boa_09 21 1987LITTLE ROCK BOA RD OF ADJUSTM ENT
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 21, 1987
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being five in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The Board approved mi nutes of the previous meeting as
mailed.
III. Members Present:George Wells
John McDaniels -Acting Chairman
Joe Norcross
Jim Mitchell
Ronald Pierce
Members Absent: Cynthia Alderman
Thomas McGowan
Rex Crain
Ronald Woods
City Attorney
Present: Bob Hall
September 21, 1987
Item No. A - Z-4848
Owner: Timothy and Margaret Farrell
Address: 5715 Hawthorne Road
Description: Lot 27, Forest Heights Place
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/D.2 to permit a deck with a
reduced side yard setback.
Justification: (1) Because the structure solves the
problem of the excessive slope of
the property in a unique,
practical, and attractive way which
enhances the overall value of the
property.
(2) Because it has been in existence
for four years.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are no issues.
B. Staff Analvsis
This issue is before the Board because of an
enforcement action. Recently, the Enforcement staff
received a complaint about a possible violation of a
setback provision for the "R-2" District. Upon
investigation, it was determined that a wood
structure /deck was built into the side yard and that it
needed to be removed or the necessary variance be
applied for. (The ordinance requirement for the side
yard setback is ten percent of the average width or six
feet for this lot. The house is constructed to the
setback line.) This request presents a somewhat unique
situation because the construction in question has been
in place for four years without any inquiries being
made until now. In 1982, a tornado passed through this
part of the City and heavily damaged many structures in
the neighborhood, including the one at 5715 Hawthorne.
September 21, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
At the time of rebuilding the house, the owners decided
that something needed to be done to provide access to a
back door because the lot slopes downward from the
Hawthorne side. To solve this problem, a wood
walkway/deck was constructed between the house and the
east property line connecting the front with a deck
which was built at the same time. All the necessary
permits for the major construction were obtained, but
the deck/walkway was not included in the original
permit application because it was an afterthought and
no inspection of the deck was done by the City. (This
was an oversight on the part of the various parties
involved.) The structure starts at grade in the front
and then is several feet above ground level at the rear
of the house. It is constructed right to the property
line, but there is separation betwen this lot and the
residence to the east because of the driveway. Also,
there is a masonry wall along the east property line
which appears to lessen the impact of the structure
being built to the line. The walkway/deck does address
a unique feature of the lot and appears to be the most
functional design solution for the property.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (6-15-87)
The Chairman reported that he had received a written request
for a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the
July 20, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-20-87)
Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred to the
August meeting. A motion was made to defer the request
to the August 17, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by
a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (8-17-87)
Neither the applicant or any objectors were present at the
meeting. Staff reported that Mr. Dana Carney of the Zoning
Enforcement staff had been out to review whether there still
was an enforcement issue due to the fact that the applicant
had lowered the deck in the area where the neigbhor was
objecting. Mr. Carney felt that there wasn't a need for the
applicant to pursue a variance. There was some discussion
among the Board as to whether they should just withdraw the
application without any official written notification from
September 21, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
the applicant. A motion was then made to defer the
application another month in order for staff to notify the
applicant that the application will be withdrawn unless the
Board receives some response indicating the applicant
desires further action. The motion was approved by a vote
of 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Neither the applicant nor a representative was present at
the meeting. There were no objectors in attendance. Staff
stated that a letter had been sent informing the applicant
the application would be withdrawn if no one was present at
the meeting. The Board then voted 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent
to withdraw this item from the agenda.
September 21, 1987
Item No. B - Z-4877-A
Owner: I-30 Industrial Park Rentals
Address: 6900 Block of Allied Way
Description: Lots 4, 5, and 6, I-30 Industrial Park
Zoned: "I-2"
Variance
Requested: From the floodplain restrictions of
Paragraph A of Section B of Article 5,
Ordinance No. 14,534 to permit
construction of new buildings in the
floodway.
