Loading...
boa_02 11 1985) ) LITTLE RO CK BOARD OF ADJUS TMENT MINUTE RECORD FEBRUARY 11, 1985 . 2:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being 6 in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III.Members present: Members absent: City Attorn ey: B.L. Mu rp hr eeGeorge WellsSteve SmithHerbert RideoutThomas Mc GowanEllis Walton Richard Yada (Two positions vacant) Vicki Fewell J February 11, 1985 Item No. A -Z-4385 Owner: Doug Wood Address: 2500 North Grant Description: Lot 7 and South 1/2 of Lot 8, Block 28, Parkview Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit an addition with a 3-foot setback (ordinance requires 7 feet) JUSTIFICATION: Maintaining the architectural integrity of the existing structure Present Use of the Property: Single Family Proposed Use of the Property: Same with an addition STAFF REPORT: A. B. Engineering Issues None reported as of this writing. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a 26-foot by 38-foot addiition for a den and garage. The existing structure is 5 feet from the property line, which is also an encroachment, so if the new construction mai ntained the 5-foot setback, a variance would be required because ofthe expansion aspect. The owner has stated that the 2-foot offset is needed so the addition will not look"added on" and keep the structure "architecturallypleasing." Brick will be used and, because of theproblems of trying to match the old and new, a break inthe building line will allow the change in brick colorto be less noticeable. This does not represent a truehardship, but it is adequate ju stifiction forrequesting a variance. In addition, because of the ) February 11, 1985 Item No. A -Continued garage, there are some limitations on the location for the addition. There will be adequate se paration between this structure and the residence to the south because of "W" Street and there will be no impact on the property to the west. One minor concern staff would like to raise is that autos turning into and backing out of the new garage have an adequate area to make the necessary movements. It appears that this should not present a problem. Staff supports the request, but does recommend that no additional involvement such as large planting occur in the side yard that could block visibility for vehicles using the garage. C.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance, subject to the comments made in Staff Analysis. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-21-85) Staff indicated to the Board of Adjustment that the owner had not properly notified the property owners within the required 200 feet. A motion was made to defer the item to the February 11, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-11-85) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The request was discussed briefly by the Board members. A motion was made to approve the variance with the condition that no additional involvement take place in the side yard such as a fe nce that could block visibility for vehicles using garage. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 vac ant positions. r ) February 11, 1985 Item No. 1 -Z-4405 Owner: Block Realty Address: Rodney Parham and Woodlawn Heights (Indepe ndence Square) Description: Long Legal Zoned: "R-2" Single Family (C.U.P. for a church) Variance Requested: From the off-street parking prov1s1ons of Section 8-101/H.2 to permit parking on land zoned "R-2" JUSTIFICATION: None required for this item, but the applicant has stated that the area is needed to meet minimum parking requirements. Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use of the Property: Office development and parking STAFF REPORT: A. B. Engineering Issues None. Staff Analysis The proposal is to utilize land zoned "R-2" for additional parking to meet minimum requirements. The parking will be utilized by an office development, three buildings at the intersection of Rodney Parham and Woodlawn Heights, with the property in question being owned by a church. The church will provide the developers of the project with an easement for the parking area in return for the lot being constructed. The two property owners will gain from this arrangement including the church which will secure extra parking at no expense. The applicant has stated that the church is in support of the request. There appears to be no outstanding issue and the staff feels the request should be granted. C.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. n ) February 11, 1985 Item No. 1 -Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Robert Brown, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 vacant positions. ) February 11, 1985 Item No. 2 -Z-4406 Owner: G.Bryant and Karen Jones #1 Riversedge Drive Address: Description: Lot 3, Riversedge Addition "R-2" Single Family Zoned: Variance Requested: From the height and area exceptions provisions of Section 5-101/F.2.d to permit a garage 14 feet from the property line (ordinance requires 60 feet) JUSTIFICATION: 1.The subject property has such an excessive amount ofslope (on the order of 45 °) as to preclude placementelsewhere. 2.The property which we just purchased two months agoalready has the driveway, garage slab and foundationcompleted (by previous owner) in the location shown.We propose only to construct a garage on the existingfoundation and concrete work. Present Use of the Property: Single family residence Proposed Use of the Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A.Engineering Issues B. En gineering reports no issues associated with thisrequest. Staff Analysis The requested variance is to permit a garage to beconstructed 14' from the front property line. TheZoning Ordinance requirement is 60'. The proposal isto utilize the existing slab and driveway which appearsto be located in the only reasonable location becauseof the lot's topography. The owner has provided properjustification for the variance, and based on the slopeof the lot, a true hardship does exist. An existing ) February 11, 1985 Item No. 2 -Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Gary Ballard, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Ballard addressed the Board and presented some photos of the site. A motion was made to grant the variance. