Z-3784-A Staff AnalysisJune 17, 1991
1
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned•
Variances Rg nested:
Z -3784-A
Richard A. and Sheila Bronfman
5213 North Grandview
Lot 36, Grandview Addition to
the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas.
(1) From the area provisions
of Section 36-254/d.1 to
permit new construction
with a reduced side yard
setback.
(2) From the building line
provisions of Section
31-12/C to permit new
construction to cross a
platted building line.
Justification: The new construction would
allow for the vehicles to be
kept off the street and give
additional storage space.
Present Use of Property: Residential
Proposed Use of Property; Residential
Staff Report:
A. Engineering Issues:
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is before the Board requesting two
variances from the requirement of the ordinance. The
first variance deals with a reduced side yard of 6 feet.
The requirement of the ordinance is a side yard of 8
feet. The reason for the reduced side yard is to
provide for a covered patio area.
The site is surrounded by all residential uses.
1
June 17, 1991
Item No. 1 (Cont.
A building line variance is also being requested.
Although the ordinance requires a front yard setback of
25 feet, this particular property has a 30 foot platted
building line. In order for the new construction to
cross the 30 foot platted building line, approximately
5 feet, a building line waiver is needed to accommodate
the encroachment. The reason for the encroachment is to
construct a two car garage with storage space.
As with all building line waivers, there are three steps
to the process: (a) filing to come before the Board of
Adjustment, (b) filing of a replat in the Department of
Neighborhoods and Planning, and (c) filing of the replat
at the county courthouse.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of both variances subject
to all the requirements of the building line waiver
being met.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION (June 17, 1991)
The applicant was in attendance. There were no objectors
present. The applicant stated that there were no problems
with staff's recommendations. A motion was then made to
approve both variances subject to staff's recommendation.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
2