Justification: Due to the shape, size, and
configuration of the lot.
Present Use of
Property:
Proposed Use
of Property:
STAFF REVIEW
A. Engineering Issues
Issues reported by Engineering will be discussed in the
staff analysis.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is a variance
to allow for the construction of new buildings within
the floodway. The ordinance states that (a) within the
floodplain (100 -year flood elevation), there exists an
area of the channel or stream bed called the floodway
and so designated on the Type 15 flood insurance study.
No building or structure shall be allowed within said
floodway; (b) in order to build or operate any
structure or use, it must be an allowable use among
those specified as allowable uses in the base or
principal zoning classification, provided further so
such use shall adversely affect the capacity of the
channels or floodway of any designated creek, stream,
tributary to the main stream, drainage ditch, or other
drainage facility or system; and provided still
further, no such use or combination of uses shall raise
the level of the one hundred (100) year flood a
distance of one (1) foot.
September 21, 1987
Item No. B - Continued
The site in question is located in the I-30 Industrial
Park, and the applicant has filed with the Planning
Commission for consideration of a Planned Unit
Development. In January of this year, the Army Corps
of Engineers redesigned the boundaries for the floodway
in this area of the City, which placed the entire site
in the floodway. Prior to the redesign by the Corps,
the applicant had taken steps to put in place the
existing fill on the property to raise it out of the
then floodway boundaries. The applicant purchased the
property in October 1986, for development as a small
business Industrial Park prior to the revisions of the
floodway maps.
Engineering reports that the applicant has demonstrated
a hardship due to the fact of the revision of the
floodway map in January of this year by the Army Corps
of Engineers and the existing fill on the property
being done prior to the revision. Engineering's
recommendation of approval is conditioned upon the
following: (1) The floor elevations being at least 2
to 3 feet above that which is required by the 100 year
flood level. (2) That any further filling of the site
must come from the boundaries along the bank of Fourche
Creek. Engineering's intent is for there to be no fill
brought on -site from outside of the property.
Before the Planning Commission can take action on the
proposed Planned Unit Development, the Board of
Adjustment has to determine whether relief to the
applicant can be allowed for the proposed construction
in question, and if the variance is granted, the
applicant will be required to deed that property which
is in the floodway to the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval subject to and pursuant of the
conditions as reported in the staff analysis and recommended
by Engineering. Also meeting of the necessary requirements
of deeding to the City of Little Rock that property located
in the floodway.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (8-17-87)
The Board of Adjustment deferred this item until the
September 21, 1987, meeting due to the fact that neither the
applicant nor a representative was present at the meeting.
Also, the applicant had not returned to staff copies of the
notification requirements. There were objectors present at
the meeting. A motion for deferral was made and passed by a
vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
September 21, 1987
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-21-87)
The applicant had requested a 60 -day deferral. A motion was
made to allow for the deferral and passed by a vote of
5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent.
September 21, 1987
Item No. 1 - Z-4834-A
Owner: Richard Emmett Jones
Address: 10,210 I-30
Description: Tract 2, Vogelsberg Subdivision
Zoned: "C-4"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-103.4/E.3 to permit construction of a
new building with a rear yard setback.
Justification: The architectural design of the building
will keep the splendid massive look and
supply the bare minimum space
requirement to make the move.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of
Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
Engineering is requesting that the parking layout and
driveway be approved by the Acting Traffic Engineer.
The landscaping requirements of the ordinance will also
need to be met.
B. Staff Analysis
The variance requested before the Board of Adjustment
is to allow the construction of a new building on a
vacant lot with a reduced rear yard setback of 15 feet.
The property is zoned "C-4" which requires a rear yard
setback of 25 feet. The past history on the property
indicates that the lot has been platted with a 25-foot
front yard before the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, staff does not feel that by not having the
required 45 feet front yard for "C-4" zoning is an
issue. A justification of the applicant for the
granting of the variance is that due to the design of
the new building and reducing the design to the bare
minimum in order to meet the required space needed and
facilitate the use of a motorcycle dealership, the
reduction in the rear yard is needed.
