown to cross both. The FIRM also shows the base flood elevation to vary across the property from about 301' at the proposed entrance to around 300'. Little Rock Code of Ordinances ("Code") section 8-305(a) prohibits floodway encroachments, like the proposed crossing, unless a professional engineer certifies that the development will not result in an increase in base flood elevations and 8-305(c) requires that the FIRM be revised if the development results in a base flood elevation increase Two possibilities exist — one is to change in the FIRM according to federal guidelines and the other is to seek a variance. Changing the FIRM is usually a costly and time-consuming task and involves generating flood flow information, and submitting that information to FEMA for review and approval. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of an "MT -2" application that can be used to apply for Letters of Map Revision ("LOMB").. See also 44 C.F.R. Part 65. Secondly, a variance can be granted by the City's Board of Adjustment. Code section 8-2840) provides that primary criteria for a variance are: (1) a showing of good cause; (2) a determination that failing to grant the variance would result in an "exceptional hardship"; and (3) a "We're Proud of Our Works!" determination that the variance will not result in increased flood heights, public safety threats or other undesirable effects. There are other procedural steps involved such as notifying property owners, so you contact the Planning Department for full information about these requirements. First and third variance elements may be. supported through a hydrologic study performed by your consultant. This study would determine the flow through the site as a result of the 100 -year storm event and hydraulic performance of any on-site structures. Second variance element must be presented to the Board of Adjustment by you or your representative. Any necessary permits from the Corps of Engineers necessary for these improvements will also be required as will compliance with other applicable City ordinances such as detention requirements. In summary, because a portion of this land is shown to be in a regulatory floodway, City ordinances prohibit any encroachment and require that the FMM be modified or that a variance be obtained. If your consultant will perform hydrologic studies and incorporate necessary drainage features into the project, after review and approval, Public Works can support a variance subject to Board of Adjustment approval of a hardship provision. Please contact me of you have any questions about the above. Sincerely, Steve W. Haralson, P.E. Environmental Compliance Engineer CC' Mr. David Scherer, Civil Engineering Manager Mr. Tad Borkowski, Civil Engineer III, Private Development Mr. Melvin Hall, Engineering Specialist "We're Proud of Our Works!" ITNIAGINEERED 13 NEWROCK PARKING DECK a TRAVELERS INSURANCE BUILDING W HOWARD JOHNSON RESTAURANT a VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER H STORYBOOK VILLAGE 5 GLENWOOD HEIGHTS M HOWARD JOHNSON MOTEL as SCHOOLWOOD 0 ALLENDALE JAMESTOWN APARTMENTS a WINDAMERE APARTMENTS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL SPECIALISTS PUTNAM REALTY INC. SUITE 1820 UNION NATIONAL BANK BUILDING REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT COUNSE1,016 !2 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 June 14, 2000 T0: Little Rock Board of Adjustment Gentlemen: IMAGINEERS M PHONE AC 501 376-3616 I, William B. Putnam represent the property owner by a signed document from said owner. We are asking for a zoning variance as per the application. It was recommended to me by Mr. Bob Turner, director of Public Works for the City of Little Rock, That I apply for this variance due to the fact that with the construction of new Mablevale West Street, with a new road bed and curb and gutter in place there is no longer any floodway on the existing site. The new roadway is approximately 2.5 feet above the site and blocks out what was once some surface runoff. Mr. Steve Haralson, Flood Plain Director for the City, after meeting with the Public Works Director, agreed with this approach to the situation. Mr. Turner said he would be at your meeting to support this application. Thanking you for your consideration. Sincerely, William B. Putnam WBP/jh BUSINESS COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS * REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS DIVESTMENTS & ACQUISITIONS APPRAISALS June 26, 2000 Item No.: 8 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Z-6867 Miriam May Hundley 5123 Edgewood Road Lot 57, Prospect Terrace Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36- 254 to permit construction of an addition with a reduced side yard setback. Justification: Applicant's Statement: Our proposed plan includes a two story one -car carport with a sitting room above that encroaches 1.7 feet into the east side yard setback to provide the proper width for parking one car. It is our opinion that since the two-story residence to the east has a driveway adjacent to this shared property line such a minor encroachment would be inconsequential to the overall scale and character of Edgewood Road. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: Relocate driveway slightly to provide 5 foot setback from east property line. JunC 26, 2000 Item No.: 8 (Cont.) B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located at 5123 Edgewood Road is currently occupied by a two-story, stucco and frame, single- family residence. The applicant proposes to remove a sun room addition from the east side of the house and build in its place a two-story addition consisting of a porte-cochere with a sitting room above. The new addition will result in a side yard setback varying from 5 feet to 6 feet. The Code requires a side yard setback of 6.7 feet for this lot. