Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_05 21 2007LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES MAY 21, 2007 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 April 30, 2007 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Andrew Francis, Chairman Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman James Van Dover David Wilbourn Robert Winchester None City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA MAY 21, 2007 2:00 P.M. OLD BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: A. Z -7903-A 316 E. 11 t" Street/1020 Rock Street B. Z-8190 73 Aberdeen Drive C. Z-8201 16 Fawn's Point D. Z-8202 15 Glade Court NEW BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: 1. Z -6554-G North Of The NW Corner Of Bowman and Kanis Road 2. Z -7306-A 7619 Cantrell Road 3. Z-8178 11160 Bainbridge 4. Z-8207 1605 Blair Street 5. Z-8209 5217 Edgewood Road 6. Z-8210 2100 N. VanBuren Street 7. Z-8211 102 EI Dorado Drive 8. Z-8212 5200 Country Club Blvd. 9. Z-8213 5209 Kavanaugh Blvd. 10. Z-8215 4011 North Lookout 11. Z-8217 2908/2910 N. Pierce Street 12. Z-8218 5108 Edgewood Road — 3rld a31Znj CZ 111IV81H1 ,A` 1 �%d1J O T M U 4-Jeo�o o WOO �— N - cz_ NIVW AVMOVOaB Nplryp � H3aV a_ iS3H3 9NIN lW x a3H3a0 0 — N e-- � o SON LO 0MO � LOOM �—'� x 3AId 133yrS 3NId yJgy (O e aV0 NO111WV 11035 s SJNiydS 00 �i Na d 81v3 y vagi o J A11Sa3AINf1 .s- AlISa3AIN0 w SONIadS a3d39 S3H00H N Iddiss IN zs' 1031H0 810na3S38 MO6NVE NHOf 3 tl 2 M v� JAN13H as 313V Oa033lNOVHS g On— ? SIGHVS _ o` rvvHavd A3Naoa NV M s OB = _ j o LIWII y Wc � 3001a AWIA JbpJ3Jb$ ¢ OROS 8 E d fQPp� � v NvAmns INVM31S ^/ Hsdb`h 4— O S11WIl A11o�2=,� m•�e' O�P��P JSpl00 31VON43J O MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z -7903-A Owner: Barbara G. Core Applicant: Barbara G. Core Address: 316 E. 11th Street/1020 Rock Street Description: Lot 7, Block 45, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: R -4A 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: No cover letter at This time. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments Staff Update: The application for the proposed fence was deferred from the March Little Rock Historic District Commission meeting to their April 9, 2007 agenda. There are issues which need to be resolved, and a Little Rock Historic District Commission recommendation is needed prior to Board of Adjustment action. Therefore, staff requests this application be deferred to the April 30, 2007 Board of Adjustment agenda. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the April 30, 2007 Agenda, based on the fact that the application is still pending before the Little Rock Historic District commission and is on their April 19, 2007 agenda. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 30, 2007 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. Staff Update: The Little Rock Historic District Commission deferred this issue to their May 14, 2007 agenda. Therefore, staff recommends the application be deferred to the May 21, 2007 Board of Adjustment agenda, as a recommendation from the Historic District Commission is needed prior to Board of Adjustment Action. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 30, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the May 21, 2007 agenda, based on the fact that it was deferred to the May 14, 2007 Historic District Commission agenda. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. Staff Analysis. The R -4A zoned property at 1020 Rock Street/316 East 11th Street is occupied by two (2) old brick commercial style buildings. The property is located at the northwest corner of East 11 th and Rock Streets. The larger building within the east half of the property recently burned and is in the process of being removed. The westernmost building was used as an art studio/storage area. There is a paved alley along the west property line. On August 29, 2005, the Board of Adjustment approved a fence height variance for eight (8) foot high wood fences (with 8'-6" brick columns) along the north and south property lines, running between the two (2) buildings. The applicant is now proposing to construct an eight (8) foot high wood fence along the rear building line of the burned -out building, connecting the two (2) existing eight (8) foot high wood fences along the north and south property lines. 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 required building setbacks and street rights-of-way. Other interior fences are allowed with a maximum height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement to allow the proposed eight (8) foot high fence. The fence issue is scheduled to be reviewed by the Little Rock Historic District Commission on May 14, 2007. Staff will reserve making a recommendation on this variance until the Historic District Commission has ruled on the issue. Staff will present its recommendation to the Board at the May 21, 2007 public hearing. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2007) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff recommended the application be withdrawn, without prejudice, based on the facts that the applicant was not present, had not responded to correspondence and had been denied by the Little Rock Historic District Commission. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn, without prejudice. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z-8190 Owner: The Fulenwider Living Trust Applicant: Barry Rush Address: 73 Aberdeen Drive Description: Lot 13, Block 18, Chenal Valley Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the building line provisions of Section 36-12 to allow an 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 73 Aberdeen Drive is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence. The property is located at the northwest corner of Aberdeen Drive and Berney Way Drive. There is a three -car wide driveway from Berney Way Drive which accesses a garage at the northwest corner of the residential structure. There is a 25 foot platted building line which runs along the front (east) and side (north) property lines. There is an open space drainage area located on the tract immediately to the west. The applicant is proposing to enclose the existing garage portion of the residence for additional heated and cooled living space. The proposed project includes the addition of a 24 foot by 26.5 foot garage at the northwest corner of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The northeast corner of the proposed garage addition will extend across the 25 foot side platted building MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) line by approximately 11 feet. The northwest corner of the addition will be located on the 25 foot building line. This will result in a side yard setback ranging from 14 feet to 25 feet. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of 8 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. 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 a variance to allow the garage addition to cross the side platted building line. Staff does not support the requested building line variance. Staff views the proposed encroachment as being out of character with the surrounding properties. Upon surveying this newer neighborhood, staff found no similar encroachments across platted building lines. Although there is an open space tract immediately to the west, staff feels the proposed encroachment across the side platted building line could have an adverse visual impact on the surrounding properties. Additionally, the proposed 11 foot building line encroachment is a fairly major encroachment for a newly established neighborhood with consistent platted building lines throughout. 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 garage addition. The applilant 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 denial of the requested building line variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the April 30, 2007 agenda due to the fact that the applicant failed to complete the required notification to surrounding property owners. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 30, 2007 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 30, 2007) Lloyd Fulenwider and Barry Rush were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) Lloyd Fulenwider addressed the Board in support of the application. He discussed the size of the existing garage and how many vehicles could be parked in it. The issue of garage size was briefly discussed. James Van Dover asked what the room above the garage was used for. He noted that it was used as a bedroom for guests. He explained that the only way to access the bonus room was through the stairway in the garage. Mr. Fulenwider presented a photo to the Board showing where the addition would be placed on the lot. This issue was briefly discussed. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked if the existing garage door openings could be utilized and construct only a portion of a new garage, with a minimal encroachment across the platted building line. Mr. Rush noted that the existing beams could cause a problem with that type of addition. The issue was discussed. Chairman Francis explained that the addition as proposed could have an adverse visual impact on the neighborhood. There was a motion to table the application until the end of the meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The Chairman reopened the public hearing on the application. Mr. Rush amended the application to have only a five (5) foot encroachment across the platted building line, at the northeast corner of the proposed garage addition. This issue was discussed. The issue of deferral was also discussed, in order to give the applicant more time to explore options for the addition. There was a motion to defer the application to the May 21, 2007 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. Staff noted that a revised sketch would be needed by May 7, 2007. Staff Update: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on May 3, 2007. The revised plan reduces the size of the proposed garage addition from 24'x26.5' to 15'x27.5'. The encroachment across the platted building line has also been reduced from 11 feet to 5 feet. The revised plan utilizes a portion of the existing garage for the new garage space. Staff is supportive of the revised application. The revised encroachment represents only a 25 square foot encroachment across the building line. With the house having a step design along Berney Way Drive running basically parallel to the road, the slight encroachment will have very little visual impact on the surrounding properties. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) Revised Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the revised application, 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 addition must be constructed to match the existing residence. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had revised the application and reduced the encroachment across the platted building line to five (5) feet at one (1) corner of the addition. Staff recommended approval of the revised application. 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, 0 nays and 0 absent. Properly Address: 73 Aberdeen Drive fi Lot 13, Block 18 Chenal Valley Addition --Z Owner: The Fulenwider Living Trust Contractor: Rush and Company, Inc. Lic # 014260 The owner is requesting a variance to the 25' building line on the side of the lot. The house sits on a corner lot and the proposed addition would not be on the same street that the house faces. Currently, the house has a bonus room above the garage that can only be accessed through the garage. The owner would like to enclose the garage to make it part of the heated and cooled square footage. This would allow access to the bonus room without having to walk through an area that is not temperature controlled. In order to accomplish this the owner would like to add a new garage. It would be built in a fashion that would match the existing house using the same brick and roof material. A gable would also be added to the roofline to compliment the house. There is a greenbelt that is on the backside of the lot, so there would not be a residence affected directly next to the proposed addition. We believe this would be an improvement to the property from two perspectives. The interior would be easier to access all areas of the home. The exterior would benefit from added windows and a gable that would enhance the roofline. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: C File No.: Z-8201 Owner: Nuage Residential Contractors Applicant: James McDaniel Address: 16 Fawn's Point Description: Lot 51, Block 3, Deer Meadow Subdivision 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: Undeveloped 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 16 Fawn's Point Cove is currently an undeveloped single family lot which has been cleared in preparation of new home construction. The property slopes downward slightly from front to back (south to north). There is a rather wide drainage ditch which runs along the rear property line. The ditch is approximately 15 feet wide as measured from top of slope to top of slope. The single family lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line. The applicant proposes to construct a one-story single family residence on the lot, as noted on the attached site plan. The majority of the front wall of the structure will cross the front platted building line, ranging from a few inches to five (5) feet. The nearest portion of the structure will be 20 feet back from the MAY 21, 2007 TEM NO.: C (CON'T. front property line. The applicant has noted that the proposed residence has been moved toward the front property line because of the slope of the property in conjunction with the drainage ditch along the rear property line. The applicant is attempting to maximize an area for the rear yard. All other building setbacks conform to ordinance standards. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. 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 a reduced front setback and to cross the front platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Given the issues of topography and drainage associated with this lot, staff feels the requested variances are reasonable. The lot is located within the bulb of a cul-de-sac street. Because of this, the reduced front setback will not have the appearance of being out of alignment with other adjacent structures along the street. Staff believes the proposed residence with reduced front setback 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 variances, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 30, 2007) The applicant was not present. Staff recommended the application be deferred to the May 21, 2007 agenda. A motion was made to defer the application to the May 21, 2007 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2007) Don Williams was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: C (CON James Van Dover asked about the location of the ditch in the rear yard area. Mr. Williams described the ditch area and presented a drawing of the lot indicating the location of the ditch. He noted that the ditch extended outside the rear 10 foot easement and into the rear yard area. This issue was briefly discussed. There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was approved. 4 Residential Contractors NuAge Residential Contractors P® Box 25® Sweet Home, AR 72164 To Whom It May Concern: We are making this proposal for the easement to be 20 feet instead of 25 feet. We are doing this to move the home forward five feet. There is currently a trench in the back yard, which hinders the use of the backyard, while also making it unfeasible for a home to fit on the Lot. This is a corner Lot and has a pie shape by nature, and on the backside of the Lot is where the trench makes 25 feet of inadequate land for building and residential use. By moving the home forward, we will be able to make a more uniform look consistent with the sub -division's standards, while keeping the subdivision integrity in tact. This proposal should in no way impede on any other home owners land, but should have a positive effect on their home's value. Tfiianks MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: D File No.: Z-8202 Owner: Gregory Tatera Applicant: Gregory Tatera Address: 15 Glade Court Description: Lot 59, Heatherbrae Subdivision 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 15 Glade Court is occupied by a two-story single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Glade Court which serves as access. The property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac street. There is an existing six (6) foot high wood fence which encloses the rear yard area. The applicant recently constructed a swimming pool in the rear yard. Because of the soil, the pool is not totally below ground, extending approximately three (3) feet above grade. Because of the raised elevation of the pool, the applicant is requesting to remove two (2) portions of the existing six (6) foot tall fence and replace it with eight (8) foot high wood fencing. The fence to be reconstructed is along the side and rear property lines, at the northeast corner of the property. The total amount of fence to be replaced amounts to only approximately 80 feet. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: D (CON'T.) Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between a building setback line and a street right-of-way in residential zones. Six (6) foot high fences are allowed elsewhere on the property. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the eight (8) foot high wood fence along a portion of the side and rear property lines at the northeast corner of the property. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable. The proposed eight (8) foot high wood fence will only run for approximately 80 linear feet. The proposed fence height will not be out of character with the neighborhood. There is an eight (8) foot high fence located along the dividing rear property lines between the houses to the east/southeast. The corner of the proposed eight (8) foot fence will tie into the existing eight (8) foot high fence to the east. Staff believes the proposed fence height 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 a building permit being obtained for the new fence. