The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutboa_03 30 2009LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES MARCH 30, 2009 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 February 23, 2009 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Robert Winchester, Vice Chairman Terry Burruss Scott Smith James Van Dover David Wilbourn, Chairman City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA MARCH 30, 2009 2:00 P.M. I. OLD BUSINESS: A. Z-8424 1218 Center Street II. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Z-8434 8101 Chatham Drive 2. Z-8435 11103 Chicot Road 3. Z-8437 12005 Westhaven Drive 4. Z-8438 5 Cadron Cove 5. Z-8439 2 Duclair Court 0 r i' o Oa s�avds .I. - CD ' ■ � ... w a 3HId a3lZbay z w■...■ r j Lu — \1 _-z+SONIadS aV71H .J —1 AIG Albd alVzl 6 I`'3. Jam■ � K 38 � w •, TI C enaz z I 0a SONiad a3A3O • F t11GMNPY 3g5 UQ:-IM is IddPSISSIW N ■ lOOIH Oa SbWOHl NVO d � . w O s aog 1 �. ■ ■ x F as 1:110naas3 a MOaaVB NHO 1 � _ OES 1b1S}IS1Nl ?r �� u) SS •S.� zo foa'a oaa is H av s o -_ 0 3 Ofd •• d1S �% ARCH Sr�- Z W /f I M a(lOO s 0 r i' o Oa s�avds .I. - . 2 . _-z+SONIadS aV71H AIG Albd alVzl 6 I`'3. Jam■ � K 38 � w •, ''�-• �+ 3Ab,l11Sa3A1Nn S.. z I 0a SONiad a3A3O • F ,Fa ra is IddPSISSIW N lOOIH F as 1:110naas3 a MOaaVB NHO 1 � ?r �� u) _ - Z W 1 I Oct, 1Sa31Nl •� -� O WM es �� ..•u NT � w sY •t ' � i x r._.� ._ - 1' d•�•� y ° •■.r 1 Oy C Oa 3°JO1a t• • _-' r l Z 1 '�1 � boy IA 1 ' r' M J -� 1 �•—�1 a� � f r*r y s� I N�, Nbc/ 1Oy ! `-� ...! i_�. —._ .. z .y .■..d.....■ .•r syr iri�.■1 m O a3 VX3lV Lu U ! % ` 0 0 NVAlnns. alaVM31S J' {■ 1 HSa 0 r i' o Oa s�avds MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Owner: Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-8424 Craig and Natalie Weatherly Craig Weatherly 1218 Center Street Lot 8, Block 195, Original City of Little Rock UU Variance Requested: A variances is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 1218 Center Street is occupied by a two-story frame single-family residence which is in the process of being remodeled. There is a one-story accessory building in the rear yard area, near the southwest corner of the property. There is a paved alley along the rear (west) property line. There is a new wood fence which is located along the front (east), side (north) and rear (west) property lines. The new fence is six (6) feet in height running along the front and rear property lines. The majority of the fence along the north side property line is six (6) feet in height, with the exception of an eight (8) foot high section which runs for approximately the depth of the residence (approximately 52 feet). The fence transitions upward from the six (6) foot sections to the eight (8) foot section. There is an existing rock wall and fence located along a portion of the south side property line. MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between a front building setback line and a street right-of-way. Fences located along interior lot lines are allowed to have a maximum height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot high fence along the front property line and east 25 feet of the north side property line, and the eight (8) foot section (with transition) along the north side property line. The applicant has noted that the fence was constructed for security purposes while the house is being remodeled, and requests the variance for the portion along the front (east) property line for only one (1) year from the Board's meeting date. He has plans to replace it with a four (4) foot high wrought iron fence. The fence along the north (side) property line would remain as constructed. Staff does not support the fence variance as requested. Although staff has no problem with the requested variance for the fence along the front property line (temporary) and the eight (8) foot section along the north property line, staff believes the east 18 feet of the fence located along the north property line should also be reduced to a height of four (4) feet within one (1) year. There is a residence located immediately to the north, and staff feels that reducing the fence height within the front yard area, at least to the front porch (18 feet from front property line), would help maintain the residential appearance for the front yard areas. If the applicant were willing to revise the application to include this 18 foot section, staff would support the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. The temporary portion of the fence located along the front and north side (east 18 feet) property lines be reduced to four (4) feet within one (1) year. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the fence height variance, as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 26, 2009) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the February 23, 2009 Agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to complete the notifications to surrounding property owners as required. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 23, 2009 Agenda as recommended by staff with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 23, 2009) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the March 30, 2009 Agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to complete the notifications to surrounding property owners as required. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the March 30, 2009 Agenda as recommended by staff with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. Staff Update: The applicant submitted a letter to staff, revising the application as suggested by staff in paragraph B. of the agenda report. The applicant notes that the east 18 feet of the fence along the north property line will be reduced to a four (4) foot height within one (1) year, as will the fence along the front (east) property line. Therefore, staff now supports the application. Revised Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the revised application, subject to the following conditions: 1. The temporary portion of the fence located along the front and north side (east 18 feet) property lines be reduced to four (4) feet within one (1) year. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 30, 2009) The applicant was not present. Staff recommended the application be deferred to the April 27, 2009 agenda. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 27, 2009 Agenda, as recommended by staff, with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z-8434 Owner/Applicant: Cheryl L. Mathis Address: 8101 Chatham Drive Description: Lot 1, Sheraton Park Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow enclosure of an existing carport with reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located at 8101 Chatham Drive is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the southwest corner of Chatham Drive and Biscayne Drive. There is a two -car wide driveway from Chatham Drive which serves as access to the property. There is a two -car wide carport at the northwest corner of the house, which is unenclosed on its west and north sides. The lot contains a 25 foot platted building line along the front (north) and street side (east) property line. The existing house extends across the front platted building line by approximately four (4) feet at the structure's northwest corner. The applicant is proposing to enclose the existing carport area, converting it to a two -car garage. The applicant notes that the garage enclosure will not extend beyond the existing roof line, and that it will have exterior siding to MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T. match the existing residence. The applicant notes that the garage enclosure is requested to provide additional security and storage space. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Section 31.12(c ) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the carport enclosure with reduced front setback and which crosses a front platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested front setback and building line variances. Staff views the request as a relatively minor issue. The applicant is requesting to enclose a carport structure of which only a very small portion crosses the front platted building line and encroaches into the minimum required front setback. Only approximately 39 square feet of the carport portion of the residence crosses the 25 foot front platted building line. Additionally, the residence immediately to the west is located approximately 16 feet back from the carport portion of this residence. Staff believes the enclosure of the carport area will have no adverse impact on this adjacent residence or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the carport enclosure. 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 the following conditions. 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The carport enclosure must be constructed to match the existing residence. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 30, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 This letter is submitted with my request for a building variance at my home, located at 8101 Chatham Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas. I want to enclose my carport, con- verting it to a double garage. The enclosure will not extend beyond the existing roof line. The exterior will be siding that matches the present siding. My reasons for enclosing the area are; 1.) to increase my personal security, 2.)to provide additional storage for my lawn maintenance tools, and 3.) to improve the appearance of my home. Sincerely, �.--.-•.--�._��'�- ��'t-Vic--��...�.% Cheryl Mathis 8101 Chatham Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72227 501-312-5812 MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z-8435 Owner: Applicant: Address: Description Zoned: Genaro Rosales Michael F. Jones 11103 Chicot Road East side of Chicot Road, South of Mabelvale Cut -Off -Road MEN Variance Requested: An interpretative issue/ruling is requested regarding Section 36- 516 of the Code and the use of barbed wire fencing. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential, with addition of garden and animals STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 11103 Chicot Road is comprised of approximately 9.16 acres of land. There is a one-story single-family residence within the west half of the property, fronting Chicot Road. The property is approximately 333 feet wide and 1,340 feet deep. The middle portion of the property is grass covered, with the rear portion being mostly tree -covered. The property owner recently constructed a livestock -type fence, including barbed wire, around the perimeter of the property. Portions of the fence are poultry -type mesh with barbed wire, and portions have six (6) strands of barbed wire. Small tree trunk sections have been used as fence posts. It is the MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) applicant's intent to keep livestock (horses, cows and goats) on the property and also have a garden area. The City's Zoning enforcement staff received an anonymous complaint stating the property owner was constructing a barbed wire fence in a residential zone. On February 4, 2009, an inspection of the property revealed the newly constructed barbed wire fence. The property owner was issued a Courtesy Notice to remove the barbed wire, as per Section 36-516(d) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which reads as follows: "(d) [Use of materials intended to inflict injury.] For purposes of this section the use of barbed, concertina wire or other types of wire specifically designed to inflict injury upon human contact is prohibited except when used at the top of fences at least six (6) feet above grade enclosing business or manufacturing premises. When such wire is used, it shall not extend outside the vertical plane of the enclosed property. Electrically charged fences are prohibited." The applicant has also removed a number of trees from the rear portion of the property. The applicant has filed a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance for the tree removal. The variance will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Additionally, according to the City's Animal Control division, Section 6-43 of the Code prohibits the keeping of livestock within 300 feet of any residence, not including the residence on the subject property. Section 6-43 reads as follows: "it shall be unlawful to keep cows, goats, horses, or other hoofed animals in a pen or lot within three hundred (300) feet of any residence other than the residence of the livestock owner or business establishment." An attached sketch shows the area of the overall property which is 300 feet away from any residence. It represents only a small area (less than one (1) acre) near the center of the property. Section 6-43 of the code has no appeal process. Given the fact that Section 36-516(d) "prohibits" the use of barbed wire fencing, the applicant cannot request a variance to allow its use. Therefore, the applicant is asking the Board of Adjustment to interpret the Ordinance and determine if the use of barbed wire fencing is appropriate in a residential zone in conjunction with the keeping of livestock. The Board of Adjustment is asked to rule on the following interpretative issue related to Section 36-516(d) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) Is it appropriate to allow use of barbed wire in conjunction with livestock fencing in the specific circumstance of someone owning/keeping livestock for personal interest/use, by right, regardless of the property's zoning? It is staff's opinion that the only area considered for the use of barbed wire fencing should be the area of the property where it is lawful to keep livestock according to Section 6-43 of the Code. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 30, 2009) The applicant was present. There were eleven (11) persons present in opposition. Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the April 27, 2009 agenda, as the City Attorney's office needed additional time to review the issue and determine whether or not the Board had authority to act. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 27, 2009 Agenda, as recommended by staff, with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. MICHAEL F. "MIKE" JONESn- Attorney at Law 9020 Chicot Roadr Little Rock, AR 72209 �S (501)568-4566 February 18, 2009 Dana Carney Department of Planning & Development 723 W. Markham St., 1 st Floor Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Re: Request for Zoning Variance 11103 Chicot Rd., Mabelvale, AR 72103 Dear Mr. Carney: This letter is an appeal of a notice that the owner of the above property was violating Little Rock Code of Ordinances Sections 36-516 and 36-516(d), and to request a zoning variance for the property. The owner of the property is Genaro Rosales, who resides in California. His brother Homero Rosales, a resident of Little Rock, has a General Power of Attorney to act as agent for him in matters concerning the property. The violations involve a barbed wire fence Mr. Rosales was putting up around the property. All work on the fence ceased when the notice of violation was given to Mr. Rosales by one of his workmen. Mr. Rosales wishes to enclose the entire property outside the easement for Chicot Road with a barbed wire fence and to obtain a zoning variance in order to do so. The fence would also run to the east and south of a small frame house in the northwest corner of the property so as to provide space for a yard and driveway. Homero Rosales has asked me to assist him in this matter. Mr. Rosales wants to use the property to grow a garden and to keep a few each of horses, cows and goats. He wants to enclose the property with a barbed wire fence to keep the animals inside the property. The fence would