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The majority of the lots in Prospect Terrace were platted as 50-55 feet in width, although those immediately around this lot are slightly wider. Side yard setbacks of 5-6 feet are common in the area. The reduced side yard is only for the 2118" length of the proposed addition. The property adjacent to the east has a driveway on the side nearest the applicant's property. This driveway provides additional separation between the structures. Staff does not believe the minor side yard setback variance of .6' - 1.6' will negatively impact adjacent properties. The lower level of the addition will not be enclosed, allowing for passage of light and air. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback variance for the proposed addition as described by the applicant subject to compliance with Public Works Comment. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with Public Works' Comment. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. E z-� F6 7 May 23, 2000 Mr. Dana Carney Department of Neighborhoods and Planning 723 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Zoning Variance Application for Hundley Residence, 5123 Edgewood Rd. Dear Dana, We are requesting a zoning variance at 5123 Edgewood Road to allow an encroachment into the east side yard setback of 6.7 feet. Our proposed plan includes a two story one -car carport with a sitting room above that encroaches 1.7 feet into the east side yard setback to provide the proper width for parking one car. It is our opinion that since the two-story residence to the east has a driveway adjacent to this shared property line such a minor encroachment would be inconsequential to the overall scale and character of Edgewood Road. We also propose rebuilding the front porch and constructing a new walk, driveway and parking pad as shown, using the existing curb cut. None of these items will require a variance. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Miriam May Hundley l Jun= 26, 2000 Item No.: 9 File No.: Z-6868 Owner: Bernice McJimpson Address: 1212 West 11th Street Description: West 54 feet of Lots 7 and 8 and the West 54 feet of the South 7 1-,2 feet of Lot 9, Block 309, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: R-4 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-256 to permit construction of an addition with a reduced rear yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family The R-4 zoned lot located at 1212 West 11th Street is occupied by a one-story, frame, single-family dwelling. The applicant proposes to remodel the home by adding a 19.6' X 25' master bedroom suite addition to the rear, a 5' X 8' laundry -room addition to the east side and a 4.4' X 11' entry addition to the west side. The smaller additions conform to or exceed required setbacks. The master bedroom suite addition will result in a rear yard setback of 16'. The code requires a rear yard setback of 25' for this lot. { Jun,. 26, 2000 Item No.: 9 (Cont.) Staff is encouraged by the proposed investment in a home which is located in the older part of the City and is supportive of the requested variance. The rear yard of the applicant's property abuts the rear yard of a property which fronts onto Cross Street. Allowing the reduced rear yard should have no effect on this abutting property. The reduced rear yard setback is only for the 19.6 foot width of the bedroom addition, leaving the remainder of the rear yard area open. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000) 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 with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 May 24, 2000 Mr. Dana Carney Zoning Administrator Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 JUSTIFICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE REQUEST Z -6F6 ' The undersigned parties, Bernice McJimpson and Rebecca A. Stewart, are mother and daughter and joint owners of the single family dwelling at 1212 West 11th Street. Mrs. McJimpson has lived in this house for nearly fifty years. It is our desire to remodel said property for the purposes of general improvement and establishing living accommodations that are compatible for senior occupants. It is also our desire to remain in the area, which has seen virtually no development and consequently grown increasingly depressed over the years. Our hope is to illustrate the value in upgrading homes in the area, and motivate local property owners to assist in revitalizing the area and in attracting new residents. It is our understanding that the zoning ordinance requires that the building structure adhere to a 25' setback limit. The remodelling plan (see description below) would exceed the 25' limit and in fact cause the structure to be within 10' to 13' of the property line. Given the limited land boundaries, and our plan objectives, there are no alternatives to extending the rear of the building to the proposed 10'-13' mark. We request a waiver to allow this construction. Your positive consideration of this request will be highly appreciated. Sincerely, G Bernice McJimpson Rebecca McJimpson Stewart Description of remodeling plan: The main addition, at the rear of the residence, is a master bedroom suite with bedroom, bath and walk-in closet that are approximately 19' wide x 24'4" long, totaling 462 square feet. On