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 30, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the May 21, 2007 agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to complete the required notification to the surrounding property owners. The item was placed on the consent agenda and deferred by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2007) 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, 0 nays and 0 absent. March 23, 2007 - 4, Monte Moore Zoning Enforcement Administrator City of Little Rock Ref Property at 15 Glade Ct Mr. Moore, I am requesting a waiver of the six foot fencing limit on a piece of fence located in the back yard of our property, located at 15 Glade Ct in the Heatherbrae Subdivision off of Taylor Loop Road. We are planning to replace the existing fence (highlighted in green) and would like to replace it with an eight foot wooden fence. We recently installed a swimming pool in our back yard and due to the soil type, it was necessary to raise the pool deck elevation higher then the existing back yard. As a result of raising the pool deck, it has greatly diminished the privacy our privacy fence once afforded. In fact, the level of the fence above our pool deck is just at 3 feet high. The existing fence is a 6 foot tall wooden fence, in sections of approximately 55 feet long and 20 feet long, that separates our back yard from the houses to the side. The updated 55 foot section of fence would adjoin fencing that already exists behind our neighbor's back yard, directly next door (highlighted in pink). The existing fence that divides all the properties to the East of our house is already eight feet and only transitions to a six foot fence when it reaches our property line. The existing eight foot fence extends east dividing the majority of backyards that continue down our street. The 20 foot section would replace an existing 6 foot fence that further divides our property to the East. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. Sincerely A. Tatera MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z -6554-G Owner: Stephen L. Lafrance Pharmacy, Inc. Applicant: Steve Roberts, Hank's Furniture Address: 1000 S. Bowman Road Description: Approximately 700 feet north of the northwest corner of Bowman and Kanis Roads. Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-502 in association with a new commercial development. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: New Commercial Development (Furniture Store) STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Public Works has no comments for the parking variance only. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Site plan must comply with the Citiy's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. The Northwest corner property line needs to reflect the minimal landscape perimeter width of nine foot. A variance from this minimal requirement will require approval from the City Beautiful Commission. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of three (3) feet of building landscaping between the parking areas and the building. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this tree covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 1000 S. Bowman Road is currently undeveloped and partially tree covered. It appears that some site work has taken place over the years in preparation of new development. The 3.8 acre property is located on the west side of S. Bowman Road, approximately 700 feet north of Kanis Road. The property is at a significantly lower grade than the property immediately to the north (Sam's Club). The applicant proposes to construct a new 75,000 square foot (one-story) commercial building on the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed building will house a Hank's Furniture store and include 66,000 square feet of showroom space and 9,000 square feet of warehouse space. There will be an entry drive from S. Bowman Road at the southeast corner of the property. There will be paved parking on the east and west sides of the building, with truck access at the building's southwest corner. A total of 131 parking spaces is proposed. Section 36-502 of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 199 parking spaces for a commercial building as proposed. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow 131 parking spaces for the development. The applicant notes that the furniture store type use requires much less than the ordinance required minimum number of parking spaces based on the past history associated with their other stores. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. A furniture store typically requires much less parking than does a commercial strip center or other types of retailers, such as Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, etc. Staff feels the applicant is justified in making the request for reduced parking as long as the building is used only for a furniture store. If the use of the building changes, additional Board of Adjustment review will be required to determine if the parking is sufficient or alternate parking plans will be required. Staff believes the proposed commercial development, with reduced required parking, will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance, subject to the building's use being maintained as a furniture store. If the use changes in the future, additional Board of Adjustment review will be required with respect to the parking issue. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had revised the site plan to change the driveway location as per Public Works and accommodate the required handicap parking spaces. Staff noted that the revised plan had 125 total parking spaces. 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, 0 nays and 0 absent. s FINE FURt�ITU;RE HOME OFFICE P.O. Box 6870 Sherwood, AR 72124 Phone: 501-565-3561 Fax: 501-565-0236 RETAIL STORES Bentonville AR Conway AR Fayetteville AR Fort Smith AR Harrison AR Hot Springs AR Jonesboro AR Little Rock AR North Little Rock AR Russellville AR SearcyAR Joplin MO Springfield MO Texarkana TX 65, 4-4 Apri127, 2007 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 To Whom It May Concern: We are attempting to purchase a piece of property to construct a new retail furniture store. This store will have a total building square footage of 75,000. The showroom space will be 66,000 square feet and the warehouse will be 9,000 s.f. This would require a total of 192 parking spaces. Due to the nature of this operation we do not require that many spaces and would request a variance to allow no more than 128 parking spaces. Our current location at 11121 West Markham has 47 spaces and was constructed in 1998. This location has approximately 30,000 square feet and the parking has been more than adequate. The proposed property will not support these additional spaces and the size of building we wish to build. We have 19 retail locations located in Arkansas, Missouri, Texas and Florida. We have traffic counts on parking usage during peak retail hours that show usage to be considerably less. We believe this would be true for many other retailers in this size structure. Thank yQu for your consideration of this matter. Steve Roberts Construction /Property Manager Hank's Furniture, Inc. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -7306-A Owner: Eugene Pfeifer Applicant: Steven E. Arnold Address: 7619 Cantrell Road Description: South side of Cantrell Road, west of Mississippi Avenue Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 301 to allow a building addition with a reduced side setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Appropriate steps should betaken to protect downstream neighbor from stormwater runoff. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Site plan must comply with the cities minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. A small amount of landscaping will be required in conjunction with this new 2,557 square foot building addition. C. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 7619 Cantrell Road is occupied by two (2) commercial buildings. There is a one-story commercial building located within the north half of the property, fronting on Cantrell Road. There is a one-story warehouse building located within the rear (south) portion of the property. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) Paved parking is located along the east, west and south sides of the commercial building, with large truck access and maneuvering area between the two (2) buildings. Access drives from Cantrell Road serve the property. The applicant proposes to construct a 25 foot wide addition to the existing warehouse building, as noted on the attached site plan. The addition will be 25 feet by 102.3 feet in size and located on the west side of the warehouse building. The addition will be located 8.5 feet from the side (west) property line. The property slopes downward from the warehouse building to a multifamily development to the west. Section 36-301(e)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of 15 feet for this C-3 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement to allow the proposed building addition with an 8.5 foot side setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Although there is space to add to the north side of the warehouse building, the applicant has noted that this area is critical for truck access and maneuvering space. With that in mind, adding to the west side of the warehouse building seems to be the best option for additional building area. The appropriate steps to prohibit water run-off onto the adjacent property to the west must be worked out with Public Works prior to building construction. Staff believes the proposed building addition with reduced side setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The applicant, Steven E. Arnold, notes that he has an option to purchase the property, but is not yet the property owner. He states that he has made attempts to contact the property owner with respect to this issue, but has not been able to make contact. Therefore, Mr. Arnold has requested that the variance be conditioned/restricted on his future ownership of the property. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. There will be no building permit issued for the building addition until Mr. Arnold provides documentation showing he owns the property. 2. There are to be no openings on the west and south sides of the building addition. 3. There is to be no exterior lighting on the building addition. 4. There are to be no outdoor speakers on the property. 5. Compliance with the Public Works comment as noted in paragraph A. of the staff report. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2007) 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, 0 nays and 0 absent. Carpets • Area Rugs • Hardwood Floors Tile • Countertops • Kitchen Cabinets Sofas • Chairs • Tables • Lamps • Art Media Centers • Interior Design - Custom Orders i+'I,TP-NITU" Design Center www.arnoldsflooringamerica.com www.cantrellfurniture.Com City of Little Rock Planning Commission 2- -2 - 73 c) 6 -2--73c)6 a This is a request to add on to an existing warehouse pursuant to the attached survey and drawing. The building itself may be a conventional steel warehouse type structure; however it's proximity to a nearby slope may make block walls more practical. I am still in the process of compiling budgets for the building. I am a tenant of Mr. Pfeifer's with an option to purchase. I intend to exercise this option soon and in conjunction sell the property within the yellow highlight. The green lines identify how delivery trucks enter and their backup path to the two overhead doors. We have a large volume of full size (eighteen wheeler) track traffic. I am hopeful you will grant me a review of this request without Mr. Pfeifer granting me his permission as agent. I have had no response to e-mails or voice mails requesting such. I have enclosed a copy of my lease confirming the option to purchase as well as various copies from documents that clearly show the Arkansas State Highway Dept. considers me a contract buyer in the correspondences that have relation to this property. There is virtually no place else to add to the warehouse and it will be much needed. Additionally, the adjoining land is heavily overgrown with a steep drop off. I can see no chance of this adjoining land ever being utilized due to the slope and the proximity to a nearby storm drain inlet. Our businesses ft this location very well. We are hopeful to have this approved so we can continue to serve this part of the city. If approved we believe our next step will be to make extensive exterior and landscaping upgrades. Res e "yteveri . o d President 7619 Cantrell Road Little Rock AR 72227 Telephone 501-225-3840 Fax 501-225-3679 Arnold's Flooring America South 13102 Interstate 30 Little Rock AR 72209 Telephone 501-407-0249 Fax 501-407-9341 MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-8178 Owner/Applicant: James M. Schratz Address: 11160 Bainbridge Drive Description: Lot 21, Block 6, Walton Heights 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 a porch addition with a 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 at 11160 Bainbridge Drive is occupied by a split level brick and frame single family residence. A two -car wide driveway from Bainbridge Drive serves as access. There is a front 25 foot platted building line on this R-2 zoned lot. There is a four (4) foot by six (6) foot uncovered porch structure or front of the house. The porch extends across the front platted building line by approximately two (2) feet. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing porch structure and construct a new nine (9) foot wide, ten (10) foot deep porch structure. The new porch structure will be covered, matching the residence's roof line. The new porch structure will extend across the 25 foot front platted building line by approximately eight (8) feet, resulting in a front setback of approximately 17 feet. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. 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 porch addition with a reduced front setback and to cross the front platted building line. Staff is not supportive of the requested variances as filed. Although the applicant is requesting to construct a new covered porch to remedy water damage problems associated with the existing uncovered porch, staff feels the proposed porch is too large. Staff feels the applicant can accomplish the desired result in constructing a covered porch not exceeding six (6) feet in depth. Therefore, staff could support variances associated a nine (9) foot by six (6) foot covered porch addition, extending across the front platted building line by approximately four (4) feet. Staff believes the proposed eight (8) foot encroachment across the front platted building line is too much of an encroachment and will be out of character with the fronts of the residences along Bainbridge Drive. 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 porch 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 denial of the requested variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2007) James Schratz was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. James Schratz addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that the 10 foot deep porch was requested in order to have room on the porch for furniture. He presented photos to the Board showing other houses along Bainbridge. Vice -Chairman Burruss asked how high the porch structure would be. Mr. Schratz noted that the west edge would be 18 inches above grade and the east side would be approximately 3.5 feet. James Van Dover asked staff about the other houses along Bainbridge. Staff noted that the fronts of the houses along Bainbridge had a fairly uniform front setback and MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) that no encroachments similar to the one proposed was observed on inspection of the area. Chairman Francis asked if a six (6) foot deep porch would remedy the water damage in front of the house. Mr. Schratz indicated that it would. Chairman Francis explained that he could not support the 10 foot deep porch. There was discussion of amending the application to reduce the proposed depth of the porch. Mr. Schratz amended the application, reducing the depth of the porch to six (6) feet. There was a motion to approve the amended application, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 1 nay and 0 absent. The amended application was approved. April 25, 2007 Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR To whom is may concern: James M. Schratz 11160 Bainbridge Drive Little Rock, AR 72212-1812 I am requesting a residential zoning variance from the 25 foot set back requirement in order to add a covered front porch to my house. I currently have an uncovered stoop which is 39 x 75 inches in size, and it is not centered on the entryway to the house. Over the years I have had to make repairs to the entryway, and the external walls below, because of water damage. The primary purpose of the porch is to provide protection to the entryway, which faces south, from direct sun, rain and other inclement weather. The proposed porch would be approximately 9 x 10 feet in size and span the current width of the house's entryway. It would use a 4" concrete slab as the floor and have 2 metal posts to support the roof. A vinyl ceiling, coordinated with the new siding being installed will be used and the roof will follow existing roof lines, pitch and material (composite). Railings and steps will be added in order to meet city specifications. The house sets approximately 26 feet from the set back line, so I am requesting permission to be able to have this porch addition encroach 9 feet in that set back area. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, TmesMSchratz MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-8207 Owner: Christi McGeorge Applicant: Lee Pittman Address: 1605 Blair Street Description: Lot 7, Block 5, McGehee Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with a reduced side setback and separation. 