September 21, 1987
Item No. 1 - Continued
To the rear of the property, there is a brick storage
facility that will not be adversely affected by the
variance requested. There is a small structure
presently on the property that will be removed. In
accordance with "C-4" zoning, the depth really isn't as
much as normally found.
There are several concerns that staff feels the
applicant needs to address before the granting of this
variance. First, staff does not feel that at this time
any discussion of the future expansion to the east side
of the property should be addressed. At the point when
the applicant feels the expansion is needed and a more
detailed plan can be presented, then the request should
be brought before the proper board. It is staff's
opinion that the rear property line should, if the
variance is granted, remain within a 15-foot setback.
Secondly, the applicant needs to address the fact that
on the northwest side of the property, there appears to
be an intrusion into the required side yard setback of
15 feet. Thirdly, staff would like for the applicant
to address whether any of the property will be used for
storage purposes, such as for old motorcycles or those
needing to be serviced. On the west side of the
property, there is a considerable amount of property
space that will not be utilized according to the
survey.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance with the
conditions that the future expansion not be included at this
time and the applicant addressing the concerns that staff
discussed in the staff analysis. The applicant will also
have to adhere to the recommendations of the City Engineer.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present at the meeting. There were no
objectors in attendance. Richard E. Jones, the applicant,
requested that the initial rear yard variance be decreased
from 15 feet to 10 feet to allow for better use of the
property. Staff stated that the applicant needed to address
what the use would be to the property on the west side,
whether it would be used for storage for old or serviced
motorcycles. Mr. Jones stated that the property to the west
would not be utilized for service of old motorcycles or
storage. Staff felt that the issue of the future expansion
should not be addressed at this time, and that the
application should also be amended to include a side yard
September 21, 1987
Item No. 1 - Continued
variance to address the encroachment of the building on the
northwest corner into the 15 feet side yard requirement.
Mr. Richard Wood addressed the request of the reduced rear
yard to 10 feet instead of 15 feet. Mr. Wood stated that
staff could not go along with the request because of the
possibility that the rear of the property will not be
accessible in an emergency situation. The encroachment will
run over 100 feet of the total rear yard property line. A
motion was made to approve the application subject to:
(a) the applicant meeting all of the Engineering issues, (b)
the rear yard variance being 15 feet only, (c) the
application be amended to include the side yard variance to
the northwest corner, and (d) that the future expansion to
the east not be addressed at this time. The motion passed
by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent.
September 21, 1987
Item No. 2 - Z-4893
Owner: Mr. and Mrs. J.R. Hornibrook
Address: #14 Pinehurst Circle
Description: Lot 14, Block 5, Pleasant Valley Add.
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the subdivision provisions of
Section 37.25 to permit an addition to
cross a platted building line.
Justification: The purpose of this request is to
construct a small room to house a
whirlpool tub in order to take
advantage of the whirlpool therapy
recommended by the applicant's
physician.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are no issues to report at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is that of
granting a building line waiver. About six months ago,
the Subdivision Ordinance was amended to state
basically that any changes within a platted building
line will now be addressed by the Board of Adjustment
and not the Planning Commission as in the past. The
amendment is stated as follows:
Buildinq Line Variances
In those instances where a recorded subdivision plat
has established building setback lines in accordance
with the Little Rock Subdivision Rules and Regulations,
Variances of those lines shall only be granted by the
Little Rock Board of Adjustment. That body shall
September 21, 1987
Item No. 2 - Continued
review each building line variance request for
hardship circumstances as instructed by Section 3-101.
of Chapter 43 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Little Rock, Arkansas. Those variances approved by the
Board of Adjustment shall be reflected upon a plat of
the subject lot /lots which shall be recorded in the
Office of the Circuit Clerk of Pulaski County,
Arkansas, along with an appropriate Bill of Assurance
amendment.