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 vacant positions. ) February 11, 1985 Item No. 3 -Z-4407 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION: Russell Ma tchett 87 Broadmoor Drive Lot 386, Broadmoor Addition "R-2" Single Family 1.From the rear yard setbackprovisions of Section 7-101.2/D.3to permit an addition with a 12-footsetback (ordinance requires 25'). 2.From the height and area exceptionsprovisions of Section 5-101/F .2.b topermit an addition with a separationfrom the accessory structure (pool)of 4' (ordinance requires 6'). The unusual and isolated configuration of the lot and the addition will upgrade the property. Present Use of the Property: Single family residence Proposed Use of the Property: Same with addition STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a 13' x 28' addition at the rear of the existing structure to be used for a family room. The owner has used lot configuration as part of his justification and hardship for the variance. The lot is somewhat irregular in shape and being located on a corner, does create some difficulties for enlarging the residence without benefit of a variance. In addition to the lot, a recent improvement, a swimming pool, to the property also places some restrictions on the location of an ) February 11, 1985 Item No. 3 -Continued addition. A pool is considered an accessory structure which requires a 6-foot separation from the principle building. With this constraint, the lot and the size of the new construction, it appears that a variance is justified. Realigning the addition and moving it away from the pool would still create the need for a variance. Because of the location of the house on the lot, any new construction will encroach into the rear yard setback. Also, the existing residence does have some structural limitations on where the new construction can occur. The owner has stated there should be no impact on the abutting properties because there will still be adequate separation. A hard ship does exist and staff supports the request. C.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The staff informed the Board that the owner had failed to properly notify the required property owners. A motion was made to defer the item to the March 18, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, O noes, 1 absent and 2 vacant positions. ) February 11, 1985 Item No. 4 -Other Matters Address: 6119 Bulter Road Zoned: "R-5" Urban Residence Request: Clarification of the City's co de on pr ivacy fencing as to specifications. The property in question is ut ilizing a 6-foot chain link fence with privacy sl abs. The issue is whether that type of fence meets the City requirements. STAFF REPORT This issue is before the Board of Adjustment because of a building permit requirement. When the building pe rmit was issued for the project, it required a 4-foot opa que fence which was constructed. The fence and building fell into disrepair over the years and when the pr oject was remodeled, the fence was replaced with the existing 6-foot chain link fence. The fence was co nstructed with redwood sl ats that have approximately a one-half gap between them. This ap pears to be creating a problem for the adjoining residence because a fence of this type do es not seem to provide an opaque screening. An example of this is at night when headl ights from au tos are penetrating through the fence. The City's Enforcement Office has received compliants from the neighborhood about this situation. Additional information from the Enforcement Office will be available at the pub lic hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff does not have a reco mmendation at this time. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Kenny Scott of the City's Enforcement Office was present and addressed the issue. He discussed the history of the site and why the issue was before the Board of Adjustment. Gene Reed representing the owners of the project then spoke. Mr. Re ed said that a previous 4-foot fence was in to tal disrepair and was not blocking headlights. He then stated that the new owners replaced the 4-foot fence with the fence in question, a 6-foot chain link fence with wood slats. Mr. Reed also said that the owners were gi ven two options to either repair or replace the fence. The owners decided to repair the fence, the mo re expensive of the two choices. He ) February 11, 1985 Item No. 4 -Continued went on to say that the owners were making every ef fort to work with the City to upgr ade and impr ove the property. There was a long discussion about the ordinance and its requirements. At this point, the Chairman asked if ot her interested parties were present, and there were none. Mr. Scott reported that his of fice had received some complaints about the fence from nea rby re sidents. He then went on to describe how using metal slats could possibly improve the situation because they were wider than the wood slats. There was a long discussion about ot her fencing types, including the slats at angles. This arrangement would deflect the he adlights be tter. Mr. Reed said that there was residential development on only the north side appr oximately a distance of 600 feet. He also sai d that the owners were willing to work something out or to reach a compromise. Staff then suggested that the issue be deferred for 30 days to permit the property owners and residents to reach some ty pe of agreement. A motion was made to de fer the item for 30 days to allow the staff, res idents and property owners to meet and develop a satisfac tory solution to the problem and for staff to advertise the issue for a public hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 vacant positions. u February 11, 1985 There being no further business before the Board, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m.