be no more than six feet high with six strands of barbed wire. The lower strands would be closer together than the top strands to keep the smaller animals enclosed. The property is approximately ten acres in size, and the animals would be used to keep the grass short to maintain the property. A barbed wire fence is the most effective method of making sure the animals remain inside the property, and the owner is making this application for a residential zoning variance for the barbed wire fence to keep the animals secured in an effective manner. The sole purpose of the barbed wire is to keep the animals inside, and not people out of, the property. A survey of the property by G. A. Denham, Civil Engineer, made on April 27, 1964, for Dana Carney February 18, 2009 Page 2 the previous owners is also submitted with this letter. The same survey showing the proposed fence is also submitted. know. If the information submitted with this letter needs to be supplemented, please let me March 9, 2009 Dana Carney Little Rock Planning Department C� 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Carney: -4- Z_ k,4 -3,9 This letter is to express opposition to (1) having livestock at 11121 Chicot Road, which is within the Little Rock city limits, and (2) the quality of the fence the residents built at that address to contain livestock. As a long-term resident and property owner in southwest Little Rock, the following are my reasons for the above stated opposition: Chicot Road in the area of the proposed site is an extremely busy, two-lane road with narrow shoulders on each side. The fence built to contain the livestock is approximately 100 feet from Chicot Road. Our major concern is for the safety of persons traveling this area. With the sub -standard fence the residents built, it is most likely that the horses, cows, and goats that are to be confined within that fence will escape and venture out into Chicot Road. The potential of a serious or possibly fatal accident is great. A LRSD primary school, housing early childhood through third grade students, is located directly across the street from the proposed site. To add to the all day heavy flow of traffic, Chicot Road has extra school and bus congestion in the early morning and mid afternoon. Adding to our concern are the many children who walk to and from school. As we all know, young children are by nature curious about farm animals and, for the most part, have no fear of them. The possibility of children being hit by a vehicle while crossing back and forth across Chicot Road to see the animals is great. Also, it is probable that a child will run their hand or arm, through the fence to pet an animal and the animal respond naturally. We are extremely concerned for the safety of the children living in this area. The fence the residents built to confine the livestock is constructed of non -treated posts, which are actually the trunks of trees cut from the property, and 2"x4" wire with two strands of barb wire incorporated into the fence structure. The residents did not use concrete to secure any of the posts, not even the comer posts. While the fence is an eye sore, safety is the major issue. Because the water table in this area is high, the posts will not likely be secure to safely contain the animals for a period of time. In addition, barb wire is a hazzard to children and adults alike and should not be used within the confines of the city limits. Sincerely, Concerned citizen from Southwest Little Rock cc: Bince Floriani Little Rock Public Works 701 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Carney, Carney, Dana Page 1 of 1 174" --1* 2 -- From: john brockway [yankeebrockway@att.net] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 10:57 PM To: Carney, Dana; James, Donna; Hanna, Ward; bjwyrick@comcast.net; djadcock@comcast.net; genefortson@comcast.net; veragraham@yahoo.com; d44green@comcast.net; barutiajamu@yahoo.com; lahaengrls@sbcglobal.net Subject: HORSES and PIGS 11103 Chicot Road Item number 7 File LA -0024. RE: The property at 11103 Chicot Road. The West Baseline Neighborhood Association stand four square with our neighbors, Yorkwood Neighborhood Association, Oxford Valley Neighborhood Association, along with SWLR UPS, regarding the horses and pigs at the above mentioned address. We STRONGLY, STRONGLY, recommend that you DO NOT, DO NOT allow this to happen. Do not let South West Little Rock be a DUMPING ground! 3/17/2009 Page 1 of 1 Carney, Dana rv_...........µ _..._ _.. ._..__._...._._..... _.._. __ _.._ ._.w_._------- ...... ..c� From: Shephard, Shenetha L [SLShephard@uams.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 8:27 AM To: 'lahaengrls@sbcglobal.net' Cc: 'djadcock@comcast.net'; 'bjwyrick@comcast. net'; 'geneforsto@comcast.net'; Carney, Dana; 'Vera Graham' Subject: The property at 11103 Chicot Road To Whom It May Concern: I am a concerned resident of Oxford Valley. It has been mentioned that the owner of this property wants to use the above mentioned property as a Farm. As a proud and concerned resident of South West Little Rock, I do not want to see our neighborhood turned into a DUMPING ground; so please DO NOT allow this to happen. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the s 3/17/2009 i Carney, Dana From: gwimberly (gwimberly44@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:12 PM To: Carney, Dana Subject: Chicot Road property Dear Mr. Carney: Page 1 of 1 Thank you for your time in visiting with me re: the above referenced property. I am not sure of the address, but think it to be 11103 Chicot Rd. As a property owner living South of this property, I pass by daily and see things that concern me. It appears as though multiple families may be living in a single residence based on the number of vehicles parked outside. It also appears that the residents were selling vehicles that were parked just off the road, sometimes as many as 5-6 were lined up for viewing. Now, a fence, not of residential style but more suitable for a farm, has been built, the posts are tree trunks of varying size with fencing material that appears to be suitable for a dog pen or livestock. It is my understanding that the residents intend to put in a large garden and raise livestock such as goats, chickens, cows, etc. I feel that the garden will eventually result in a produce stand in due time and that could lead to traffic congestion, and, the animal waste will bring about another set of problems. Slowly but surely, Chicot Rd is undergoing improvements with new homes, road resurfacing and an attractive addition to Chicot Primary School. None of the concerns I have listed will result in improvements, in fact, the fence is quite unattractive, in my opinion, and certainly does not enhance the improvements brought about by the school, which is just across the street. I fear that if these variations in zoning are allowed, there will be a multiplier effect occurring in the area which will eventually affect property values as more of these "mini commercial ventures" are created wherever there is room. I respectfully submit my "objection" to these commercial ventures in a residential area. Thank You, Gary Wimberly 3/17/2009 Carney, Dana From: Hogan, Brenda Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:36 PM 1: To: Carney, Dana Subject: HORSES and PIGS 11103 Chicot Road — I am a Oxford Valley Resident: Dear Oxford Valley Residents: The following is going before the Planning Commission this week. Item number 7 File LA -0024. RE: The property at 11103 Chicot Road. If you have not notice, this is a fence, made up of tree logs and wire going up on Chicot Rd across from the Elementary School. It is not a pretty sight. So much work and MONEY has been invested in Chicot Elementary School and now the owners of the land at 11103 Chicot Road are putting up this unsightly fence. The word is out also that the owner wants to put farm animals on this land. Other neighborhood association are joining this effort. See email below. The owner of the land need a change in zoning to continue his work on that fence. Do not take my word regarding this fence please drive by and take a look... then email your opnion to the following. PLEASE act quickly as I said this is going before the Planning Commision this week. So send your email today if possible to: Planning Commission - lahaengrls@sbcglobal.net City Director - djadcock@comcast.net City Director - bjwyrick@comcast.net City Director - geneforsto@comcast.net Zoning - dcarney@littlerock.org ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: john brockway <yankeebrockway@att.net> To: dcarney@littlerock.org; djames@littlerock.org; whanna@littlerock.org; bjwyrick@comcast.net; djadcock@comcast.net; genefortson@comcast.net; veragraham@yahoo.com; d44green@comcast.net; barutiajamu@yahoo.com; lahaengrls@sbcglobal.net Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 10:56:58 PM Subject: HORSES and PIGS 11103 Chicot Road Item number 7 File LA -0024. RE: The property at 11103 Chicot Road. The West Baseline Neighborhood Association stand four square with our neighbors, Yorkwood Neighborhood Association, Oxford Valley Neighborhood Association, along with SWLR UPS, regarding the horses and pigs at the above mentioned address. We STRONGLY, STRONGLY, recommend that you DO NOT, DO NOT allow this to happen. Do not let South West Little Rock be a DUMPING ground! Brenda D. Hogan 1 Carney, Dana From: Gladys O'Neal [marieoneal@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:08 PM To: Carney, Dana Cc: Vera Graham Subject: Item No. 7 File LA -0024 Page 1 of 1 As a resident of Oxford Valley, I'm against the item below. Does anyone care about Southwest LR? I seriously doubt that something of this nature would even be considered in Otter Creek or Pleasant Valley, etc. Item number 7 File LA -0024. The property at 11103 Chicot Road Gladys O'Neal Resident 3/19/2009 Carney, Dana To: Floriani, Vince --14 2— Subject: FW: The property at 11103 Chicot Road. -----Original Message ----- From: Dieatria long [mailto:deelong23@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 3:19 PM To: Carney, Dana Cc: veragraham@yahoo.com Subject: RE: The property at 11103 Chicot Road. I'm a concerned resident of Oxford Valley neighborhood. I do want to express my concerns regarding the owners of the property at 11103 Chicot Rd. The is a ungodly make shift fence that has been put up and now concerns there will be horse or farm animal added to the yard. I protest this! I have to drive past that house daily and this is an up an growing area that we want to keep nice. That can't be done with farm animals in the city neighborhood. Thank you, Dieatria Long 7718 Claybrook 1 MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-8437 Owner: Tommy Hilburn Applicant: Greg Criner, Lamar Outdoor Advertising Address: 12005 Westhaven Drive Description: Lot 4, Parkway West Addition Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 556 to allow a billboard with a reduced setback from right-of-way. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Restaurant. Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant with billboard site. STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 12005 Westhaven Drive is occupied by a Corky's Restaurant development. The property is located at the southwest corner of Westhaven Drive and Bowman Road. The existing restaurant building is located within the south half of the property, with paved parking on the north, east and west sides of the building. An access drive from Westhaven Drive serves as access. The applicant is proposing to locate an off -premise sign (billboard) along the north property line of the site, as noted on the attached site plan. The sign is to be located within a landscaped island on the east side of the entry drive, near the northeast corner of the property. The sign will be 10 feet by 36 feet in area and approximately 35 feet in height. The sign will be located five (5) feet back from the north property line (along Westhaven Drive) and over 40 feet back MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) from the east (Bowman Road) property line. The applicant notes that the sign will be orientated to traffic along Bowman Road, running perpendicular to Bowman Road. Additionally, the proposed billboard will be located 661' back form the Chenal Parkway right-of-way. Section 36-556(a)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that a billboard be located at lest 25 feet back from a public right-of-way in C-3 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the off -premise sign (billboard) with a reduced setback from the north side property line, along the Westhaven Drive right-of-way. The proposed off -premise sign will comply with all other ordinance standards. Staff is supportive of the requested setback variance associated with the proposed off -premise sign. Staff views the request as reasonable. The applicant is locating the sign along the north property line, and not the south interior lot line, in order to comply with the required minimum 660 foot setback from Chenal Parkway right-of-way, a scenic corridor. The proposed billboard meets the setbacks for an on -premise sign. There are a number of large commercial signs in this general area. Staff does not feel that the addition of the billboard in this commercial area along Bowman Road will have an adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested off -premise sign variance, subject to a permit being obtained for the sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 30, 2009) Greg Criner was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Criner added no information to the staff report. Terry Burruss noted that the proposed billboard met the setback requirement from Bowman Road. Scott Smith explained that the billboard could not be located on the site and meet both the minimum setbacks from both Westhaven Drive and Chenal Parkway. Mr. Criner explained that the main intent in locating the billboard was to comply with the minimum setback from Chenal Parkway, a scenic corridor. There was additional discussion related to the proposed location of the billboard. There was a motion to approve the application, as recommended by staff. The vote was 2 ayes, 2 nays and 1 absent. The application was automatically deferred to the April 27, 2009 Agenda for failing to receive three (3) votes for approval or denial. 2-23-09 City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Care of Monte Moore 723 West Markham Street, I st floor Little Rock, Arkansas, 72201 Re: Cover Letter for Application of Variance Lamar 10' X 36' Off -Premise Sign @ 12005 Westhaven Dr. Mr. Moore, &-43-7 Lamar Advertising is respectfully requesting a 20' variance setback from Westhaven Dr. for the installation of a 10' x 36' single Off -Premise Sign. The sign meets all other required regulations including the 660' setback from Chenal Parkway, zoning, and a height of no more than 35' above grade. Most often Off -Premise signs are built on interior lot lines and no side setback is required. In this case setback is required, since the location is on a corner lot. The sign will be viewed from Bowman Rd. and also meets the required 25' setback from Bowman Rd. In addition Lamar was informed by Little Rock Planning and Zoning that an On - Premise could be located in the same place with no variance required, since the setback is Less for On -Premise signs. The sign will be located in a Parking Island on a rise in the parking lot and will not create any parking or traffic flow issues. Lamar feels the request is reasonable and asks that permission be granted to construct the Sign for which it has applied. Thank You. 120011-30 9 Little Bock, AR 72209 9 (501) 562-2476 ® Fax (501) 563-0085 Sincerely, Greg Cniner Real Estate Manager 120011-30 a Little Rock, AR 72209 a (501) 562-2476 ® Fax (501) 568-0085 MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-8438 Owner: Doug Hunnicut Applicant: Pat McGetrick Address: 5 Cadron Cove Description: Lot 26, Phase I, Waters Edge Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow construction of a new residence with reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Lot Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5 Cadron Cove is currently an undeveloped, grass - covered single family lot. The lot is located at the east end of a cul-de-sac and backs up to a small lake. As noted on the attached site plan, the lot has a 25 foot front platted building line, a 25 foot wide utility easement along the rear (east) property line and 7.5 foot wide easement along the south side property line. The applicant is proposing to construct a new two-story single family residence on the property, also noted on the attached site plan. The proposed residence will comply with all minimum setbacks from property lines, with exception of a portion of the front of the structure. The southwest corner of the garage portion MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) of the structure will cross the 25 foot front platted building line by approximately three (3) feet, resulting in a 22 foot front setback. The remainder of the front of the structure will be located behind the front platted building line. There will be a two -car wide driveway from Cadron Cove leading to the garage area. The proposed residence is located on the 25 foot rear setback, utility easement line. The applicant has noted that the structure cannot extend into the easement as there is a sewer main within the west portion of the easement, near the 25 foot setback line. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12(c ) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the new residence with reduced front setback and which crosses a front platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested front setback and building line variances. Staff views the request as a very minor issue, as only approximately 15 square feet of the proposed residence encroaches across the 25 foot front platted building line and into the minimum front building setback. As noted previously, there is a 25 foot utility easement located along the rear (east) property line. The applicant has met with a representative from Little Rock Wastewater. He was informed that there is a sewer main located just inside (west portion) the 25 foot wide utility easement, and that Wastewater would allow no encroachment into the easement. Typically, staff would support a reduced rear setback in this case, if it were an option. Additionally, with the curvature of the cul-de-sac in front of the proposed structure, the structure encroaching across the front building line will not have the appearance of being out of alignment with future residences on the adjacent lots. Staff believes the proposed residence crossing the front platted building line, as proposed, will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front building line for the new residence. 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 completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 30, 2009) Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Mr. McGetrick noted that he was present to answer any questions. Scott Smith asked if the house could be three (3) feet shorter, in order to comply with all setback requirements. Mr. McGetrick noted that the property owner desired a minimum amount of floor area. The design of the house was discussed. Mr. Smith made additional comments relating to the size of the house. Staff explained that if the 25 foot wide utility easement, with sewer main, were not present the issue could possibly have been handled at staff level. Vice -Chair Winchester noted that the house was pushed forward on the lot because of the sewer main. Mr. McGetrick confirmed. There was a motion to approve the application, as recommended by staff. The vote was 2 ayes, 2 nays and 1 absent. The application was automatically deferred to the April 27, 2009 Agenda for failing to receive three (3) votes for approval or denial February 20, 2009 Mr. Monte Moore Zoning Administrator Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Front Yard Setback Variance Lot 26, Waters Edge Subdivision, Phase I Dear Mr. Moore: 'V-e-� 44--4 �- q 2 We are herewith requesting a front yard setback variance to reduce the front yard approximately 3 feet for the abovereferenced project. This is to allow the construction of the corner of the garage for the residential house. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, McGetrick & McGetrick Patrick M. McGetrick, P.E. MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-8439 Owner: Russ Harrington Applicant: Burt Taggart Address: 2 Duclair Court Description: Lot 1 R,Block 3, Chenal Valley Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a building addition with a reduced rear setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Measures to control the increase in stormwater drainage should be implemented to not cause damage onto adjacent property from the increase in impervious area. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 2 Duclair Court is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence. The property is located on the northwest corner of Duclair Court and Chenal Valley Drive. There is an access drive within an access easement along the rear (west) property line. There is a two -car wide driveway from the access drive to a garage on the west side (rear) of the residence. The access easement is 14 feet wide at the rear of this lot. The applicant is proposing to construct a one-story addition to the rear (west side) of the structure, as noted on the attached site plan. The addition will be located 15 feet back from the rear (west) property line, 12 feet from the south side property line and approximately 29 feet from the north side property line. MARCH 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) The applicant notes that the addition will create a first floor bedroom and bathroom for the elderly parents of the property owner who are unable to use the staircase within the existing residence. The room addition will be approximately 450 square feet in area. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the building addition with a reduced rear setback of 15 feet. All other setbacks will comply with ordinance standards. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The residence with addition will not be out of character with other lots within this subdivision with respect to setbacks from access drives and building massing. The residence immediately to the west is located only a foot or two from the access drive (side yard relation). The requested addition with reduced rear setback will have a rear yard relation to the residence to the west across the access drive. The proposed building addition should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the overall neighborhood. This subdivision is likely covered by an active bill of assurance which may address setback and architectural review issues. The applicant needs to be aware of this and should review the document for compliance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to the following conditions. 1. The addition must be constructed to match the existing residence. 2. Compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A. of the staff report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 30, 2009) Burt Taggart was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Taggart made no additional comments. Scott Smith asked Mr. Taggart why the variance was needed. Mr. Taggart explained the current floor plan of the house. He explained that the design was to develop a new bedroom with the appearance of a stand-alone structure. He also explained that the roofline of the existing house dictated the design of the proposed addition. Mr. Smith asked why the enclosed connector was needed. Mr. Taggart noted that with the existing roofline of the house, the addition could not be located much closer MARCH 30, 2009 i ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) to the existing structure. Dana Carney, City staff, noted that the single family developments in Chenal were not allowed accessory structures. Mr. Smith asked what the proposed rear setback was. Mr. Taggart noted that it was 15 feet and explained. He also noted that the adjacent property owners were in support of the proposed addition. He noted that the Public Works requirement would be complied with. There was a motion to approve the application, as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was approved. ARCHITECTURE Dear Planning Commission, The owners of the property at #2 Duclair Court wish to make an addition to the rear of their residence which will reduce the required twenty-five foot rear yard setback to fifteen feet. Because the property is surrounded on three sides by streets this addition will create a more private inner courtyard. This addition will further create a l It floor bedroom & bath which will be accessible to the owner's elderly parents who are unable to use the staircase. Please review the attached drawing for the existing & proposed conditions. If you have any questions please feel free to call us at the number above. Thank you for your consideration, Burt Taggart 03/13/2009 09:13 FAX 5018218769 CHENAL VALLEY ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE Mr. Burt Taggart 20 Patricia Lane Little Rock, AR 72205 RE: Lor I R, Block 3 Dear Sir: 9002/002 March 13, 2009 VLA US MAIL The Architectural Control Committee approves the one : tory structure as shown on the sketch dated 3/11/09. The committee understands that a portion of the structure falls within the rear building setback. No portion of the structure is allowed in the side yard setback. All exterior finishes must match the existing home unless prior written approval is obtained. Final building plans and elevations must be submitted for approval. Let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Toni Russell Arc)utectural Control Committee 7 Chenal Club Boulevard, Little Rock, .Arkansas 72223 (501) 821-5555 E 11 Q) L I I VA yr e Z 'W VJ m Q m 0 W 3 r1 Q L.Ll W c G m OW t— Z 0 W w F- W m Cn :DO 0 = O W U W 1'�I m Z z 2m�:cn>3: r^ O LL W Q) L I I VA yr e Z 'W VJ m Q m 0 W r1 OW > M W 1'�I r^ O LL W Z r n vl > O� v) t1 Lr' W O m = F- z Z co (n > �: Q) L I I VA yr e Z 'W VJ m Q m 0 W March 30, 2009 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:42 p.m. Date: j? % f Chairman