In accordance with what is set out in the Subdivision
Ordinance, it is now the function of the Board of
Adjustment to either endorse or not endorse
modifications to any platted building line. It should
also be understood that any action of approval by this
Board for a building line waiver is not to be
considered as final action. In order for any building
line waiver to be achieved, two additional steps are
needed. First, the Bill of Assurance which is "a legal
document specifying the covenants and restrictive
conditions applicable to a particular property" has to
be amended. This amendment is achieved by addressing
the conditions stated in the Bill of Assurance which
vary according to the instrument. Secondly, it will be
necessary to submit to the Planning Department a one
lot replat showing the new changes that have occurred.
The applicant's reason for the building line waiver is
for the expansion of an existing addition to encroach
into the southeast platted building line 6.5 feet. The
lot is large in size and the proposed request would not
place any impact on the traffic in the area or the
adjacent property owners. The expanded addition will
be constructed so as to keep with the present design of
the house. A hardship does exist and staff sees no
problems with the granting of the variance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance. If the Board
chooses to grant this variance, it is incumbent of the
applicant to then address: (a) the submittal of an
amendment to the Bill of Assurance properly drafted, and (b)
the filing in the Planning Department of a one lot replat
showing the changes in the platted building line.
September 21, 1987
Item No. 2 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Staff informed the Board that the application was deficient
because the notice requirement had not been met. The Board
then made a motion to defer the item until the October 19,
1987, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes,
0 noes, 4 absent.
September 21, 1987
Item No. 3 - Z-4894
Owner: BrandyWine Corporation /White-Daters
Address: 421 Nix Road
Description: Lot 8, Block 4, Gibralter Heights Add.
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2 /D.1 to permit construction of a
single family home with a reduced
front yard setback.
Justification: The size of the lot is such that it
would be impossible to build in a
reasonable way without the reduced front
yard that is being proposed.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are no issues to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal before the Board of Adjustment is the
granting of a variance for a reduced front yard setback
of 9 feet. The lot at present is vacant and 50 feet in
size. The applicant is planning the construction of a
new residence on the lot. The required setback is 25
feet on both the Nix Road frontage and the Archer Street
frontage. The applicant feels that without this
variance it would be impossible to utilize the lot in a
reasonable way.
Staff feels that the applicant does, in fact, have a
hardship due to the requirement of two 25-foot front
yards on a corner lot. The construction of the
residence with the proposed setback would not place any
undue impact on the adjacent property owners or the
traffic on either street frontages. The new structure
September 21, 1987
Item No. 3 - Continued
structure will be consistent with the other houses in
the neighborhood. This area is a newly developed one
with several houses being constructed.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff is recommending approval of the variance as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Joe White of White-Daters
Engineers. Mr. White stated that the size of the lot is
such that it makes it impossible to build in a reasonable
way and meet the ordinance requirement. There were no
objectors in attendance. A motion was made to approve the
variance as filed. The motion passed: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4
absent.
September 21, 1987
Item No. 4 - Z-4895
Owner: Mr. and Mrs. Earl Wells, Jr.
Address: 8316 Leatrice
Description: Lot 16, Sheraton Park Addition
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/D.3 to permit construction of a
new addition with a reduced rear yard
setback.
Justification: The lot is short in length and because
of how the house is situated, building a
room on the side or front is not a good
alternative.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are no comments to report at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
What the applicant is requesting of the Board of
Adjustment is the granting of a variance with a reduced
rear yard. The encroachment will be 2 feet in order to
construct a bedroom with a closet to facilitate the
need for additional sleeping space. The requirement of
the zoning of "R-2" Single Family is 25 feet, and what
the applicant will have is 23 feet if the variance is
granted.
