Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_07 28 2008LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JULY 28, 2008 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being five (5) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the June 30, 2008 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Terry Burruss, Chairman David Wilbourn, Vice Chairman Scott Smith James Van Dover Robert Winchester Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OLD BUSINESS: A. Z-8353 B. Z-8358 NEW BUSINESS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 6 7 8 Z-6421 -A Z-8366 Z-8368 Z-8369 Z-8370 Z-8371 Z-8372 Z-8373 JULY 28, 2008 2:00 P.M. 1321 W. 10th Street 2918 Izard Street 7 Reynard Court 11 Shannon Drive 9 East Palisades Drive 20 Markbrook Lane 1114 S. Arthur Street 221 E. Capitol Avenue 6212 Kavanaugh Blvd. 8101 Geyer Springs Road CD c z Rid a31ZVa3 cn1lnVBIH1 (D i a W O ° e�' NVWa30 co N x � NIVW AVMOtlOaa wo e. HOaV Np1/yp lS3H0 � a3H3a0 � ONIN lW m — Q = P a o MOa000M o i � � 3NId 133HlS = 3NId e 8tl0 0 NO1lIWtl ll00S `moi m s �J�HoS a Na d 03 � A11Sa3A n � " S9 dS 83A30 LL s3H0nH o I ISS IW m d� 00 N 6 � � 1001H0 ^Q� alOna3S3a Mod8ve NHOf 3 uP n �' � 1 3NN13H - 0a31V 0aod3la0VHs g o i —� SIONYS �N o WVHaVd A3N008 R s m W '+J Ntl 00 o — — — S11WIl HJbpJ w W 3001a AN b;S o � Y g _E ` (� r v fQpPN`�P� $ W a� NVnnlns IMAI5 xSybry 4- S11WIl ALIO�A2,� �� �� 0.�' a O �1t1� o (jam) V (10 d�IpJ 31VON833 1 'MO W JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-8353 Owner/Applicant: Shirley Boldon -Bruce Address: 1321 W. 10th Street Description: Southeast Corner of W. 10th and Victory Streets Zoned: R-4 Variaacee�egues#ed�A-variannc_e-s_regi iP�tpri from thefenis nf Sprtmon 26-51 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 R-2 zoned property at 1321 W. 10th Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the southeast corner of W. 10th Street and S. Victory Street. The residential lot is relatively small in size being 37 feet by 50 feet in area. The front and side yard areas are enclosed by a four (4) foot high chain-link fence which has existed for a number of years. A short portion of the chain- link fence along the west (Victory Street) property line is approximately five (5) feet in height. The applicant recently removed a six (6) foot high chain-link fence which enclosed the rear yard area, and replaced it with a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence, as noted on the attached site plan. The wood fence encloses the rear yard area of approximately 10 feet by 37 feet. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows fences in residential zones located between building setback lines and street rights-of- way to have a maximum height of four (4) feet. Six (6) foot high fences are JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) allowed elsewhere on residential lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the six (6) foot high fence between the 3.7 foot street side setback and the west property line along S. Victory Street. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The variance request is only for that portion of the fence located within the west 3.7 feet of the property (approximately 17 linear feet of fencing). The fence is located approximately eight (8) feet back from the curb of S. Victory Street and will create no sight -distance problem for the adjacent properties or the intersection of W. 10th Street and S. Victory Street. Staff believes the six (6) foot wood fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to a building permit being obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 30, 2008) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the July 28, 2008 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 July 28, 2008 Agenda as recommended by staff with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 28, 2008) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the August 25, 2008 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 August 25, 2008 Agenda as recommended by staff with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z-8358 Owner/Applicant: Harold Evans Address: 2918 Izard Street Description: Lot 8, Block 28, Kimball's South Park Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an accessory building with increased rear yard coverage and reduced setbacks. Jus ificafion: Tt�e applicant"s justification is presented -in an attached -tette . Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Measures for additional stormwater drainage should be implemented to not cause damage from increased runoff onto adjacent property from the increased impervious surface. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 2918 Izard Street is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence which is in the process of being remodeled. There is a one -car wide driveway from Izard Street which serves as access. A frame garage structure which previously existed at the northwest corner of the property has been removed from the site. The applicant received a building permit for an addition on the rear of the house for which construction has begun. While construction began on the addition, the applicant also began construction on an accessory garage structure at the northwest corner of the lot. The applicant has constructed a raised concrete slab which covers approximately 90 percent of the rear 25 feet of the lot. The slab ranges in height from 1.5 feet to approximately 10 feet above grade at its northwest and southwest corners respectively. The slab is less than one (1) foot from the north and south side property lines and the rear (west) property line. The slab is approximately six (6) feet back from the addition to the main house. The property slopes downward from side to side JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T. (north to south) and front to back (east to west). The southwest corner of the lot is the lowest point of the lot. The applicant is proposing to construct a 264" by 30 foot garage (one-story) at the northwest corner of the lot, over a portion of the existing concrete slab. The garage walls will be set in four (4) feet from the north and west edges of the slab. The garage will be accessed by way of a new concrete driveway along the north side of the house. The garage will maintain a six (6) foot separation from the house and cover approximately 43 percent of the required rear yard (rear 25 feet of the lot). Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum rear yard coverage of 30 percent for accessory buildings in single family zones. etfor-accessory-bu'rltt'rrrgs:-T-hrerefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow reduced side and rear setbacks for the raised concrete slab and increased coverage for the raised slab and garage combination. As noted previously, the raised slab is less than one (1) foot from both sides and rear property lines, and covers approximately 90 percent of the required rear yard. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Although the variance requests seem very substantial in nature, staff's support is based on the fact that the proposed building construction (garage) will cover only approximately 43 percent of the required rear yard area. The remainder of the slab, although considered a structure by definition, will be utilized as an outdoor use/patio area and will not be enclosed or covered. The slab basically takes a rear yard area that had several feet of slope and leveled it to a point where it can be used as a patio area. The work which has been done on the property to this point seems to be high quality construction. This type of reinvestment in an older neighborhood is very positive and much desired. Staff believes the proposed construction of an accessory garage building and raised concrete slab will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. . Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and coverage variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of the agenda staff report. 2. A building permit must be obtained for all construction. 3. That portion of the raised concrete slab which is not occupied by the garage building must remain uncovered and unenclosed. JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 30, 2008) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the July 28, 2008 Agenda in order to legal ad additional variances associated with the request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 28, 2008) Harold Evans was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. d i i sappe t iof 1:1 e application. Scott Smith asked how Mr. Evans got to this point with the construction. Mr. Evans explained that he thought he had a permit for the garage construction. It was found during a footing inspection for the addition to the principal structure that a permit did not exist for the garage/patio area. Scott Smith asked about the height of the wall at the southwest corner of the lot. Mr. Evans noted that it was approximately six (6) feet high at the patio slab, with a four (4) foot high knee wall. Mr. Smith asked how it was constructed. Mr. Evans stated that it was constructed of eight (8) inch block. James Van Dover asked about the purpose of the retaining wall. Mr. Evans stated that it was to level the rear yard area and improve safety in the rear yard. Mr. Van Dover asked about the addition to the principal structure. Mr. Evans stated that the construction was not complete. The issue of drainage was briefly discussed. Mr. Van Dover asked about the yard area on the south side of the house. Mr. Evans stated that it would be yard/garden space. Scott Smith asked about the finish of the wall. Mr. Evans stated that it would be painted. There was a motion to approve the application, as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes and 1 nay. The application was approved. 05/23/2008 13:00 5017917121 FULL COUNSEL METRO PAGE 01/01 M ay 23, 2008 We are requesting variance for buRding a garage. We need to build the garage large ex .ough for a car or van. Also requesting extra space to accommodate vehicles and other accessories such as sporting equipment (Le. boat, motorcycle, and 4 -wheeler). H hold & Cynthia Bvwis --_.Q-tsmarc-. _- -- 21118 Izard Street L; the Rock, AR JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO File No.: Z-6421 -A Owner: Michael and Miriam Gavigan Applicant: Gary Dean Address: 7 Reynard Court Description: Lot 4, Foxcroft Addition 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: 1. Measures for additional stormwater drainage should be implemented to decrease the effects of increased stormwater runoff onto adjacent property from the increased impervious surface. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 7 Reynard Court is occupied by a one-story frame and rock single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Reynard Court which serves as access. The driveway runs along the south side of the residence to a carport at the southeast corner of the structure. On November 24, 1997, the Board of Adjustment approved a building addition to the southeast corner of the residence. The addition was approved for a reduced rear yard setback of 17 feet. The applicant is now proposing to enclose the northeast corner of the previous addition with an 8 foot by 10.5 foot addition, as noted on the attached site plan. JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) The proposed addition will maintain the same 17 foot rear setback as the previous addition. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for a reduced rear setback of 17 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The building addition as proposed is very minimal in size, being only approximately 80 square feet in area. The previously approved addition appears to have had no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. The residences to the east are located at least 25 feet back from the dividing rear property line. Adequate separation will exist between the proposed addition - - _ star--- Stcf�beite�re-th�pr�posed=adt�iti� lf-f�ano adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A. of the agenda staff report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 28, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. W I L L I A. . M 5 & D. E'- A. 