the East Side, a 60 square foot Iaundry and storage addition is also proposed. A 55 square foot entry addition is proposed on the West Side of the building and is adjacent to an existing bedroom that completes the main addition as an entry/study. The two minor additions are within overall city codes and ordinances. However, the main addition is extending approximately 13'0" over the rear yard setback at 25'0". The rear yard setback actually already extends to the rear of the existing residence. In organizing the design for an entry/study, and master bedroom suite, it became necessary to extend over the rear yard setback to create useable interior space. It is our opinion that all the additions and remodeling are complimentary to the residence's interior and exterior design. We plan to extend existing exterior finishes to the additions. We also feel that the main addition would not be obtrusive to surrounding property owners since the nearest structure to the rear yard is in the 40 to 50 foot range. The house to the west is on two lots, and the house to the east has ample rear and side yards. The residence immediately rear of the property is vacant. There are several vacant lots in the area due to demolition of residences. Junes 26, 2000 Item No.: 10 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: Z-6869 Wayne Moore Construction Company 5318 Centerwood Road East 20 feet of Lot 96 and all of Lot 97, Prospect Terrace No. 2 Addition R-2 Variances are requested from the accessory building setback and area coverage provisions of Section 36-156 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family 1. Proposed structure must be located minimum 25 feet from centerline of "O" Street to provide adequate room for future road widening, utilities, and sidewalk. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5318 Centerwood Road is occupied by a two-story, frame and stucco, single-family residence and a detached, two -car garage. The home is being remodeled and the applicant proposes to expand the front stoop. The addition will cross a platted 30 foot building line and will result in a front yard setback of 26 feet. The Code requires a front yard setback of 25 feet. The applicant proposes to remodel the detached garage, salvaging as much of the structure as possible and expanding it. The existing garage has a 0' side yard setback and a 0' rear yard r Junc 26, 2000 Item No.: 10 (Cont.) setback. The expanded structure is proposes to maintain those same setbacks and will cover 33% of the required rear yard. The Code requires side and rear yard setbacks of 3 feet for accessory structures and limits them to rear yard coverage of 30%. Staff is supportive of the building line variance proposed for the front stoop addition. The stoop will be uncovered and will have a front yard setback of 261, exceeding the 25' front yard required by the Zoning Ordinance. Only a portion of the stoop and the existing porch are across the building line. The house itself is behind the building line. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's Office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. Staff does have concerns about the proposed remodeling and expansion of the garage, particularly about the Of side yard setback. The property backs up to 110" Street which serves more like an alley, providing access to several similar garage structures along the street. The street is one-way, with traffic being limited to east -bound east of Tyler Street and west -bound west of Tyler Street. The proposed 0' setback on the rear is not out of character with other structures in the area. The structure has a setback of 15.8' from the edge of "O" Street. Allowing the reduced setback from "O" Street should not impact this lightly traveled, minor residential street. No portion of the eave/overhang should extend over the property line into the public right-of-way. "O" Street, at this point, does have 25' of right-of-way measured from the centerline. The minor area coverage variance is negligible and should have no impact on adjacent properties. As was previously mentioned, the existing 20.2' X 18.3' garage has a 0' side yard setback. The proposal is to expand the structure to 24' X 241. The applicant states that he will try to save as much of the nonconforming structure as possible. It may, however, be necessary to remove the entire structure. The code requires a side yard setback of 3 feet. There is an accessory structure on the adjacent property, directly across from this structure, with a side yard setback of 1±: Staff has consistently not supported 0' setback between abutting properties. That 2 Jun- 26, 2000 Item No.: 10 (Cont.) position is strengthened by the presence of the structure on the adjacent property. The fire hazard of having structures located so close is an issue which must be considered. Allowing a 0' side yard implies that the eave/overhang could extend to or over the property line, creating a water run- off problem for the adjacent land owner. Staff understands the applicant's desire to save a tree by not moving the structure further west. The tree could be saved and a reasonable side yard provided if the structure were reduced in width from 24' to 21'-221. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff's recommendation is broken into the following segments: 1. Staff recommends approval of the requested building line variance to allow the stoop addition to the front of the house subject to compliance with the following conditions: (a) A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as approved by the Board. (b) The stoop is to remain uncovered and unenclosed. 2. Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback and area coverage variances for the accessory building subject to no portion of the eave/overhang extending over the rear property line into the public right-of-way. 3. Staff recommends denial of the requested side yard setback variance for the accessory structure to allow a side yard of 0'. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000) The applicant, Wayne Moore, was present. There were no objectors present. Ellen Yeary, owner of the abutting property on the east, was present in support. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Wayne Moore addressed the Board. He stated that Ms. Yeary was not only a neighbor in support of the item but was actually the architect on his remodeling project. He stated that the old, flat -roofed garage structure was beyond repair. Mr. Moore stated that he could not reduce the building to 21 feet in width as 3 Junes 26, 2000 Item No.: 10 (Cont.) suggested by staff and be able to get his two large vehicles in it. He stated that moving the structure further west would cause him to have to remove a tree. Mr. Moore described the building as being designed to match the architecture of the house, with the roof pitching to each side and gables on the front and rear. Norm Floyd commented that water would then run off onto the neighbor's property. Mr. Moore responded that it would. Ellen Yeary, of 5312 Centerwood, spoke in support of the item. She stated that she was happy with the reduced setback and would prefer that to seeing Mr. Moore remove a tree. William Ruck commented that the structure could have no overhang. Mr. Moore responded that there would be no overhang unless Ms. Yeary wanted guttering installed on the east side of the garage. Ms. Yeary stated that she would wait and see if she felt guttering would be needed. She suggested putting gravel in the area between the two structures and designing drainage so that water flows toward the street. Norm Floyd asked staff if the Board could attach additional conditions, beyond those suggested by staff. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that the Board could attach any conditions it deems appropriate. Mr. Floyd suggested approving the 0 foot setback and requiring guttering to be installed on the east side of the structure. Mr. Carney explained that the setback is measured to the vertical wall of the structure and allowing a 0 foot setback while requiring guttering would require the applicant to build a structure that intrudes onto the abutting property. He suggested that such a situation would not be acceptable. Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, concurred. She stated that the Board should not make a condition that requires the applicant to trespass on neighboring property. Fred Gray asked Mr. Moore if he could either reduce the structure or move it enough to provide a 1 foot side yard setback. Mr. Moore responded that the garage, as he proposed, would be located about 4 feet from the tree. He stated that moving the garage would result in the garage being 3 feet from the tree. Mr. Carney commented that building the garage to within 4 feet of the tree would likely kill the tree since the building would be located over the tree's critical root zone. 4 Junes 26, 2000 Item No.: 10 (Cont. Norm Floyd suggested as additional conditions that no portion of the structure extend over the property line, that guttering be installed on the structure and that there be no plumbing installed in the structure. Gary Langlais asked Mr. Moore if he would be agreeable to a 23 foot wide garage or moving the structure to provide a 1 foot side yard. Mr. Moore responded that he needed a 24 foot wide garage but that he would move the structure, providing a 1 foot side yard setback. A motion was made to approve the requested building line variance subject to compliance with the conditions offered by staff. The motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. A motion was made to approve the requested setback and area coverage variances (as amended to include a 1 foot side yard setback) subject to compliance with the conditions proposed by staff and the following three conditions proposed by Norm Floyd: 1. No portion of the structure is to extend over the property line. 2. Guttering is to be installed on the structure. 3. No plumbing is to be in the structure. The motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 61 WAYNE MOORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 2121 WATT STREET, SUITE E / LITTLE ROCK, AR 72227 / 501.228.5515 TELEPHONE / 501.228.6787 FAX May 30, 2000 Mr. Dana Carney City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street, 2nd Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: 5318 Centerwood Road Dear Mr. Carney, i I am requesting a zoning variance for reduced side and rear yard setbacks and amended front building line at 5318 Centerwood Road. There is an existing, small two -car garage in the northeast corner of my lot. This garage is serviced from O Street. Currently, it is situated on my north and east property lines. I would like to try to salvage as much of this structure as possible and expand it to measurements of 24' x 24'. Additionally, I would like to allow for walk up storage access above the garage. The property owners to my east are Jim and Ellen Yeary. Ellen is the architect for this project and is aware of my plans. They have informed me that they would not object to the addition to the garage. Also, there is a large mature tree to the west of the existing