Staff feels that the applicant has a justified hardship
due to the fact that the rear of the property is the
only suitable location for the new addition. At the
rear of the property, there is a 10-foot easement that
already reduces the side of the rear yard but allows
for enough separation to the neighbor to the north
which has a large rear yard. The easement does extend
September 21, 1987
Item No. 4 - Continued
to the east side but as shown on the survey is only
half of the total width size. The request will not
place any impact to the neighbor to the east and is
keeping with the present structural alignment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Staff informed the Board that this item was withdrawn. A
motion was made to withdraw the item. The motion passed by
a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent.
September 21, 1987
Item No. 5 - Z-4896
Owner: Russell B. McDonough, Jr.
Address: 2201 North Palm
Description: Lot 24 and S 1/2 of Lot 23, Block 10,
Country Club Heights Addition
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/D.2, D.3, and D.1 to permit
new constructions with reduced front,
side, and rear yards.
Justification: The request for the needed variance is
to accommodate for the design of having
additional interior space.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
b. Staff Analysis
At issue before the Board of Adjustment is a request
for the granting of variances for the front, rear, and
side yards. The front yard in question is the one
located on the south side of the property facing
Country Club Boulevard. Under the guidelines stated in
the Zoning Ordinance, a lot that fronts two streets is
required to have a 25-foot front yard setback, and the
applicant has proposed to have a 15-foot front yard
setback. On the rear of the property, the request is
for an encroachment of 3 feet to allow for the
construction of a two -story addition and a porch, but
the requirement of the ordinance is for 25 feet. There
is a closed alley also located at the rear of the
property that functions as part of the property. To
the north side of the property, the applicant is
requesting to increase the present setback from 1.9
September 21, 1987
Item No. 5 - Continued
feet to 5 feet. A north side yard setback of 7.5 feet
is required by the Zoning Ordinance. A totally
different designed addition will be constructed to
accommodate the desire for more interior space.
The granting of the request for each variance will not
present any adverse impact to any of the surrounding
property owners or the traffic on Country Club
Boulevard. There is a large amount of mature hedge
growth along Country Club Boulevard and the view of the
street is virtually closed. The requirement of two
front lots dictates the need for this request. The
alley to the rear of the property gives the physical
impression of being part of the property which will
give an added separation to the property owner to the
east. Also, the fact of one of the new additions being
two stories will not present a problem of privacy to
the neighbor on the east because the property is 140
feet in depth, has a substantial brick and wooden fence
along the property line and alley, and also with the
alley a visually deeper view is given. The fact that
the property owner is wanting to increase the setback
on the north side will enhance the property more than
what the present structure shows with such a small side
yard setback. Surrounding the property, there is a
considerable amount of mature landscaping.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The recommendation of staff is the granting of the variances
as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Russell B. McDonough, Jr., the applicant, was in
attendance at the meeting. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The
motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent.
September 21, 1987
Item No. 6 - Z-4899
Owner: Todd Holt
Address: 1825 North Jackson
Description: South 62 feet of Lot 44, Shadow
Lawn Addition
Zoned: "R -2"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/D.2 to permit construction of
a new addition with a reduced side
yard.
Justification: The inability to alter the design of the
house due to the new addition to the
rear already being under construction.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are no issues to be reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The applicant is requesting of the Board of Adjustment
the granting of a variance for a reduced side yard
which will be 3.2 feet, but the ordinance requires a
6-foot side yard setback. The request is needed to
complete the final stages of the remodeling of the
home. The new construction will be a carport and front
porch addition. In order for the applicant to achieve
the desired effects of the remodeling design, this
variance will need to be granted. The request would
not present any impact to the neighbor to the north.
The property owner to the north has a 7.2 foot side
yard separation to the applicant's north property and
with the applicant's 3.2 feet request, there will be
adequate separation, and the present building alignment
will continue. There also is landscaping separating
the two side yards. The driveway on the west side of
the property is presently established. On the south
September 21, 1987
Item No. 6 - Continued
of the structure, the setback is considerable which
makes the house uncentered and allows for this proposed
location, which is the north side, to be the only
suitable one.