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 1605 Blair Street is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Blair Street at the northwest corner of the property. The driveway leads to a one-story frame garage structure within the rear yard area, along the north property line. The existing house is located 2.7 to 3.1 feet from the side (south) property. The applicant proposes to construct a one-story addition along the north and east sides of the existing residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The addition will maintain the same side (south) setback as the principal structure, ranging from 3.1 feet to 3.4 feet. The width of the addition will be approximately nine (9) feet along the north side of the house and 12 feet along the rear of the residence. The applicant is also proposing to add a 12 foot by MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T 24 foot screened porch (one-story) on the east side of the proposed addition . The porch will be located three (3) feet from the accessory garage and approximately seven (7) feet from the south side property line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of 5.3 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-156(a)(2)b. requires that principal structures and accessory structures be separated by at least six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the proposed addition to have a side (south) setback ranging from 3.1 to 3.4 feet and the porch addition and accessory garage to have a separation of approximately three (3) feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The applicant is proposing an addition to the main house which extends the existing south wall of the structure by only 12 additional feet. There is a driveway on the property immediately to the south which will separate the two residences by over 12 feet. Therefore, staff believes the requested side setback variance is reasonable and should have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or the general area. With respect to the separation variance, the fire marshall has reviewed the proposal and notes no issues with the proposed three (3) foot separation between the proposed screened porch addition and existing garage structure. There are no health -safety issues based on the fact that the garage is not a habitable structure. Staff feels the scale of the overall improvement plan for the property will not be out of character with the neighborhood. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. The building and porch additions must be constructed to match the existing residential structure. 2. The porch must be maintained as a screened or open porch and not enclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2007) 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, 0 nays and 0 absent. Lee Pittman and Christi McGeorge 1605 Blair Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 501-454-5352 Monte Moore City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street, First Floor Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Dear Mr. Moore, In an effort to provide additional living space and bedrooms for our family, my fiance, Christi McGeorge, and I are planning on expanding her home at 1605 Blair Street in heights area of Little Rock. This is an older home that was built more than 50 years ago and it too small for our future needs. We have had plans drawn to widen the house to the north by approximately 8-9 feet and expand the home back (east) approximately 12 feet. I am submitting drawing of the planned expansion to better describe our proposal. The reason we are asking for a variance is that the current home, built sits approximately 2.7 feet from the south property line at the front of the house (southwest corner nearest the street) and 3.1 feet from the property line at the rear of the home (southeast corner). It is our hope to be able to add on to the back of the existing structure for approximately 12 feet along that same property line. As we currently understand city code, new construction within approximately 5 feet of the property line is prohibited without a variance from your staff. We are asking for that variance so that we can add the necessary square footage without having to inset the addition and create an undesired structural design that limits the planned solution for our needs. The neighbors to the south have a driveway adjacent to the adjoining property line and the structure of their home sits approximately 10 feet to the south of the property line so their home access would not be impaired by our construction. Our addition would simply continue to follow the current structure line back for 12 feet. Their will be a porch attached as well, but it would be set in more than 5 feet from the property line. Also, the proposed addition will be built with the integrity of the neighborhood in mind. If I can answer any question regarding this request, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, Lee Pittman MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-8209 Owner: Charles and Mary Thompson Applicant: Nicholas Thompson Address: 5217 Edgewood Road Description: Lot 54, Prospect Terrace Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 and the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a deck addition with a reduced side setback and a fence with increased height. 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 5217 Edgewood Road is occupied by a two-story stucco and frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Edgewood Road at the northwest corner of the property. There is an existing deck on the east side of the residence which runs to the east side property line. The applicant recently extended the deck five (5) feet to the south and began overlaying the deck with new floor boards. The applicant also began construction of a new fence section, beginning at the northeast corner of the house and extending to the deck and along the east side of the deck to its rear (southeast) corner. The applicant ceased the construction when it was realized variances were needed. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) The proposed fence will be six (6) feet in height beginning at the northeast corner of the house. When it reaches the front (northeast) corner of the deck it will have a height of 6'-8" because of the slope of the lot. The fence will maintain a level height along the east side of the deck. The rear (southeast) corner of the deck is approximately two (2) feet above grade. As noted earlier, the existing deck with five (5) foot extension has a zero (0) foot setback from the east side property line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of 6.2 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet for a fence located along the east property line of this lot, behind the front building setback. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards for the existing deck with extension and the proposed fence with increased height. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The applicant has made only a minor addition to the existing deck structure. The majority of the deck work represents the maintenance of the nonconforming structure. With respect to the proposed fence, the applicant is proposing to maintain a constant height as the property slopes downward slightly from front to back. The proposed fencing should provide screening of deck activities for the property immediately to the east. Staff believes the proposed fence and minor deck alterations will have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. The deck structure must remain uncovered and unenclosed. 2. A building permit must be obtained for all construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2007) 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, 0 nays and 0 absent. LAW OFFICES MITCHELL•WILLIAMS SELIG • GATES • WOODYARD • PLLC NICHOLAS THOMPSON Direct Dial: 501-688-8834 e-mail: nthompson@mwsgw.com Little Rock Board of Adjustment Planning and Development Department 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Sir: April 25, 2007 T-4 57 -2-,PZ-07 425 WEST CAPITOLAVENUE, SUITE 1800 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3525 TELEPHONE 501-688-8800 FAX 501-688-8807 I am requesting a zoning variance in order to extend the existing wooden deck on the east side and back (south) of my home. My deck presently has a six foot fence on top of the deck. I want to extend the deck and fence five feet south as shown on the enclosed survey. My lot is very narrow and slopes from the front of the property to the back. Water drains under my existing deck. The door from the den in my home opens onto the existing deck. This door is my only access to the east side and back of my property. The proposed deck extension allows for more level use of my property unencumbered by water drainage. I recently completed a major renovation on my home for which I had a building permit. I was informed by the building inspector that the deck extension was not included in my building permit. I immediately halted construction on extending the deck pending this approval. I am also requesting a variance to build a fence and entry gate on the east side of my property, as shown on the enclosed survey. From the beginning of the fence at the northeast comer, the land slopes eight inches to the beginning of the existing deck with the fence on top. I am proposing to build this new fence extension to my existing fence beginning at a height of six feet and then running level to meet the height of the existing fence on the deck. Therefore, the proposed new fence would start at six feet in height and meet the existing deck fence at a height of six foot eight inches due to the slope on my property. Such a level fence would contribute to the aesthetic value of the neighborhood and provide needed privacy between me and my neighbor to the east. The existing fence to the south of my existing and proposed deck and fence would remain six foot in height. CNT:jmm Sincerely, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. By Nic as TIGmpso LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 9 ROGERS, ARKANSAS • AUSTIN, TEXAS MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-8210 Owner: Deane Woodward Applicant: Ron Head Address: 2100 N. Van Buren Street Description: South 46 feet of Lots 13 and 14, Block 17, Newton's Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with reduced 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: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 2100 N. Van Buren Street is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the northwest corner of Van Buren Street and Stonewall Road. There is a one -car wide drive at the southwest corner of the property. There is also a concrete parking area along Stonewall Road within the right-of-way. A six (6) foot high wood fence encloses the rear yard area of the lot. The applicant proposes to construct a 37'-10" by 31'-0", one-story addition on the rear (west) of the residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed addition will maintain the same four (4) foot side (south) setback as the existing house. The proposed rear (west) setback will be 3'-2". The proposed addition will include bedroom, bath and laundry areas. The southwest corner of the addition will be a one -car wide carport. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of 4.6 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 from these ordinance requirements to allow the new building addition. Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. The existing single family lot is nonconforming and substandard according to current ordinance requirements, with a lot width of 46 feet and area of 4,600 square feet. Current ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet and minimum area of 7,000 square feet. Staff believes the lot is too small to support the amount of building mass as proposed. The proposed addition occupies a very large percentage of the total rear yard area, leaving very little rear yard space. Although the overall size of the proposed structure is not out of character with the neighborhood, staff believes the total proposed lot coverage is, and could have an adverse visual impact on the adjacent properties and the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested setback variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2007) Ron Head and Joe Woodward were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Ron Head addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that there were other lots in the area with similar massing. He also noted that the large tree in the rear yard would be preserved with the proposed construction. Chairman Francis asked about the total area of the proposed addition. Mr. Head explained that it would be 850 to 950 square feet, including the carport. Joe Woodward addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that the house was built in 1924 and explained that he had experience in restoring older residential structures. He noted that the proposed addition would be compatible with the neighborhood. He explained that the large trees on the site would be preserved. He described the proposed addition and the condition of the existing house. Chairman Francis discussed the overall massing of the proposed addition. He explained that a new single family residence could occupy a foot print of approximately 1,900 square feet of this lot, and comply with the minimum building setbacks. He also explained that the height of the building should remain the same. Mr. Woodward made additional comments. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) John Truemper also addressed the Board in support of the application. He discussed the history of the existing residence. Chairman Francis explained that the property could be redeveloped with a much larger house that conformed to ordinance setback requirements. Mr. Van Dover expressed concern with the preservation of the trees and maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood. Chairman Francis asked about placing a condition on the application with respect to building height. Staff explained that the condition would run with the proposed site plan and variance application. Staff noted that if the existing house were removed and a new house constructed, the condition would not apply. This issue was discussed. Mr. Van Dover asked how far along the plans for the project were. Mr. Woodward noted that he was ready to begin construction as soon as possible. He also noted the height of the addition would not exceed the height of the existing residence. There was a brief discussion pertaining to the condition which should be placed on the application. Chairman Francis noted support for the application. There was a motion to approve the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. The addition must be constructed to match the existing residence. 2. The addition will have a hip roof which will not exceed the height of the existing residence. 3. The existing tree(s) in the rear yard must be preserved. 4. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto adjacent property. 5. The carport portion of the addition must remain unenclosed. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was approved. Head Construction Company RHeadCo@cebridge.net 115 Dove Lane Jacksonville, AR 72076 501-982-0011 RE: Joe & Deane Woodward Variance 2100 N. Van Buren Little Rock, AR Description of Addition: 1. Enlarging kitchen/laundry area 2. Adding Master Bedroom and Bath with easy access to carport 3. Adding covered carport as the only parking area is on the street and easement 4. Adding Exterior storage area as there is none existing This letter is regarding a variance requested for the above referenced address and homeowners. The existing house has a very small kitchen area which also has to double as a laundry room with a small stack washer and dryer and no room for a full size refrigerator. It also has only about 6 ft of usable counter space. The new addition would allow for more cabinets, countertop space and a full size refrigerator and laundry area. Also the existing bathroom is small and not adequate for 2 people. I would also like to point out that the lot being 46 ft x 100 ft leaves little option to add on to the house without closing off the kitchen and dining room totally from exterior of house, without leaving patio space existing. The Woodward's are 77 and 75 years old and the new addition would give them a dry covered parking and entry area to their home with close access to the master bedroom and a large enough bathroom area to be easily accessible to accommodate their needs both now and probably even more so in the future. They each have existing medical conditions that will probably lead to even more need for this space in their home in the future. I would also like to point out that both properties adjoining the Woodward's residence have structures built directly on the property lines even to the point that the roof overhangs actually lap over each other and the addition to their property will eave in excess of 25 ft to any other structure. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you need further information please contact me. Ron Head — Agent for Mr. & Mrs. Woodward Mobile # 680-2798 MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-8211 Owner/Applicant: Eugene and Pam Smith Address: 102 EI Dorado Drive Description: Lot 216, Longlea Addition Phase VI 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 102 EI Dorado Drive is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from EI Dorado Drive which serves as access. The property slopes upward from front to back (south to north). The applicant propose to construct an eight (8) foot high wood fence along the rear (north) property line, as noted on the attached site plan. The fence will tie into existing six (6) foot high wood fencing along both side property lines (east and west). The applicants note that the higher fence is requested along the rear property line to provide some additional privacy, as the residences immediately north are at a higher elevation. Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet within the rear yard of this single family lot. Therefore, the MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.) applicants are requesting a variance to allow the eight (8) foot high fence along the rear property line of the lot. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The applicants note that the higher fence along the rear property line is desired to increase the privacy within the rear yard area. The residences immediately to the north, along Flourite Court, are at a significantly higher elevation than this lot at 102 EI Dorado Drive. Staff believes the requested fence height is reasonable and should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to a building permit being obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2007) 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, 0 nays and 0 absent. April 15, 2007 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72205 To Whom It May Concern: A few years ago, all the trees in the vacant lot behind our house were removed. The drastic alteration of this lot is unsightly and has taken away the privacy we once had. Due to the topography of the land behind our house a six foot fence would not provide adequate privacy. We are requesting a zoning variance allowing the placement of an eight foot fence across the back of -our -property. --- Sincerely, Eugene and Pam Smith MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-8212 Owner/Applicant: Georgann Ozment Address: 5200 Country Club Blvd. Description: Lot 12, Block 11, Newton'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 5200 Country Club Blvd. is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located at the northwest corner of Country Club Blvd. And Newton Street. There is a two -car wide driveway from Newton Street, accessing a one-story frame garage in the rear yard area. There is a two (2) foot high masonry wall with a four (4) foot high fence on top along the west side property line, within the rear yard area of the lot. A new single family residence was recently constructed on the lot immediately to the west. With the new house construction, the builder raised the level of the rear yard, back filling approximately two (2) feet up to the existing masonry wall. This results in the rear yard immediately west being approximately two (2) feet higher in grade than the applicant's rear yard. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) The applicant is proposing to place two (2) feet of lattice on top of the existing masonry wall/fence along the west property line. The lattice would run for approximately 40 feet, as noted on the attached site plan. The lattice would create a wall/fence structure with an overall height of eight (8) feet as viewed from the applicant's rear yard and six (6) feet as viewed from rear yard immediately west. The applicant notes that the higher fence section is requested to provide increased privacy within her rear yard area. Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet within the rear yard of this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the eight (8) foot high fence section to run approximately 40 feet along the west side property line. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The applicant is requesting the increased fence height due to the fact that the property owner next door to the west increased the elevation of their rear yard, decreasing the level of privacy within the applicant's rear yard. Staff believes the additional two (2) feet of lattice fencing is a reasonable solution to the privacy issue created by the adjacent property owner. Staff feels the increased fence height 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 a building permit being obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2007) 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, 0 absent and 1 recusal (Van Dover) Dear Board of Adjusters, 1:4- " - -4 k .:�I -F 2-) 1- I -)1- I reside at 5200 Country Club Blvd. On the west side of my back yard there is a two -foot high 60 -foot long retainer wall. On top of the retainer wall is a four -foot high wooden fence. Last year next door to me at 5206 Country Club Blvd. a 5200 SQ foot two story house with carport in the back was constructed. The builder filled in two feet of dirt between his carport and my existing retainer wall making a 40 foot long section of my fence four feet tall on the West side. I am asking for a variance to place a two -foot high lattice fence on top of the existing fence. The lattice would be 40 feet long on the section of the fence that is now 4 feet tall on the west side making it a total of six feet high. The height on my side the East side would be 8 feet. By doing this I will be given back my privacy. Thank you, 1 U� Georgann Ozment MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-8213 Owner/Applicant: Robert and Diane Blasingame Address: 5209 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lot 12, Block 1, McGehee Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an accessory building with a reduced side setback and increased coverage. 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 5209 Kavanaugh Blvd. Is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway at the northwest corner of the property. There is a paved alley along the rear (south) property line which is at a slightly higher grade than the rear yard area. There is an existing concrete slab at the southwest corner of the property, which is level with the elevation of the alley. The applicants recently began construction of an unenclosed carport structure (22-4" x 24'-0") over the existing concrete slab, but ceased when it was determined variances were required. The overhang of the proposed carport structure will be located within the existing concrete slab boundary, with setbacks of one (1) foot from the side (west) property line and two (2) feet from the rear (south) property line. The support posts will be located approximately 18 inches from the west side property line and 2.5 feet from the rear property MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T.) line. The proposed carport structure will occupy 41 percent of the required rear yard (rear 25 feet of the lot). The applicants note that the carport will be constructed to match the existing residence and will have guttering to prevent water run-off. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows accessory structures in R-2 zoning to occupy up to 30 percent of the required rear yard. Section 36-156(a)(2)f. requires a minimum side setback of three (3) feet. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow a reduced side setback and increased rear yard coverage for the proposed carport structure. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The applicants are proposing a carport structure to cover an existing concrete slab which has been used as a parking pad for some time. The structure will be similar in character to a number of accessory structures along this alley right-of-way and other alleys throughout this neighborhood. As long as the carport is constructed to match the principal structure and has guttering to prevent water run-off onto adjacent property, staff believes the carport will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. The carport must remain unenclosed on all sides. 2. The carport must be constructed to match the principal structure. 3. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the west. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2007) 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, 0 nays and 0 absent. 5209 Kavanaugh Blvd Little Rock Ar. 72207 501-603-0028 April 23, 2007 Board of Adjustment Dept of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Ar. Dear Dept, of Planning & Development, My husband and I would like to request a zoning variance to build an open covering over our existing concrete parking pad, We have experienced costly damage to our vehicles in the past from various forces of nature and would like to have a safe place to park our vehicles, We were concerned about he aesthetics of placing a metal covering over this space and have chose to build a more expensive stable structure that will blend with the existing house and neighborhood. We pian to match the color of the shingles on the new structure with those that are on our house and will paint the post supporting the roof of the new structure to match the house color. We were also concerned about the proximity of our neighbor's property and would build the structure so that there is no overhang onto their property and the water run off would be caught with guttering and directed toward the alley. We appreciate your consideration of our request. Sincerely, Mike and Diane Blasingame MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: File No.: Z-8215 Owner/Applicant: Anita Aebersold Address: 4011 North Lookout Description: Lots 3 and 4 and the east'/2 of Lot 5, Block 16, Hillcrest Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with reduced 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: Based on the existing conditions, stormwater from Read Street will potentially drain into the attached garage. Stormwater diversion methods should be utilized to protect the property and not damage neighboring properties. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 4011 North Lookout is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. The north property line of the lot fronts on North Lookout, with the southeast corner of the property fronting on Read Street for approximately 38 feet. There is an alley which runs along the remaining rear (south) property line. There is a one -car wide driveway from Read Street which serves as access. The property slopes downward from back to front (south to north). The existing residence is located significantly above the grade of North Lookout. The applicant is proposing to construct a 24 foot by 30 foot garage addition (one story), as noted on the attached site plan. The garage will be located on the east side of the house and connected to the northeast corner of the MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 10 (CON'T.) structure. The garage addition will be located 5.6 feet from the east side property line and 13 to 26 feet from the rear (south) property line. A new driveway from Read Street will serve the proposed garage addition. 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 31-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements to allow the proposed garage addition. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Although the overall lot is very large in size, the applicant is limited with the placement of a building addition because of the lot's topography. The applicant is proposing placement of the garage addition in the most appropriate location on the lot. Staff views the requested reduced setbacks as very minor in nature. The garage addition will range from 13 feet to 26 feet back from the rear (south) property line. The existing house has a rear setback of only four (4) feet. Additionally, ample separation will exist between the proposed garage addition and the residence immediately to the east. The adjacent residence is located over 20 feet back from the side property line. Staff believes the proposed garage addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. The addition must be constructed to match the existing residence. 