'N. 4. 5 S.' O C i A T E D. -4 . R C H I T E C ''T ' S I, N 'C JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z-8366 Owner/Applicant: Frank and Betty Lou Hamlin Address: 11 Shannon Drive Description: Lot 8, Paschal Heights Addition Zoned: R-2 Vrariance-R.e.q.u.ested—Variancesare req rested-fry=thee-a�e_a-1 r_ovas.ians-o#-S-ectaan.36= allow a building addition with reduced side and rear setbacks. 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: 1. Measures for additional stormwater drainage should be implemented to decrease the effects of increased stormwater runoff onto adjacent property from the increased impervious surface. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 11 Shannon Drive is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Shannon Drive which serves as access. There is an existing wood deck on the southeast corner of the residence. The deck is located 2.5 feet from the east side property line and is approximately 2.5 feet above grade. The deck is approximately 17 feet back from the rear (south) property line. There is also an existing metal canopy on the southwest corner of the structure. The canopy is approximately 14 feet back from the rear property line. The south wall of the existing house is 11 to 12 feet back from the rear property line. The applicant proposes to remove a portion of the existing deck structure and construct a 10 foot by 25 foot room addition (one-story) at the southeast corner of the house, as noted on the attached site plan. The addition is to allow the remodeling of the existing master bedroom, bath, laundry room and closet JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) area. The addition will be located seven (7) feet back from the east side property line and 12 to 13 feet back from the rear property line, maintaining the same rear wall on the existing house. The applicant is also proposing to remove the existing metal canopy at the southwest corner of the structure and replace it with a new covered patio addition which will be approximately 10 feet wide. The patio cover will be unenclosed on its west and south sides, and located 10 to 11 feet back from the rear property lined. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of eight (8) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the proposed addition with a side setback of seven (7) feet, and the addition and patio canopy with rear setbacks of 10 to 13 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. The applicant is proposing to maintain the same rear wall as the existing house. The applicant is also proposing to remove the majority of the deck which has a non -conforming side setback of 2.5 feet. The proposed additions will not be out of character with other properties/structures in this general area. Ample separation will exist between the proposed additions and the nearest occupied structures to the south The existing non -conforming rear setback for the residence appears to have had no negative impact on the surrounding properties. Staff believes the proposed additions will continue to have no adverse impacts on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A. of the Agenda staff report. 2. The covered patio addition must remain unenclosed on its south and west sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 28, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. Frank S. Hamlin --�--� Betty Lou Hamlin 11 Shannon Drive 1l (ZP Little Rock, AR 72207 �J 501.666.9368 June 20, 2008 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 pp�catror� for esic ential oning ariance Enclosed is our application and filing fee for a zoning variance on our home at #11 Shannon Drive in Little Rock. Currently, we are working with Mr. Bill Wrape of Distinctive Kitchens and Bath to remodel our existing master bathroom, laundry room, closet, and bedroom and we will need a zoning variance to accommodate a small addition to this space. We have lived in this home for 27 years and raised our two children here. For the past year, we have renovated all the interior and some of the exterior of our home and have only our master bedroom/bathroom area remaining. When we made the decision to remain in this house, we knew that the most urgent work needed was to our master bath area. We decided to remodel the rest of the house and then move into an extra bedroom and then complete the renovation on our bedroom and bath. We have finished the first work and are now hoping to proceed on our bedroom/bath/laundry room. The bathroom we have used all these years is very small and extremely outdated. Our laundry room is also very small and difficult to use. We actually have to turn at an angle to get the dryer door open. Likewise, our shared closet is insufficient and we must store some of our clothes in the attic. The addition we hope to make will expand our space by 250 square feet allowing us to have a moderate size bathroom, minimal laundry room and nice sized closet. Our lot is actually a comfortable size except that for some reason our house was built very far back on the lot so that our front yard is large and back yard is very small. In addition, our back yard is separated into two disjointed pieces, one of which is seldom used and pretty unattractive. It is this little used space that we would like to use for our new addition. As you will see from the enclosed survey, our house was built close to the lot line from the beginning. The addition we propose will not extend as far out as the house currently reaches to the eastern lot line. We propose removing the existing wooden deck and adding an addition of 10' by 25'. This will leave a small interior courtyard which we plan to landscape. We realize that we will need the signatures of our neighbors and the reality is that only our nearest neighbor to the east, Raida Snyderman, will even see this addition. We have taken the liberty of explaining our plans to her and she enthus�asti��l��gave us er support.