If the Board of Adjustment grants the requested
variance, it will be necessary for the applicant to
ensure that drainage will be provided in order to
prevent any runoff to the property owner to the north.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval conditioned upon the
applicant providing for proper drainage for the runoff on
his property and that the carport never be enclosed.
September 21, 1987
Item No. 6 - Continued
of the structure, the setback is considerable which
makes the house uncentered and allows for this proposed
location, which is the north side, to be the only
suitable one.
If the Board of Adjustment grants the requested
variance, it will be necessary for the applicant to
ensure that drainage will be provided in order to
prevent any runoff to the property owner to the north.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval conditioned upon the
applicant providing for proper drainage for the runoff on
his property and that the carport never be enclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (9-21-87)
Ms. Robin Holt, wife to the applicant, was present and spoke
in Mr. Todd Holt's behalf. Staff informed the Board that
there was a possible problem with the notice requirement.
Notice is to be given at least 10 days before the date of
the meeting to the property owners within 200 feet and
Ms. Holt had given notice only seven days prior to the date
of the meeting. Ms. Holt stated that the sign had been up
about two weeks and the neighbor to the north, who she felt
was the most important, had signed off on the notice. There
was one phone inquiry about the case but for information
only. A motion was made to allow the application to be
heard. It passed 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. The applicant
then was asked if she had a problem adhering to staff's
recommendation that the carport never be enclosed.
Mrs. Holt stated there would be no problem. A motion was
made to approve the item as recommended by staff. The
motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent.
September 21, 1987
Item No. 7 - Z-4901
Owner: Linda C. Taylor
Address: 7624 West 45th Street
Description: East 50 feet of Lot 5, Block 2 of
Westwood Addition
Zoned: "R -2"
Variances
Requested: From the area provision of Section
7- 101.2 /D.1 to permit construction of
an awning on the front with a reduced
setback.
Justification: No other suitable location is available
due to the size of the lot and location
of the house.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The request before the Board of Adjustment is the
granting of a variance to allow for a reduced front
yard setback of 5 feet, the requirement is a setback of
25 feet for a "R-2" Single Family residence. The
intent behind the request is to allow for construction
of an aluminum awning over the driveway which is
presently in place. The house is small in size, narrow
on the sides, and does not allow for the drive or a
carport to be located in any other area of the
property.
The structure in question is a frame house located in
one of the older established neighborhoods. West 45th
Street is not a through street and is narrow in size.
The survey does not show the fact that there is about
a 15 feet separation from the property line to the
front of the street, which with an on-site view places
September 21, 1987
Item No. 7 - Continued
the structure a considerable distance from the street.
Because of the location of the present structure on the
lot, there is no possible way to allow for the area to
the rear to be utilized for this request. Staff feels
that a hardship has been displayed and doesn't see
where granting of this variance will impact any of the
adjacent property owners or the traffic on West 45th
Street. There also is no possibility that 45th Street
will never be widened in the near future.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance with the
condition that the awning never be enclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (9-21-87)
Mrs. Linda Taylor, the applicant, was present at the
meeting. There were no objectors in attendance. The
applicant was asked if there was a problem for her to adhere
to staff's recommendation. The applicant stated, no, and a
motion was made to approve the application subject to
staff's recommendation which stated that the awning should
never be enclosed. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes,
0 noes, 4 absent.
September 21, 1987
Item No. 8 - Z-4902
Owner: Joseph and Helen Herrin
Address: #57 Normandy
Description: Lots 7 and 8, Normandy Addition
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the area and height exception
provisions of Section 5-102.2.0 to
permit a pool to be less than 60 feet
from a front property line.
Justification: The proposed location is the only
appropriate area where the pool can be
placed.
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The applicant has in place an above the ground
constructed pool that was cited by the Building Permits
Office when he attempted to obtain a building permit to
complete the patio area and for the construction of a
fence. Under the guidelines stated in the Zoning
Ordinance, an accessory structure that is located on a
lot that fronts two streets that accessory has to have
a front yard setback of 60 feet. The accessory
structure in question is only 27 feet; therefore, the
requested variance is needed.