garage. This tree will allow me to expand the garage to no more than the requested overall east/west dimension of 24'. Also, I am requesting a variance which would allow me to extend the existing front stoop to the west approximately 12'. This additional porch area will not be covered and would be more of a front patio type. Thank you for your serious consideration of this variance application. Sincerely, %tQv Wayne Moore, President 113 SPECIALIST IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF FINE HOMES / REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ii i3A RE•LTO. Jur i, 26, 2000 Item No.: 11 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Z-6870 Kathryn Karr 1123 Kavanaugh Blvd. Parts of Lots 11 and 12, Block 8, Midland Hills R-3 Variances are requested from the accessory structure area and separation provisions of Section 36-156 and the area regulations of Section 36-255. Justification: The reduced size of this lot creates the need for the variances. The buildable area is limited by the slope of the property. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned lot located at 1123 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by a two-story, frame, single-family residence. The applicant proposes to construct a bathroom addition onto the west side of the house, resulting in a reduced side yard setback of 3 feet. The Code requires a side yard setback of 5 feet for this lot. The applicant also proposes to construct a 12' X 201, freestanding carport structure in front of the house. This carport will have a front yard setback of 18 feet and will be separated from the residence by 2 feet. The Code requires a front yard setback of 60 June 26, 2000 Item No.: 11 (Cont.) feet for accessory structures and requires that they be separated from the principle structure by at least 6 feet. There are circumstance unique to this property that justify some relief from the literal provisions of the code. The property itself is small, with side lot lengths of 60 feet and 98 feet. The property slopes down rather severely from both Kavanaugh Blvd. and Charles Street, leaving a level building pad only in the area immediately in front of the house. The minor variance requested for the bathroom addition should have no impact on adjacent properties. The proposed setback ranges from 3 feet to 4.5 feet for the 8' X 9' bathroom addition. The distance between the applicant's home and the home on the adjacent lot increases from the front of the lots to the rear. At the point where the bathroom addition is proposed, there is 20± feet between the two homes. Staff does have concerns about the proposed location for the carport structure. This lot and the adjacent property have abutting driveways. The applicant proposes to place the carport over her portion of the driveway. The house on the adjacent property sits much closer to the street; within 10'-12' of the sidewalk. The front door on this adjacent home faces the side property line, not the front. The effect is that the applicant's proposed carport would be in front of the neighbor's front door. Staff believes a better alternative would be to turn the carport 900 so that it would be parallel, not perpendicular, to the applicant's home and to pull it away from the side property line. By making those adjustments and keeping the carport closer to the front of the applicant's home, the impact on the neighboring property could be reduced. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback variance to allow the proposed bathroom addition. Staff does not recommend approval of the setback and separation variances to allow the carport in the location proposed by the applicant. 2 June 26, 2000 Item No.: 11 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had notified only 4 persons, those whose property directly abutted her own or were located across the street. After a brief discussion, the Board determined that the applicant had failed to provide proper notice as stipulated by the Board's Bylaws. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 31, 2000 meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to complete the required notices. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 June 26, 2000 Item No.: 12 File No. Owner: Address: Description: Zoned- Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: Z-6871 Dr. and Mrs. Ray Parker #9 Longfellow Lane Lot 5, Beverly Place Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit construction of an addition with a reduced side yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Single Family 1. Install roof gutter to prevent stormwater runoff on adjacent property. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at #9 Longfellow Lane is occupied by a two-story, brick and frame, single-family residence. The applicants propose to expand the house by constructing a one-story addition along the full length of its east side. The addition is proposed to have a side yard setback of 1.5'. The Code requires a side yard setback of 8 feet for this lot. The roof of the addition will slope toward the side property line. The addition will have an eave/overhang not to exceed 1 feet and will have guttering along the edge. The applicant states the variance is requested in order to expand the home in such a way as to require the least amount of modification to the existing dwelling. He further states i Jure 26, 2000 Item No.: 12 (Cont. that the intended use is such that the proposed expansion needs to occur in this area of the lot. Staff has concerns about the proposed variance. The Code requires a side yard setback