— gain, we un ers ander a we mus speak with all our neighbors and we are prepared to do that. We have spent a significant amount of time strategizing how to improve and maximize our master bath area. We have looked at every conceivable possibility, including going up. This small addition offers us the best opportunity to create enough space for a comfortable bathroom, functional laundry room/storage and fully adequate closet. We do not have a garage and have minimal outside storage so this laundry room expansion will also double as badly needed storage. The proposed addition uses the least used and least visible part of our entire lot. We appreciate your consideration of our request and will provide any additional information that you need. Sincerely, Frank S. Hamlin Betty ou Hamlin I JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-8368 Owner: Lyle and Lael Foster Applicant: Lyle Foster Address: 9 East Palisades Drive Description: Lot E, Block 2, East Palisades Addition Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a building addition with 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: 1. Measures for additional stormwater drainage should be implemented to decrease the effects of increased stormwater runoff onto adjacent property from the increased impervious surface. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 9 East Palisades Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from East Palisades which serves as access. The property slopes upward from front to back, with the property immediately to the south being approximately six (6) feet higher in grade than the subject property. The applicant proposes to remove an existing sunroom from the rear (south) of the existing residence and construct a one-story addition, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed addition will be 18 feet by 27 feet in size and located 20 to 22 feet back from the rear (south) property line. The addition will be for an additional bedroom, bath and laundry room. JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d) 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 proposed building addition with a rear setback ranging from 20 to 22 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The subject property is located several feet below the grade of the property to the south. Because of the grade change and natural vegetation located between the two (2) properties, the proposed addition will have very little visibility from the property to the south. Additionally, the requested rear setback variance is very minimal. It is just under the 22.5 foot setback that can be approved administratively by the Planning Staff. Staff believes the proposed building addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent -rop t es -car -t -ie gemrai— r-eaa. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear setback variance, subject to compliance with the Public Works requirement as noted in paragraph A. of the agenda staff report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 28, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. -DEN, MIRON & FOSTER, PL� Attorneys at Law 200 LOUISIANA • LIT'T'LE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501)376-8222•FAX (501)376-7047•(800)467-8297 email: hmf@hmflaw.net website: www.hmflaw.net Philip Miron Lyle D. Foster Danny W. Broaddrick Guy W. Murphy, Jr. Shaneen Kelleybrew Sloan Lori L. Holzwartht Christopher D. Brockett Brenda S. Wagner James C. McNiece, Jr. Of Counsel James W. Hyden tAlso licensed in Missouri J_urte2A,20OR Dept. of Planning & Development 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Zoning variance Dear Sir or Madam: 4501 HIGHWAY 7 NORTH, SUITE E HOT SPRINGS VILLAGE, ARKANSAS 71909 (501) 984-6366 123 WEST SECOND PINE BLUFF, ARKANSAS 71601 (870) 536-8222 557 LOCUSTAVENUE CONWAY, ARKANSAS 72032 (501) 336-8822 This letter is to request a zoning variance for Lot E, Block 2, East Palisades Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 316. The applicant proposes to add a new structure measuring approximately 18' x 27' attached to the south side of the existing structure. Doing so will encroach upon the existing set- back by approximately 10. It is the applicant's understanding that the current lot set -back is 25' from the property line. At the closest point to the southernmost lot line, once the improvements are added, the set -back would be 13.9', according to the survey. The lot line slopes southerly from east to west, so the encroachment of the variance would decrease from east to west. The applicant is seeking a variance for the purposes of adding additional living space in the way of an additional bedroom, bathroom and laundry room. Additionally, this new structure will assist in providing a natural barrier to provide a permanent play area for the kids/family and a permanent dog run for pets. Without the variance, these improvements could not be made. This variance should not have any significant impact on the neighboring property owners. There are only two neighbors who would be capable of observing this addition. Both neighbors are located to the south and the geography prohibits a meaningful impact. The neighbors to this property are at a higher elevation and are behind natural and artificial barriers to this lot's existing structure. June 24, 2008 Page 2 If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Hyden, Miran & Foster, PLLC yle D. Foster Lyl e. fo ster@hmflaw. net LDF/jm JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-8369 Owner: Rickey and Heather Gray Applicant: Heather Gray Address: 20 Markbrook Lane Description: Lot 216, Brookfield Addition Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a carport addition which crosses a side 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 at 20 Markbrook Lane is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the southwest corner of Markbrook Lane and Rodney Parham Road. The property is approximately six (6) feet below the grade of Rodney Parham Road. There is a two -car wide driveway from Markwood Lane which serves as access. The property slopes downward from side to side (north to south). There is a 25 foot platted building line along both street frontages. An unenclosed covered carport previously existed on the north side of the building, as noted on the attached site plan. The carport structure was removed due to recent tornado damage. The carport was approximately 15 feet by 21 feet in size and located 12 to 15 feet back from the street side (north) property line. The carport crossed the side platted building line by 10 to JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) 13 feet. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the carport as it existed prior to the tornado damage. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed carport addition which crosses a side platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested building line variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The applicant is only requesting to reconstruct an unenclosed carport structure which existed on the site prior to recent tornado damage. The property sits well below the grade of Rodney Parham Road and the carport addition will have very little visibility from the roadway or adjacent -ropeTti-es--T-he-mi-n-imu-m- side -setback -for -this -lot as required- by the City's Zoning Ordinance is eight (8) feet. If the side building line were not present, no variance would be needed for the carport addition. Staff believes the proposed carport reconstruction 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 side building line for the new carport addition. 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 building line variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the side platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The carport addition must remain unenclosed on its east, west and north sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 28, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas In March of 2008 the residential structure belonging to R. Clint Gray and Heather L. Gray was damaged by a tornado. The adjoining carport of the house sustained sufficient damage prompting their insurance company to consider the structure a complete loss. During the process of obtaining bids to repair the storm damage it was brought to the homeowner's attention that the carport fell outside the boundary of the properties building line. R. Clint Gray and Heather L. Gray are seeking a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to replace their carport. Justifications are as follows: 1. The carport was a structure added on to the property prior to the homeowners purchase in 2002. 2. The home was damaged due to events beyond the homeowner's control. 3. The home's elevation and position on the lot is so that the carport structure does not obstruct views of traffic. Thank you for your action in this matter. Sincerely, Heather L. Gray JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-8370 Owner/Applicant: Roy and Martha Norman Address: 1114 S. Arthur Street Description: Lot 177, University Park North Addition Zoned: R-5 Variance Requested: A variance 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 R-5 zoned property at 1114 S. Arthur Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from S. Arthur Street. The driveway runs along the south side of the residence. The property slopes downward from front to back. The rear yard is currently enclosed with a six (6) foot high wood fence. The single family residence immediately west is several feet lower than the subject property. The applicant proposes to construct a new eight (8) foot high wood fence along the north (side) and west (rear) property lines as noted on the attached site plan, in place of the existing six (6) foot wood fence. The portion of the fence which ties into the house, near the northeast corner of the structure, will have a height of six (6) feet as viewed from S. Arthur Street. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet for fences in residential zones located along interior JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) property lines. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed eight (8) foot high fence along the north and west property lines. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. Given the downward slope of the property from front to back, staff feels the eight (8) foot high wood fence will provide added privacy to both this property and the neighboring properties to the north and west. Staff believes the proposed fence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 28, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. June 24, 2008" 3 % o City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN EIGHT (8) FOOT PRIVACY FENCE TO BE ERECTED ON LOT 177, UNIVERSITY PARK NORTH ADDITION, KNOWN AS 1114 S. ARTHUR DRIVE, LITTLE ROCK, AR. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: A six-foot privacy fence currently surrounds the backyard of the horse mentioned above; but, it does not afford the occupants any privacy and needs to be replaced. I am requesting a residential variance to allow an eight -foot privacy fence to be erected across the rear and down the right side of the perimeter of the above mentioned property. An eight -foot fence is not needed on the left side because an accessory structure is located there. Recent improvements to the home include a backyard deck that is elevated due to a slope of the backyard topography. There is entry to the home from the deck which can easily be seen from Cleveland Street. The eight -foot fence would allow some privacy when using the deck and backyard as presently neighbors and other individuals to the rear and to the right can view all family activities. Additionally, this is a "Crime Watch Neighborhood". Our home is one house over from 12th Street and the intersection of 12th and Cleveland Streets. The fence would allow for a safer and more secure environment for our family. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Roy rman, Property Owner AMaha Norman, Pr erty Owner JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-8371 Owner: Central Arkansas Water Applicant: Joe O'Hara, CAW Address: 221 E. Capitol Avenue Description: Southwest Corner of E. Capitol Avenue and Cumberland Street Zoned: UU Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 342.1 to allow ground -mounted signs in the UU Zoning District. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Office and Parking Proposed Use of Property: Office and Parking STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 221 E. Capitol Avenue is occupied by multi -story office building within the north half of the property which houses Central Arkansas Water. The property is comprised of the east half of the block bounded by Capitol Avenue, Cumberland Street, E. 6th Street and Scott Street. The south half of the property contains a paved parking area for the office building. There is a drive-thru window on the east side of the building. There is an alley along the west side of the property, with access to the parking lot from E. Capitol Avenue and E. 6th Street. There are currently five (5) small directional -type signs within the parking lot area. The applicant is proposing to refurbish the existing parking lot with asphalt overlay and new landscaped areas. As part of the project, the applicant is proposing to replace four (4) of the existing directional/informational signs with new, slightly larger signs, move one (1) of the existing signs, and install an JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T) additional sign at the southeast corner of the parking lot to identify the property. The attached site plan notes the sign locations as S1 through S6. S1 through S4 will be directional/informational signs to replace existing signs. S5 is the location of the new sign, with S6 being the relocation of an existing sign. The sizes of the proposed signs are noted on the attached sketches and are as follows: • S1 — Directional sign —12 square feet in area and 6 feet in height • S2 — "Handicap Parking" sign — 4 square feet in area and 6 feet in height • S3 — "Employee Parking Only" sign — 8 square feet in area and 5 feet in height • S4 — Directional sign — 4 square feet in area and 6 feet in height • S5 — Property Identification sign — 24 square feet in area and 7 feet in height • S6 — Existing Informational sign — 8 square feet in area and 6.5 feet in height Section 36-342.1(c)(11) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that any ground -mounted signs in the UU zoning district be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Section 36-550(5) typically allows two (2) directional/informational signs per lot, not to exceed four (4) square feet in area and six (6) feet in height. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the signage plan for the property with ground -mounted signs in the UU zoning district. Staff is supportive of the requested sign variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. Four (4) of the proposed signs will replace existing signs on the property, with one (1) sign being moved to another location. The sign at the southeast corner of the parking lot which will identify the Central Arkansas Water building is relatively small in size, being 24 square feet in area and seven (7) feet in height. The way finding/informational signs will direct vehicles through the parking lot to the drive-through window location and identify areas of handicap parking, employee parking and no parking allowed. Staff believes the proposed signs will not be out of character with other properties in the general area, and will have no adverse impact on adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to a sign permit being obtained for the property identification sign at the southeast corner of the parking lot. JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 28, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 recusal (Van Dover). June 26, 2008 City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Attention: Little Rock Board of Adjustment RE: Zoning Variance ( Signs ) at 221 E. Capitol Avenue, Little Rock CAW PROJECT NO. 3008 CAW JOB NO. 6198 .__%J,-� 4- � F--YS-71 Enclosed for your review is an application for a Zoning Variance for proposed signs to be installed at Central Arkansas Water's main office located at 221 East Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas. We plan to overlay the existing parking lot, the alley between our office building and the church to the west, and the driveway to the drive thru window. The existing directional signs, which are in poor condition, will be replaced with new signs to improve visibility and the overall appearance of the parking lot. In addition to the directional signs, we propose to install an identification sign and green space at the northwest corner of Cumberland Street and 6�h Street. Two of the proposed directional signs on site are slightly larger than the City's code and would require Board approval. On an average day, approximately 250 customer vehicles and 50 employee vehicles enter and exit our parking lot. These two signs will direct our customers to our drive thru window and hopefully prevent them from entering an employee only parking area located in the center of the lot. The identification sign and green space at the southeast corner of the lot is intended to enhance the look of the property. If you have any questions, please call me at 501.377.1338, or email me at JOE.O'HARA@ CARKW.COM CENTRAL ARKANSAS WATER Joseph T. O'Hara 221 EAST CAPITOL AVENUE . POST OFFICE BOX 1789 . LITTLE MOCK, ARKANSAS 72203 . (501) 377-1200 JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-8372 Owner/Applicant: Walter M. Ebel, III Address: 6212 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Part of Lots 22-24, Block 3, Altheimer's Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance 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 R-2 zoned property at 6212 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one-story frame carport/storage structure within the rear yard area at the northeast corner of the property. The carport is accessed by a paved alley along the east property line from Kavanaugh Blvd. The rear yard is enclosed with a six (6) foot high wood fence, with two (2) short wrought iron sections between the house and accessory building and the house and the west property line. The applicant recently added two (2) feet of framed lattice to the wood fence, as noted on the attached site plan, for an overall fence height of eight (8) feet. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet for fences in residential zones located along interior property lines. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the eight (8) foot high fence which currently exists on the site. JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.) Staff is supportive of the requested fence variance. Staff views the request as a very minor issue. The eight (8) foot high fence is not out of character with other fences in this general area. The six (6) foot high fence with two (2) feet of lattice is probably a better option than a solid eight (8) foot high fence, given the relatively small size of the rear yard area. Staff believes the eight (8) foot high fence as constructed will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to the fence being maintained as a six (6) foot high opaque fence with two (2) feet of lattice. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 28, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. WALTER M. EBEL III 6212 KAVANAUGH BLVD. LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72207 June 27, 2008 City of Little Rock Board of Adjustment and Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Greetings: 14,, 4 7 - h' 3 7 Zf X40 J Re: Request for Variance to Permit 28 Inch Height Lattice to be on Top of Parts of 6 Foot Backyard Fence 1 am requesting a variance to allow 28 inch height lattice to be on top of parts of the 6 foot fence in my backyard. I use my backyard often and this is in close proximity to the east side and windows of my next door neighbors' home immediately west of my house, and we both feel that the lattice enhances each of our respective uses of our homes and backyards and improves privacy without being obtrusive. It also improves the appearance of the fence, as well as the atmosphere and setting of each of our respective backyards. These neighbors (who own and reside in the home immediately west of my house) have indicated to me that they like the lattice very much and strongly support this variance application. I will promptly remove the lattice on the fence along our joint property line if these neighbors or any future owners of their home ever object to the lattice on that fence line. Moreover, there is a small area and a few feet of fence on the north east side of my backyard that abuts my carport, and this area of my backyard is not visible from the back of my house or back patio, so a person could scale the fence from the alley near my carport and locate in this area of my backyard without being seen. Accordingly, the few feet of lattice on this north east fence line area next to my carport improves the safety of my backyard. The lattice on the north side of my backyard makes the backyard fence consistent, and further there is a lot of tree, vine and vegetation growth along the other side of the fence and the lattice covers this somewhat and thereby improves the look and scenery of the north property line backyard fence. I have not been able to get in touch with the owner of the property adjoining the north side fence in the back of my backyard (the house is rented), but I have spoken to the tenant, and the tenant indicated that he also likes the lattice and has no objection to it. In any event, if the owner of that property ever objected to the lattice, I would promptly remove the lattice along our joint property line fence. The lattice is not readily visible from any public road, and I am not requesting to add any lattice to the south portion of the backyard fence that abuts the front yard, so the only lattice would be on the fence on the west and north backyard fence lines and on the small portion of the fence abutting the carport on the north east end of the backyard. Moreover, there would be a break in the lattice on the west and north backyard fence lines where tree trunks abut the fence. All in all, the lattice looks nice, improves the appearance, atmosphere and safety of the backyard, and does not block any view from the street (Kavanaugh) since I am not putting lattice on the south fence line adjoining the front yard. This request is supported by the owners of the home immediately west of my house and by the tenant in the home immediately north of my backyard fence (and I would be surprised if it would be any problem to the landlord -owner of this adjoining property on the north). In any event, I will promptly remove the lattice on the fence along either adjoining property owner's property if that property owner ever wants me to do so. Thank you for your consideration, and if you have any questions, or if you need any additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, r Walter M. Ebel III 2 JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-8373 Owner: Melvin Magnet Revocable Living Trust Applicant: Stephen R. Giles Address: 8101 Geyer Springs Road Description: West side of Geyer Springs Road, North of Nova Lane Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the buffer provisions of Section 36- 522 to allow a reduced land use buffer adjacent to a residential zoning. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Restaurant and Parking Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant and Parking STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. The zoning buffer ordinance requires a six foot nine inch wide (6-9") land use buffer along the eastern perimeter of the site (in the parking lot area located along Nova Lane) next to the residentially zoned property. The landscape ordinance requires a six foot nine inch wide (6'-9") landscape strip along the eastern perimeter of the site (in the parking lot area located along Nova Lane) next to the residentially zoned property. A variance from this JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) minimal amount must be obtained from the City Buffer Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. This site is located within the mature area of the city; therefore, these calculations take into account this factor and the minimal amounts are reflected as such. A six foot high (6) opaque fence good face side out is required along the eastern property line, next to the residentially zoned property. C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 8101 Geyer Springs Road is occupied by a one- story commercial building which houses a Taco Bell restaurant. A single driveway from Geyer Springs Road serves as access to the property, with parking along the north and west sides of the building. The driveway leads to a second area of parking which also has access to Nova Lane to the south. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing restaurant building and replace it with a new building of similar size and location, as noted on the attached site plan. The existing paved parking and landscaped areas will be refurbished with the planned project. With the new building construction, the City's Zoning and Landscape Ordinances requires that the site be brought up to current ordinance standards with respect to landscape and buffer requirements. The applicant is requesting one (1) variance from the zoning ordinance requirements for the proposed redevelopment. On July 10, 2008 the City Beautiful Commission approved various variances from landscape ordinance requirements. Section 36-522(b)(3)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a land use buffer width of 6'-9" along the east side of the parking area accessed from Nova Lane. A land use buffer is required along this property line based on the fact that the adjacent property to the east (between this site and the Arby's restaurant) is zoned R-2 and contains a single family house. The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing two (2) foot buffer width along this east property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. This is the only variance needed from the zoning ordinance with the proposed redevelopment of the property. Staff is supportive of the requested buffer variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The applicant is proposing to maintain the same buffer width along the east property line, adjacent to the R-2 zoned property, as it currently exists. The applicant is proposing to plant additional landscaping within this buffer area. Additionally, the existing six (6) foot wood screening fence which exists along this property line will be required to be maintained. Staff feels that the JULY 28, 2008 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) existing buffer width along the east property line has been sufficient. Although the property immediately to the east is zoned R-2, it is designated as "Commercial" on the City's Future Land Use plan, and will likely be redeveloped as commercial some time in the future. Staff believes the maintenance of the existing buffer width along the east property line will have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or the general area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested buffer variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of the Agenda staff report. 2. Additional landscaping must be installed within the east buffer as shown on the landscape plan submitted by the applicant. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 28, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The Law Finn of Stephen R. Giles A Professional Association Telephone 425 West Capitol Avenue Facsimile (501) 687-0836 Suite 3200 (501) 374-5092 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3469 E-mail: sgiles@gileslaw.net June 27, 2008 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Request for Variance for Taco Bell at 8108 Geyer Springs Road Dear Mr. Moore: The owner of the property at 8108 Geyer Springs Road in Little Rock has designated me as the agent for purposes of pursuing landscape and land use buffer variances. Attached is a copy of the Letter of Agency from the owner. This site contains an existing Taco Bell restaurant. The company plans to demolish the existing store and some of the site improvements and replace it with a new smaller, more efficient building containing approximately 2,100 square feet. The site plan has been changed to reflect a more efficient use of space and design which will facilitate the movement of vehicular traffic through the drive-thru area and for parking of customers eating on site. You will note that the existing parking lot on the west side which opens to Nova Lane on the south will remain, but will be redesigned to allow for a six foot; eight inch landscape buffer on the west side. Also, the dumpster will be relocated into an enclosure on the northwest of the site in a rectangular shaped and undeveloped area of the Taco Bell property. Given the site restraints of the internal configuration of the structures and the required parking spaces for this project, it is not feasible to. construct a minimum 9 feet land use buffer on the east side adjacent to residential property. Therefore, we are requesting a variance from the provisions of LRC § 36-522(b)(3). We have previously submitted a landscape plan and request for waiver of landscape requirements as part of this project. If you need any additional information or you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Stephen R. Giles r--� cc: Mr. Gerald Oney 5ATAC05F wfi.—Mo lLl,,,d i c I I i j ® � i I u a W F- z 1 Lli B D U— i I CI f b o LL, �> p m co�O w p m D F-0 p ~w o LLJJ U m 0= U)>w p U UJ ry, m �_ F— p w U m C/5> Q z WE o M u z w m Q w Q z o LL, >-- 0 m 0 O� > m D W p ~w o Z(-) � >O — ry, m OLU z p w U � Q z e—m cn>-3: WE o M u z w m Q w Q z July 28, 2008 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:18 p.m. r � Chairman Secreta