Located on the south side of the property, the
constructed pool imposes upon the required front yard
setback to the Normandy Street frontage. This property
is located on a small hill that has a noticeable slope
which makes the view from Normandy to the site of the
pool restrictive. Inasmuch as the house is somewhat
centered on the lot and with the driveway located on
September 21, 1987
Item No. 8 - Continued
the north side of the lot, there would be no way the
rear of the property could adequately serve as a
location for the pool. There also would be the
question of providing sufficient screening and
separation to the property owner to the east.
Staff feels that the applicant has chosen the most
suitable location. The present location does not
present any impact to the street on Normandy or the
adjacent property owners. The applicant does have a
justifiable hardship in staff's opinion because of the
corner lot requirement for an accessory structure.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance. The
applicant should be aware that if this variance is granted
the necessary requirements of the Building Permits Office
will still need to be met since the initial construction was
done without a building permit.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Mike Nolan was present to represent the applicant. No
objectors were in attendance at the meeting. A motion was
made to approve the application as recommended by staff.
Staff pointed out that the applicant will still need to
adhere to all of the Building Permits Office requirements.
A motion was made to approve the application subject to
staff's recommendation. The application was approved by a
vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent.
September 21, 1987
Item No. 9 - Z-4903
Owner: Dean Williamson
Address: 5523 Woodlawn
Description: Lots 1 and 2, Block 30, Lincoln Park
Addition
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the height and area exception
provisions of Section 5-102.2.0 to
permit construction of an accessory
structure less than 60 feet from the
front property line.
Justification: (1) The occupants of 5523 Woodlawn have
had both of their cars vandalized
several times this past year and a
half.
(2) Much needed storage space for lawn
mowers, yard and garden tools.
Some of these items have been
removed in the past month.
(3) This new addition will enhance the
appearance of the neighborhood as
well as provide protection of the
occupant's vehicles and yard items.
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are no issues to report at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
At issue before the Board of Adjustment is a request to
allow for an accessory structure to be less than the
required 60 feet from the front property line. The
applicant is proposing to have an accessory structure
of a garage that will be 31 feet from the front
property line of Woodlawn Avenue. Even though the
house fronts on North Taylor Street, it is not a
through street.
September 21, 1987
Item No. 9 - Continued
Staff feels that the applicant does possess a hardship
because of the requirements of a corner lot having two
front yards, and the fact that the size of the lot is
only 60 feet. There is a considerable amount of rear
yard, and the applicant in staff's opinion placed the
garage in the most suitable area. If the garage was
attached to the frame one -story structure, which is
small, the windows to the back bedroom would be lost.
There is a gravel drive in place that can be entered or
exited to an open alley to the rear of the property.
If the variance is granted, the applicant does propose
to utilize the existing drive as well as make necessary
improvements to it.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Dean Williamson, the applicant, was present at the
meeting. There were no objectors in attendance.
Mr. Williamson stated that he would prefer the distance from
the house to the garage to be increased to 20 feet instead
of the proposed 10 feet. The Board and staff felt that the
increase would not present a problem or affect the variance
in question. A motion was made to approve the application
with the increased distance from the house to the garage
being 20 feet. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes,
0 noes, 4 absent.
September 21, 1987
Item No. 10 - Z-4904
Owner: H. Terry Rasco
Address: 5720 North Country Club Boulevard
Description: Lot 53, Forest Heights Addition
Zoned: "R -2"
Variances
Requested: (1) From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/D.2 to permit construction
of a new addition with a reduced
side yard.
(2) From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/D.3 to permit construction
of a two -car carport to the rear
with a reduced setback.
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Prposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The issues before the Board of Adjustment are twofold.