of 8 feet. The applicant is requesting a substantial variance to allow a side yard of 1.5 feet. With the overhang and guttering, the structure could be built to within 1-2 inches of the property line. The house is 53.8' deep and the requested variance is for the full depth of the house creating a substantial visual impact on the adjacent property. The requested 1.5' side yard setback appears to be out of character with the neighborhood. Most homes in the immediate vicinity have side yard setbacks meeting or exceeding ordinance requirements. In staff's opinion, the applicant is overbuilding on the east side of his property. A side yard setback of 5 feet would appear to be more reasonable. The owner of the property adjacent to the east has submitted a letter of support in which he notes that there will be approximately 17 feet between the two homes. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested side yard setback variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000) Frank Riggins, Ray Parker and Kelley Parker were present representing the application. There were no objectors present. A letter of support had been submitted by Dan Robinson, owner of the abutting property at #7 Longfellow Lane. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Frank Riggins addressed the Board. He stated that there was a precedent for reduced setbacks in the neighborhood. Mr. Riggins stated that the overriding issue is what effect the proposal would have on the neighborhood. He stated that he felt there would be no effect and, in fact, the proposal was supported by the abutting property owner. Ray Parker addressed the Board and presented photographs of his property and his neighbor's home. He stated that the home was built in 1936 and is smaller than other homes in the area, about 3,000 square feet. Mr. Parker stated that due to the design of the home and the way it was situated on the lot, there was 2 Jun= 26, 2000 Item No.: 12 (Cont.) limited area to add onto the house. He stated that the one story addition would have no windows on the east side. Mr. Parker commented on the amount of separation between his home and his neighbors. He stated that he had spoken with all of his neighbors and they all supported his plan. Norm Floyd expressed his concerns about a reduced setback for this amount of principal structure. Frank Riggins repeated that he did not feel the proposal was out of character with development in the area. A motion was made to approve to application as submitted. The motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 z- 6 F�7/ May 26, 2000 The y, 1�i9e tiburger Flan Engineers ❑ Landscape Architects ❑ Surveyors Mr. Dana Carney Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Carney, Enclosed is an application requesting approval for a proposed addition to an existing residence at 9 Longfellow Lane in Little Rock. The applicant is asking for a variance to allow the proposed addition to encroach to within 1.5' of the property line whereas ordinance requires an 8' setback. This addition impacts an interior lot line and does not effect any setbacks along the street. The applicant is requesting the variance in order to expand his existing dwelling for his own use and enjoyment and in such a way as to require the least amount of modification to the existing dwelling. The intended use of the addition is such that the proposed expansion occur in this area of the lot. I understand and will comply with the required notifications and will appear before the Board of Adjustment at the appointed time and place. If you have any questions or need any additional information concerning this application please contact me. Since ly, R rank R. Ri gins fop Vice President /l IV' 201 South Izard 0 P.O. Box 3837 0 Little Rock, AR 72203-3837 0 501/375-5331 0 Fax 375-7452 New America International One Financial Centre, Suite 425 650 South Shackleford Rd. Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Dan R. Robinson, 11 President Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham, First Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 6/2/00 Re: # 9 Longfellow Lane Gentlemen: Dr. & Mrs. Ray.Parker recently met with me regarding the proposed addition to # 9 Longfellow Lane. My wife and I have reviewed the architectural plans and survey which shows the addition to the existing residence will lie within the sideyard setback area. Normally eight feet is required and they are requesting one foot six inches. This proposed addition will be all brick and will be consistent with the current style of the original house. There will be approximately seventeen feet between the two houses after the addition is complete. We support the addition and encourage you to approve the requested variance. If you have any questions, please call, 224-7500. Sm erely, C Dan R. Robinson, II SIOR CCIM # 7 Longfellow Lane In over 200 cities across: The United States Mexico COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, WORLDWIDE. Canada South America Europe INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF 501/224.7500 Fax: 501/224-3570 Mobile: 501/680-0156 1YA1 DAN & ASSOCIATES INC. E-mail: Lennox@alltel.net ROBINSON New America International One Financial Centre, Suite 425 650 South Shackleford Rd. Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Dan R. Robinson, 11 President Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham, First Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 6/2/00 Re: # 9 Longfellow Lane Gentlemen: Dr. & Mrs. Ray.Parker recently met with me regarding the proposed addition to # 9 Longfellow Lane. My wife and I have reviewed the architectural plans and survey which shows the addition to the existing residence will lie within the sideyard setback area. Normally eight feet is required and they are requesting one foot six inches. This proposed addition will be all brick and will be consistent with the current style of the original house. There will be approximately seventeen feet between the two houses after the addition is complete. We support the addition and encourage you to approve the requested variance. If you have any questions, please call, 224-7500. Sm erely, C Dan R. Robinson, II SIOR CCIM # 7 Longfellow Lane In over 200 cities across: The United States Mexico COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, WORLDWIDE. Canada South America Europe INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF Juries 26, 2000 Item No.: 13 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: Z-6872 Paul Eller, Hub Cap Annie 5418 Asher Avenue N/A C-3 A variance is requested from the flag provisions of Section 36-550(7) to permit multiple company flags. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Retail Retail No issues related to this sign variance. B. Staff Analysis: Hub Cap Annie, a retail wheel, tire and hub cap store is located on the C-3 zoned property at 5418 Asher Avenue. The owner of the business has recently erected 4 flags on the roof of the building. The tri -color flags were printed to match the colors of the building and the business' sign. Section 36-550(7) of the Code limits businesses to having one company or organizational flag. It is staff's opinion that the flags were designed to serve as company flags although the name "Hub Cap Annie" is not printed on them. In his attached letter, the owner of the business states that the flags complement the building, make the building look like a national headquarters and add beauty to the building. Junes 26, 2000 Item No.: 13 (Cont.) One basic purpose of sign regulations is to prevent and reduce visual clutter. The applicant was issued a notice by the Codes Enforcement staff and has requested this variance from the Board of Adjustment. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000) The applicant, Paul Eller, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Mr. Eller stated that it was his goal to have the prettiest building on Asher Avenue. He made note of other businesses in the City that have flags, including one that had American flags. Gary Langlais and Norm Floyd told Mr. Eller that American Flags are permitted in lieu of the "company flags." Mr. Eller stated that he was agreeable to removing all but one "company flag" and would use one American flag and one Arkansas flag instead. Gary Langlais asked Mr. Eller if he was withdrawing his variance request. Mr. Eller responded that he was. A motion was made to accept the applicant's withdrawal of the item. The motion was approved with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 Mr. Jim Lawson I am writing you to ask for a variance concerning my flags at Hub Cap Annie. I have spend a ton of money to make Hub Cap Annie the most beautiful building on Asher Avenue. I have had people from all over Arkansas tell me what a beautiful building I have. I had my flags special made so the colors of the flags matched the colors of my building and the colors of my sign.. Please don't make me tear down what took over a year to plan and execute. If you will drive by my store, I am sure you will agree that I do have the most beautiful building on Asher Avenue and the flags only complement the building. The flags make my building look like a national headquarters which it will be someday. The flags also add beauty to my building. Thank you for your consideration and help on helping me to improve Asher Avenue and the city of Little Rock. Paul Eller Hub Cap Annie. Junes 26, 2000 Item No.: 14 Name: U -Haul Type of Issue: Interpretative Request: Appropriateness of allowing truck and trailer rental, with no maintenance or hitch installation, as a conditional use in C-3. Staff Report: U -Haul Company of Arkansas has filed this interpretative request asking that truck and trailer rental (with no service, sales or repair) be included in the use listing "Auto rental or leasing (no service, sales or repair)". The City Code has the following two defined uses dealing with vehicle rental, on the far end of the spectrum from each other: Auto or truck rental and leasing is defined as a facility which for a fee provides automobiles, trucks and trailers for rent or lease. This may include ancillary activities, such as: repair, maintenance, washing and sales of used units. This use is permitted "by -right" in the C-4, I-2 and I-3 districts and is not permitted as a conditional use in any other district. Auto rental or leasing (no service, sales or repair) is defined as a facility limited to an office space, with display of automobiles which for a fee are rented or leased. This use is also permitted "by -right" in the C-4, I-2 and I-3 districts but is also permitted as a conditional use in the C-3 district. In addition to its large facilities, such as those on West 65th Street or Kanis Road, U -Haul has recently explored the possibility of having truck and trailer rental at independent and satellite locations. These satellite locations would be existing commercial businesses such as a shopping center or a gas station or convenience store. These properties are typically zoned C-3 which would allow auto rental or leasing (no service, sales or repair) as a conditional use. U -Haul believes that it is Junes 26, 2000 Item No.: 14 (Cont. appropriate to allow truck and trailer rental (no service, sales or repair) to be included in that defined use to allow it to be considered as a conditional use in C-3. Conditional uses require review and approval by the Planning Commission. Staff has included this issue in the Planning Commission's 2000 Ordinance Amendment review work program. Typically, those ordinance review packages take as long as a year to complete. The question before the Board is whether the Code use listing of "Auto rental or leasing (no service, sales or repair)" should also include truck and trailer rental (no service, sales or repair) . BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 26, 2000) Dave DeLille was present representing U -Haul. Staff presented the issue. Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, expressed concern about some of the wording in staff's analysis, particularly the statement: The question before the Board is whether the Code use listing of "Auto rental or leasing (no service, sales or repair)" should also include truck and trailer rental (no service, sales or repair) . Ms. Dawson stated that the statement implies the Board of Adjustment is to consider whether the City should change the code or not and that is not the function of the Board, it is a Planning Commission issue. Ms. Dawson stated that the Board is being asked to decide how to interpret the code, whether in fact the use suggested by the applicant is fairly subsumed within the zoning category "Auto rental or leasing (no service, sales or repair)." Ms. Dawson stated that, with that understanding, the Board could address the issue. She urged the Board to look carefully at the literal language of the code. There was a discussion of the conditional use permit procedure and how any conditions are enforced. Fred Gray asked if the issue was for the Board to determine if it was the intent of the use listing "Auto rental and leasing (no service, sales or repair)" to also include trucks and trailers. Ms. Dawson responded that Mr. Gray's assessment was correct, that the Board needed to determine if that use listing is fairly interpreted to include the use proposed by the applicant. E Jun,-. 26, 2000 Item No.: 14 (Cont.) Dave DeLille, of U -Haul, addressed the Board. He stated that these satellite, C-3 sites might have 1-4 trucks for rental, if they have available space as determined by the Planning Commission through its conditional use permit review. Fred Gray asked if any repairs or washing of the trucks and trailers would take place at these satellite locations. Mr. DeLille responded that all service would take place at the main facility. William Ruck asked Mr. DeLille if he had seen this type of operation work in other locales. Mr. DeLille responded that he had; that each site is different; that some sites can only accommodate one vehicle and some sites can accommodate more. In response to a question from Gary Langlais, Mr. DeLille said each site would typically have 1 small truck, 1 larger truck and a couple of trailers. In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Mr. DeLille stated that no hitch installation would occur on any of the C-3 zoned (C.U.P.) sites. William Ruck asked what would happen if the truck rental company filled -up a site's required parking. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that the Planning Commission, through the C.U.P. review, would determine exactly how many vehicles and trailers could be located on a site and where they were to be parked. Any violation of that provision would be a matter of Code Enforcement. There was then a discussion of rezoning each site through a Planned Development as opposed to a C.U.P. Gary Langlais stated that the issue seemed to have been discussed completely and it was now down to what type of motion to bring before the Board. Ms. Dawson stated that the motion would be to say that it is appropriate to allow truck or trailer rental with no service, sales or repair as a conditional use in C-3. After further discussion, Norm Floyd commented that the use listing "tool and equipment rental (with outside display)", which is also a conditional use in "C-311, seemed to include trailer and trucks. A motion was made that the Board interpret Section 36-301(c)(2)e, auto rental or leasing (no service, sales or repair), to also read "truck rental or leasing (no service, sales or repair) and 3 Jure- 26, 2000 Item No.: 14 (Cont.) that Section 36-301 (c) (2) x, tool and outside display), be interpreted to was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 N equipment rental (with include trailers. The motion noe and 1 absent. O U -HAUL CO. OF ARKANSAS 4809 WEST 65TH STREET • LITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72209-3899 • PHONE:(501) 562-1925 May 17, 2000 To Whom It May Concern: We are appealing to the Board to be permitted to obtain a conditional use permit on C-3 zoned properties. Exclusively for the purpose of renting trucks and trailers at independent satellite locations. These locations will have small inventories with no maintenance or hitch installations being done on their premises. These businesses are independently owned and operated. Thanks for your consideration: U� UOL4� Ken Vadnais Mkt. Co. President Dave DeLille Sr. Area Field Manager 4 Tt W :. mi r z w CO m Q V W Q z w Q . rypq ®l Is. \p p9� OD �1 d. a r r �o<u? C) ¢ �z(Y O w LL O C� m o >-<O=Y Q m Lu OZ U- 0 < U U cr- 4 Tt W :. mi r z w CO m Q V W Q z w Q June 26, 2000 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:56 p.m. Date: 9J I bi�fC , 2 LIq,,,, 9 -, �-, �.a Al Chairman