2. Compliance with the Public Works comment as noted in paragraph A. of the staff report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the June 25, 2007 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. April 27, 2007 Monte Moore Planning Commission Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Mr. Moore, `y,_ /L 1 am writing to you to request a variance of on a setback from one of the property lines on my personal residence located at 4011 North Lookout. The variance would be for an attached garage addition to the east side of my residence. There is currently 37.6' to the existing east property line and my proposed addition would be 3z% which falls in the 10% setback o Fthat property line. My lot is 125' wide and the setback for that line would be 12.5'. 'My proposed addition would be5.6' from the east property line. Cooperation and approval of the planning commission would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely. Dr. Anita Aebersold MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 11 File No.: Z-8217 Owner: Blake and Debra Miller/BBM Holdings, LLC Applicant: White Daters & Associates Address: 2908/2910 N. Pierce Street Description: Lots 11 and 12, Block 11, Park View Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 254 to allow a deck with a reduced side 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: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 2908/2910 N. Pierce Street is occupied by two (2) new two-story single family residences which are under construction. The property is located at the southwest corner of N. Pierce Street and Grandview. There will be an access drive from Grandview which will serve both lots. The property consists of two (2) lots, Lots 11 and 12, Block 11, Park View Addition, with Lot 12 being the northernmost lot on the corner. The two (2) lots have common ownership. The property owner proposes to construct an 8 foot by 21 foot deck on the south side of the house located on Lot 12, as noted on the attached site plan. The deck will be located between the two (2) houses, and cross the dividing side property line and encroach onto Lot 11 by 3.5 feet. The applicant is also proposing to dedicate a seven (7) foot wide perpetual and exclusive easement MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 11 (CON'T.) to benefit Lot 12 and allow for the deck encroachment, as well as well as future landscaping, fencing, patios, play equipment, irrigation systems and other similar improvements. The proposed deck will be approximately three (3) feet above grade. Section 36-255(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of 4.5 feet for Lot 12. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement to allow the deck with a zero (0) side setback and to cross the side property line onto Lot 11. Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. While the Board can approve the deck with a zero (0) side setback, staff does not believe the Board can authorize the encroachment onto the adjacent lot. The separation between the proposed deck and the house on Lot 11 would be only five (5) feet. Staff could support the deck with a zero (0) side setback and no encroachment across the side property line, subject to a maintenance easement being provided. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested side setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2007) Hal Kemp and Joe White were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff made the following statement and revised recommendation on the application: Although the Board of Adjustment does not grant variances for building encroachments across property lines, in this case both lots have the same owner who is requesting variances to allow a zero (0) setback from the side property line for each lot. Staff recommended approval of the request for variances to allow a deck structure with zero (0) side setbacks from the south side property line of Lot 12 and the north side property line of Lot 11, Block 11, Park View Addition, subject to the perpetual and exclusive easement being recorded as proposed by the applicant. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. ® WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 24 Rahling Circle 10 Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 imPhone: 501-821-1667 1� Fax: 501-821-1668 i?- kZI�7 April 27, 2007 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little hock Neighborhoods and Planning 723 West Markham Little stock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Lots 11 & 12, Block 11 - Park View Addition Residential Zoning Variance Mr. Moore, Attached are six copies of a survey, easement, application, affidavit and filing fee for the above referenced project. The owner of Lot 12 wishes to construct deck on the house. The deck will be approximately eight feet wide, twenty-one feet long and three feet above the natural ground. The owner of Lot i l has agreed to grant a perpetual and exclusive easement for the construction of the deck. The owner is requesting a zoning variance for the construction of the deck. Please place this item on the next available agenda. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or require additional information. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. ;9; s, Brian Dale CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 12 File No.: Z-8218 Owner: Robert Shults Applicant: Gary Dean Address: 5108 Edgewood Road Description: Lot 38R, Prospect Terrace 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 a building addition with reduced setbacks 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 at 5108 Edgewood Road is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence. The property has street frontage along Edgewood Road (front), Crestwood Drive (east side) and "O" Street (rear). There is a two -car wide driveway from "O" Street which serves as access. There is a large one-story frame garage and carport structure at the northwest corner of the property. The accessory garage/carport structure is located approximately one (1) foot from the rear (north) and west side property lines, and separated from the principal structure by approximately one (1) foot. There is a 25 foot front/side platted building line running along the south/east property line, and a 20 foot rear platted building line along the "O" Street (north) property line. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 12 (CON'T. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story addition on the rear (northwest corner) of the house, as noted on the attached site plan. A new two -car driveway is proposed to access a garage area on the first floor of the proposed addition. The existing garage and carport accessory structure will be removed with the proposed addition. The proposed addition will be located 14.5 feet from the rear (north) property line, crossing the rear platted building line by 5.5 feet. The addition will also be located 2.44 to 7.1 feet from the west side property line. The main wall of the addition will maintain the 7.1 foot side setback as the existing house. Two (2) minor "bump -outs" are proposed on the side of the addition. The one closest to the west side property line will accommodate an interior staircase area. 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. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires 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 building addition with reduced side and rear setbacks, and to cross the rear platted building line. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The proposed project eliminates substantial building area (existing garage and carport) which is located between the rear platted building line and rear property line, as well as within the required side yard setback. The proposed building addition represents a much smaller area of encroachment than the existing accessory building. This lot is a very large lot within this neighborhood, and with the proposed addition the overall building massing will not be out of character with other properties. Staff feels the applicant has a desirable solution to adding area to the existing house. Staff believes the proposed addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties and 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 rear building line for the building 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 setback and building line variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the rear platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. The addition must be constructed to match the existing house. 3. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the west. MAY 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 12 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2007) 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, 0 nays and 0 absent. C C C C u c u F C 10u ICe u C a LL C C Ix May 21, 2007 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. Chairman