First, the applicant is requesting a variance for a
reduced rear yard setback of 5 feet for a two -car
carport. The required amount for "R-2" zoned property
is 25 feet. The applicant will be increasing the east
rear side yard setback to 7.5 feet to be in compliance
with an existing Bill of Assurance which is still
operational. Also, this increase to the east side yard
will exceed the requirement stated in the ordinance
which is 6 feet. Secondly, for the upper east side
yard, the request is for a reduced side yard of 2 feet
and the required amount is still 6 feet.
September 21, 1987
Item No. 10 - Continued
What the applicant is proposing is the construction of
a two-car carport with a storage area attached to the
rear of the structure which will be utilized with an
existing driveway and provide covering to facilitate
loading and unloading of his son in inclement weather.
Midway of the east side yard of the property, there
will be a newly constructed covered outdoor patio that
will be attached to the proposed two-car carport and a
new den addition to the rear of the existing frame
structure. On the east side of the property, there
will be a small pool constructed that will be attached
to the new den addition, covered outdoor patio, and
expansion of an existing bedroom in order for the son
to use the pool for physical therapy and recreation.
The area of the requested variance is an established
neighborhood where a lot of expansion has been taking
place in the past years. Staff feels that the
applicant does, in fact, display a hardship due to the
fact of wanting to make the present structure as
accessible as possible for his handicapped son who is
confined to a wheelchair. The present structure is
small in size. The roofline of the new den and covered
patio will be maintained at the 7.5 requested east side
yard setback as specified in the Bill of Assurance.
The pool will not be enclosed and will be used
basically for therapeutic exercises for the son. The
applicant will construct a 6 -foot high brick fence to
ensure privacy to the neighbor to the east of the
property. None of the proposed new construction will
place any impact to the adjacent property owner. Staff
does feel that the applicant has a justified hardship.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval conditioned upon the two-car
carport and pool area never being enclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. H. Terry Rasco, the applicant, was present at the
meeting. There were no objectors in attendance. An
amendment to the application was made to waive the 30
percent rear yard requirement. A motion was made to approve
the application subject to the two-car carport and pool area
never be enclosed. Also, inclusive in the approval was the
amendment of the waivering of the 30 percent rear yard
requirement. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes,
4 absent.
September 21, 1987
Item No. 11 - Z-4905
Owner: Sloan Bennett
Address: #23 Brooklawn
Description: Lots 204 and 205, Brookfield Subdivision
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the height and area provisions of
Section 5-102.2/C to permit an accessory
structure less than 60 feet from the
front property line.
Justification: Due to the fact of utility easements
being located to the rear of my
property, I had no other choice but
to place the pool on the adjacent lot
which two front yard setbacks.
Present Use
of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The applicant is requesting the granting of a variance
from the Zoning Ordinance requirement of having a
60-foot front yard for an accessory structure. The
structure in question is an in ground concrete pool
that is 50 feet from the front yard setback on
Brooklawn and 40 feet from the front yard setback on
Rodney Parham Road. The structure is in place and is
located on the north side of the existing house. There
is an 8 foot privacy fence that surrounds the rear,
north, and part of the west property line. A
considerable amount of landscaping along with the fence
brings the pool from the neighbors to the east. The
property itself encompasses two lots, but the pool is
located only on one of the lots, and even though the
property has a considerable amount of depth, the
requirement of the ordinance stating a corner lot has
September 21, 1987
Item No. 11 - Continued
to have two front yards does present a hardship for the
applicant. Staff feels that due to the fact there is a
high enough privacy fence on the property and no impact
will be placed on the adjacent property owner or the
traffic on either street frontages, there are no
problems at this time. The applicant will, if the
variance is granted, retain enough frontage on both
streets in order to provide for the accessory
structure.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the variance as filed. The applicant will still
be required to meet all the building permits requirements
due to the fact the pool is already in place.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was not present at the meeting. A motion was
made to defer the item until the October 19, 1987, meeting.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent.
September 21, 1987
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned, at 3 p.m.
Chairman Planning Director
Date